Obama's War: Yes He Can

[William Haskins]

seems to be lost in the media, but for those who are still catching up to their tivo'd inaugural balls and shots of oprah swooning:

obama has ordered missile strikes in pakistan. these have allegedly taken out some bad guys, but children were apparently killed as well.

raids in afghanistan have also resulted in the deaths of women and children and demonstrations against the US are happening in both nations.

obama's preparing to double US combat troops in afghanistan and biden this morning warned to expect more dead soldiers.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Obama_ordered_air_attacks_in_Pak/articleshow/4031523.cms

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/25/obama-airstrikes-pakistan

[billythrilly7th]

I was just laying on my couch thinking...

"I wonder where all the Anti-War Protesters are. The LEAVE IRAQ IMEDIATLY CROWD. I wonder when the next Anti-Iraq War march will be taking place in Union Square and Hollywood and at Berkeley. "

Was gonna start my own thread!!

But this one is perfect to prove my long known factual theory.

That liberals only really get angry about war when a Republican is engaged in it.

The Balkans. Bombing. Clinton. No U.N. resolutions in support.

Democrats: http://www.mynewplace.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/tumbleweed.jpg

Iraq II. Bush. 17 U.N. resolutions ignored. The very ceasefire agreement that let Saddam stay in power ignored and broken multiple times. Intelligence reports from France to Russia to America to every President and major political figure saying he had them.

Democrats: AHHH!!!!!
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/afp_us_iraq_protest_washington_195_eng_15sep07.jpg


Obama can end everything right now. No more dead soldiers. He the commander and chief.

I look forward to the consistency of the anti-war movement and lunatics like Michael Moore over the next few months.

:rolleyes:

[DamaNegra]

What? You mean Bush left power and the world didn't immediately become a place of peace, prosperity and freedom? *faints with shock*

[kuwisdelu]

I was just laying on my couch thinking...

"I wonder where all the Anti-War Protesters are. The LEAVE IRAQ IMEDIATLY CROWD. I wonder when the next Anti-Iraq War march will be taking place in Union Square and Hollywood and at Berkeley. "

We're not talking about Iraq.

How many liberals were protesting Afghanistan in the first place?

[billythrilly7th]

We're not talking about Iraq.

I AM talking about Iraq.

Where's the "Let's Leave Now" Crowd?

Democrat in....Anti-War crowd...
:gone:

[maxmordon]

What? You mean Bush left power and the world didn't immediately become a place of peace, prosperity and freedom? *faints with shock*

Hehehe. Well said, pal.

[William Haskins]

i support president obama in crushing AQ and acknowledge with regret that sometimes innocent lives will be lost.

but it has been an interesting study in political psychology to read the discussion sites where such headlines would normally spur hundreds of posts accusing bush of war crimes, violating geneva and illegally bombing a sovereign country, but seem quite muted now.

[William Haskins]

How many liberals were protesting Afghanistan in the first place?

there have been quite many, actually.

[billythrilly7th]

How many liberals were protesting Afghanistan in the first place?

Plenty.

I was in Union Square Manhattan on 9/14/01 and had to debate a bunch of morons who didn't want to do anything. Not even to the Taliban or AL Queda in Afganistan. I'm sure the video will pop up during my Presidential run. A young Thrilly standing up and destroying a bunch of wackadoo, three days after 9/11, let's do nothing loons. It should cement my victory.

And idiots like Phil Donahue...

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=986

Donahue has long been an opponent of Republican policies, particularly with regard to matters of national security and defense. In 2001, when President Bush prepared to send the U.S. military to Afghanistan in retribution for the Taliban's harboring of the al Qaeda (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6211) terrorists who had carried out the 9/11 attacks, Donahue firmly stated his anti-war position: "Chapter one of the 21st century is the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That's chapter one of the world of the 21st century. If we kill more people, if we kill innocents, which we will if we bomb Afghanistan, that's going to be the second chapter. And we will have more - more young people growing up to imitate the behavior of those who hit [the World Trade Center and Pentagon] - we're going to breed more, and we're going to be [like] Belfast where you couldn't go to a restaurant without going through a metal detector, you can't park a car unless there's somebody in the car.

So....let's just take the hit and pray our goodwill prevents it from happening again.

What a plan!

What a guy!

[kuwisdelu]

There will always be some pacifist nuts. Hell, there were people protesting WWII.

My point was it was a much smaller issue. Most have viewed Afghanistan as justified.

[William Haskins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_invasion_of_Afghanistan

[maxmordon]

In the same way Fox News, Ann Coulter and all that crazy bunch that sworn they saw the emperor's new clothes I don't doubt CNN, Al Franken and all of them are biased as well. Right now Obama seems like the great hope and I don't doubt he'll make a better work than George W. Bush (Heck, a lot of people would have made it better) but I don't put him on a pedestal neither.

I take example to the Vatican in this case. In all their wise, the College of Cardinals could in theory elect the humblest, well-behaved, smartest and joust priest from any place in the world from the poorest church in Latin America or Africa to the dean of the Georgetown University... yet, they always end up cardinals to be popes....

Lessons: You don't sit in the throne without steping on the corpses of your enemies...

[rugcat]

but it has been an interesting study in political psychology to read the discussion sites where such headlines would normally spur hundreds of posts accusing bush of war crimes, violating geneva and illegally bombing a sovereign country, but seem quite muted now.Surely this doesn't surprise you. People always excuse the actions of those they support and inflate the excesses of those they do not.

The most obvious example is the recent gaza war. Palestinian supporters give lip service to condemning suicide bombings and rocket attacks, while accusing Israel of brutality and genocide. Supporters of Israel casually regret the Palestinian civilian loss of life, but cast Hamas' actions as inhuman and unconscionable.

And as far as Iraq goes, that was Bush's war. The far left may have been opposed to Afghanistan, but the majority of left of center individuals fully supported that war, while absolutely opposing the war in iraq.

I haven't seen a lot of criticism of the military in either war. The out of control, unaccountable contractors, yes, and deservedly so. Abu Ghraib, yes.
The soldiers, no.

I think you're correct that Bush was jumped on for every possible reason, but that's simple human nature. He certainly provided us with an embarrassment of riches.

[Jerry B. Flory]

Bush made a mess and Obama's stuck cleaning it up.
It's not like he can just ignore it all.
It's possible doubling up troops is his answer for getting it done and over with.
When we have troops spread all over the world it's going to be impossible for a president to disconnect from the military aspect of politics.
With luck, he's on a clean up mission.

[William Haskins]

The far left may have been opposed to Afghanistan, but the majority of left of center individuals fully supported that war, while absolutely opposing the war in iraq.

i don't know how you quantify far left and left of center, but as recently as this past summer, nearly half the country wanted out of afghanistan.

[Jerry B. Flory]

Willie, I agree with you, really. I'd like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but I grew up with that axiom No matter who you vote for the politicians win. We're still in the wait and see stage. We can bet on best intentions and hedge our bets against with a different bookie and play the odds here.
I don't trust any of them to do the right thing in a crunch cause it all comes down to lining their pockets first.

[rugcat]

i don't know how you quantify far left and left of center, but as recently as this past summer, nearly half the country wanted out of afghanistan.I think there's a real difference, though. It's beginning to look like Afghanistan is unwinnable, unless we change our strategy and definition of what winning consists of. And people are weary of war, and cynical about a positive outcome. But few doubt that we had the justification to go in there in the first place, and in fact had no choice.

As opposed to Iraq, which was absolutely a choice, and a bad one.

There still is a significant European troop presence in Afghanistan, is there not? And you don't see massive demonstrations demanding US out of Afghanistan.

[blacbird]

Obama's been in office less than a week. He inherited two wars and an economy swirling down the toilet. Most people (William may be an exception) are in the watch-and-see mode. We put up with Bush for two full years without even much whimpering; it was only when he made it clear we were going to invade Iraq hell-or-high-water did the rumblings of dissent begin to rise.

caw

[William Haskins]

how am i the exception, bb? you're being cantankerous.

i've stated plainly in this thread and others, that there are already decisions he's made that i support.

[billythrilly7th]

Unlike democrats, I don't waver in the wind when it comes to military action and bombing people.

I love it no matter who the President is.

Loved it when Reagan bombed Libya.

Loved Iraq I.

Loved when Clinton bombed in (to this day who the hell knows? The balkans, yugoslavia? crotia, bosnia? whatever) that place.

Loved Afghan.

Iraq II.

Anywhere my President decides to bomb, I'm down. At least to this point.


Bush the most hated man in the planet because he got rid of these three.

http://upload.moldova.org/politicom/faces/Saddam_sons.jpg

Still the most ridiculous reason in history for a world leader to be so despised.

I've said it before. It's an old bit.

But if Aliens came down...

Alien: Why is he so hated? Did he invade a peaceful country? Canada? Did he invade Finland?
Earthling: No. Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Alien: Good guy? Good solid peaceful country? Bush just decided to invade for no reason?
Earthling: I wouldn't say good. He killed hundreds of thousand with chemical weapons. Invaded his neighbor, raped, pillaged and murdered. Didn't abide by the ceasefire agreements. Gave the middle finger to 17 U.N resolutions regarding having those very weapons he used in the past.
Had two psychopath sons who murdered and tortured people and showed no signs of changing and after 9/11 Bush didn't want to take any chances with this guy.
Alien: I'm not getting it. He's hated why?
Earthling: Really. Just because he's a Republican.
Alien: Oh...

End Scene.

Bomb away, Obama. Increase troops away.

[brokenfingers]

i support president obama in crushing AQ and acknowledge with regret that sometimes innocent lives will be lost.

but it has been an interesting study in political psychology to read the discussion sites where such headlines would normally spur hundreds of posts accusing bush of war crimes, violating geneva and illegally bombing a sovereign country, but seem quite muted now.And thus you see the effect of good leadership which inspires confidence, combined with the so-called honeymoon effect.

Bush would've had the same reaction when he came into office and after 9/11.

It was only after people saw his disastrous decisions, and the general incompetence, greed and cronyism of his administration that they lost faith in him.

So yeah, the reactions would be different.

Let's see the reactions after three years. I guarantee they won't be the same. People will have had time to make judgment calls on what type of leader he is and will then decide if their faith and loyalty are justified.

[William Haskins]

sorry, there's not any "honeymoon period" for dead kids in a sovereign nation with whom we are not at war.

if airstrikes in pakistan that kill kids were a war crime under bush, they are war crimes under obama.

i am not condemning obama in the slightest. this shit happens in war.

i am, however, simply remarking on the inconsistency of the outrage when bush bombed afghanistan and/or pakistan, when "children" and "weddings" and "war crimes" were the cries.

[brokenfingers]

i am, however, i am simply remarking on the inconsistency of the outrage when bush bombed afghanistan and/or pakistan, when "children" and "weddings" and "war crimes" were the cries.Again, I believe we're all aware of the phenomenon where those who are "popular" or better liked can get way with things that those who are less well-liked cannot.

It's just human nature, not some huge leftist conspiracy or aberrance or hypocrisy.

The simple matter of the fact is that more people didn't like Bush and so they judged him more harshly. In a couple of years, the same fate may befall Obama.

[MattW]

11/5/08: Karzai asks Obama to end civilian deaths (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/05/AR2008110504052_pf.html)

8/13/08: "We've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." - Barack Obama


Like I heard someone say, Obama's campaign promises about Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror would last until about the morning of his first day when he got his first full intelligence briefing.

[astonwest]

if airstrikes in pakistan that kill kids were a war crime under bush, they are war crimes under obama.

i am not condemning obama in the slightest. this shit happens in war.
When did we go to war with Pakistan? Just curious...

[MattW]

When did we go to war with Pakistan? Just curious...If we weren't yesterday, we're at least a big step closer today.

[billythrilly7th]

The Obama administration warned the US public yesterday to brace itself for an increase in American casualties as it prepares to step up the fight against al-Qaida (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/alqaida) and the Taliban in Afghanistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan) and the border regions of Pakistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pakistan).Against a background of widespread protests in Pakistan and Afghanistan over US operations since Obama became president, the vice-president, Joe Biden, said yesterday that US forces would be engaged in many more operations as it takes the fight to its enemies in the region.
The Obama administration is to double the number of US troops in Afghanistan to 60,000 and when asked in a television interview if the US public should expect more American casualties, Biden said: "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick."


Whoa!! What the F!!?

No blood for oil!!!

No blood for oil!!

Bring the troops home!!!

http://www.basetree.com/thumbs5/No_More_Blood_for_Oil.jpg


Where are my beloved protesters?

[James81]

I AM talking about Iraq.

Where's the "Let's Leave Now" Crowd?

Democrat in....Anti-War crowd...
:gone:

I can't speak for everybody, but there is a crew of us out there who didn't have a problem with the war in Afghanistan. The reason most of us were outraged by the war in Iraq was because we went after Bin Laden for like 3 weeks, threw up our hands, and went after Iraq. And then, while in Iraq, we somehow decided that we must "stay the course" in a place we really never should have went in the first place while the man who actually attacked us on 9/11 was still out there.

It wasn't the fact that we were in Iraq that was so outrageous. It was the fact that Iraq became our number one focus while Bin Laden and Afghanistan (the people who are harboring the terrorists who actually had something to do with 9/11) were just side products and a lost focus.

[AncientEagle]

I can't speak for anybody else. (Quaint idea, I know.) As for me, I started out neutral about GWB, then came to dislike the direction he was taking us when we veered away from the Afghanistan mission to go adventuring, as I see it, in Iraq. Over time, I came to dislike him so much that, I admit it, things came to the point that I couldn't bear to listen to him speak, and I found fault with almost any decision he made. (Except for fighting AIDS in Africa and setting aside great ocean preserves, both of which I consider admirable decisions.)

But never once did I complain about the fact that we were fighting in Afghanistan, nor about any of Bush's actions in Pakistan. I didn't hear a lot of other people complain about them, either, but from what I read in this thread, I must not have been listening.

[rugcat]

Well, that pretty much exactly sums up my own feelings and position, for what that's worth.

[donroc]

Obama may be to the left what Nixon was to the right as prexy. Anti-communist right winger opens China, approves Affirmative Action. Supposed anti-war lefty bombs away as any good wartime leader should. Fascinating times ahead.

[mscelina]

I'm still waiting to see a heart bleed here.

Nope. Nothing to see here. Moving on. Let me know when it's okay to criticize Obama's actions--especially when it's not a 'change' from things that Bush has done. Until then, I'm on mandatory 'wait and see' mode so I can 'give him a chance' during his 'honeymoon period.'

And, to be quite factual and less sarcastic, Obama's stance on Pakistan has always been kind of hard core. This missile strike is not surprising. What did surprise me was the speed with which it took place.

[billythrilly7th]

And, to be quite factual and less sarcastic, Obama's stance on Pakistan has always been kind of hard core. This missile strike is not surprising. What did surprise me was the speed with which it took place.

I'm not sure that Obama is even in control and knows about no missile strike.

It's like McDonalds. There's regional supervisor who's in charge, but on any random day the manager(a general or whatever) is calling the shots.

Or maybe it's absolutely nothing like that at all.

Whatever.

No blood for oil!!

Bring the troops home now!!

[mscelina]

*pssssssssst--maybe Hillary answered the phone at 3 am instead of Obama. That could explain it*

[Williebee]

Billy, what has you convinced that Afghanistan is a "Blood for Oil" war?

[mscelina]

His smartassedness.

[Jerry B. Flory]

Some point Billy and some aliens were trying to make was about Hussein being killed was why we went to Iraq but they failed to answer the question about why we're there so long afterward and guarding a pipeline.
I'm still unclear as to what those aliens were trying to say.
They like dead guys or something.

[Williebee]

Now, hang on a second. Please don't read into my question.

"what has you convinced that Afghanistan is a "Blood for Oil" war?"

It's not some kind of trick question, with a dig waiting inside it, or something. I'm just looking for the source of the opinion.

[mscelina]

Willie, I think he's being a smartass. Now that Bush isn't President, he's making it into a Blood for Oil war whereas when Bush was President he called people who thought that way...erm...not nice names.

[billythrilly7th]

Willie, I think he's being a smartass. Now that Bush isn't President, he's making it into a Blood for Oil war whereas when Bush was President he called people who thought that way...erm...not nice names.

Well, I did not call anyone names, but exactly!!

:)

Just hoping for the blood for oil and bring the troops home now people to still be "into it."

But of course they won't be.

Michael Moore is planning no trip to d.C. these days to ambush congressman.

The democrats are in charge across the board.

All military actions are now acceptable.

We could invade Sweden right now and..........tumbleweed.

I love it.

So much easier to get stuff done.

[Zoombie]

War sucks.

Also, Iraq...hmm...

The beginning was awesome. The plan of "take Saddam down" was good.

Its all the occupation stuff afterward...our whole exit strategy...it didn't work. I don't think it will work without a MAJOR overhaul.

The Army is amazingly good at killing dudes with stuff (hint: use stuff to kill dudes) but they're not good at setting up an infrastructure, a government. Building schools, setting up some stability. We need some kind of other organization, a kind of...Stabilization And Building Stuff Army of Peace.

The same thing I just said can be applied to Afghanistan, just switch Saddam with Taliban and everything else stands.

I don't hate Bush for going in. I hate him for going in...AND FAILING.


http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/bushphone.jpg

[kuwisdelu]

We could invade Sweden right now and..........tumbleweed.

Well I'd be out there protesting as loud as I could.

I like Sweden.

Do you have a problem with Swedes?

[benbradley]

What? You mean Bush left power and the world didn't immediately become a place of peace, prosperity and freedom? *faints with shock*
I can still see Obama in that JibJab "Time For Some Campaignin'" video riding a unicorn over a rainbow. Neither Clinton nor JFK did that. Talk about "can do no wrong" - one can't even speak of the concept of wong in the same sentence as our new President.

He's the Second Coming of Christ! Er, I mean Mohammed! Er, uh ...

[billythrilly7th]

Well I'd be out there protesting as loud as I could.

I like Sweden.

Do you have a problem with Swedes?

What is wrong with you?

[billythrilly7th]

The Army is amazingly good at killing dudes with stuff (hint: use stuff to kill dudes) but they're not good at setting up an infrastructure, a government. Building schools, setting up some stability.

And yet it's going very well right now, so....I guess your post is incorrect.

:Shrug:

[kuwisdelu]

What is wrong with you?

A healthy sense of humor :)

[Zoombie]

And yet it's going very well right now, so....I guess your post is incorrect.


My research says otherwise.

But I'm fallible and shit and the info is hard to get in a warzone that is as jumbled and confusing as Afghanistan.

[Jerry B. Flory]

So when do we change the name Iraq to Little Ameriqa?

[Joe270]

Originally Posted by astonwest
When did we go to war with Pakistan? Just curious...

If we weren't yesterday, we're at least a big step closer today.

It seems the US missile strikes in Pakistan are sanctioned by the Pakistani government, and they seem to be providing the intel.

Then they bitch about the US 'murderers invading their airspace', they save face and we get to kill the bad guys.

Works for me.

[blacbird]

how am i the exception, bb? you're being cantankerous.

It's my duty.

caw

[Lyra Jean]

So when do we change the name Iraq to Little Ameriqa?

Stick with colonialism it would be New America. Or is colonialism not in fashion anymore?

[mscelina]

You'd have to ask the French about that. ;)

[nighttimer]

i support president obama in crushing AQ and acknowledge with regret that sometimes innocent lives will be lost.

but it has been an interesting study in political psychology to read the discussion sites where such headlines would normally spur hundreds of posts accusing bush of war crimes, violating geneva and illegally bombing a sovereign country, but seem quite muted now.

Screw "political psychology." Under George W. Bush, America has been mired in Afghanistan for seven years, Iraq for five and Osama bin Laden is still free and breathing air while 3,000 Americans are not.

But that is okay because Bush was a Republican, not terribly bright and largely a bumbling incompetent who started wars he couldn't finish and never brought bin Laden to justice, "dead or alive."

Barack Obama hasn't been on the job for a week yet and already rallies should be held calling for his head?

Obama will always be considered a failure by those who don't want him to succeed in the first place. :e2sling:

[Sheryl Nantus]

Screw "political psychology." Under George W. Bush, America has been mired in Afghanistan for seven years, Iraq for five and Osama bin Laden is still free and breathing air while 3,000 Americans are not.

But that is okay because Bush was a Republican, not terribly bright and largely a bumbling incompetent who started wars he couldn't finish and never brought bin Laden to justice, "dead or alive."

Barack Obama hasn't been on the job for a week yet and already rallies should be held calling for his head?

Obama will always be considered a failure by those who don't want him to succeed in the first place. :e2sling:

considering someone can hide out in the US for years and not be found I don't find it impossible to believe that bin Laden can stay hidden in an area of foreign terrain...

I'll be glad to see Obama move some troops to Afghanistan. The Canadian and other NATO forces there have been taking hits for years and can use the additional support.

[dmytryp]

Screw "political psychology." Under George W. Bush, America has been mired in Afghanistan for seven years, Iraq for five and Osama bin Laden is still free and breathing air while 3,000 Americans are not.

But that is okay because Bush was a Republican, not terribly bright and largely a bumbling incompetent who started wars he couldn't finish and never brought bin Laden to justice, "dead or alive."

Barack Obama hasn't been on the job for a week yet and already rallies should be held calling for his head?

Obama will always be considered a failure by those who don't want him to succeed in the first place. :e2sling:
Nice way to completely miss the point and to rant some more about the "Obama haters". Good job:Thumbs:

[Don]

Unlike democrats, I don't waver in the wind when it comes to military action and bombing people.

I love it no matter who the President is.

Bomb away, Obama. Increase troops away.
I'd propose your house be next. Still sound like a great idea?

For every 'terrorist' we manage to kill, dozens or hundreds of innocent civilians, just going about their daily business, die as well. Meanwhile, we have cheerleaders on the sidelines ranting on about dropping more bombs. Recruiting for AQ gets easier every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A mere handful of people who hated the meddling policies of a few dozen politicians murdered thousands of our civilians, who were just going about their daily business... so the answer is to invade even more countries, enrage even more people?

Running around the field hitting hornet nests with baseball bats is a great way to keep getting stung.

[dmytryp]

I'd propose your house be next. Still sound like a great idea?

For every 'terrorist' we manage to kill, dozens or hundreds of innocent civilians, just going about their daily business, die as well. Meanwhile, we have cheerleaders on the sidelines ranting on about dropping more bombs. Recruiting for AQ gets easier every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A mere handful of people who hated the meddling policies of a few dozen politicians murdered thousands of our civilians, who were just going about their daily business... so the answer is to invade even more countries, enrage even more people?

Running around the field hitting hornet nests with baseball bats is a great way to keep getting stung.
No, the response is obviously to hug the terrorists untill they love us.

EDIT: War is not the purpose, neither it is a noble quest, but an ugly reality. It is, however, sometimes necessary.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I'd propose your house be next. Still sound like a great idea?

For every 'terrorist' we manage to kill, dozens or hundreds of innocent civilians, just going about their daily business, die as well. Meanwhile, we have cheerleaders on the sidelines ranting on about dropping more bombs. Recruiting for AQ gets easier every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A mere handful of people who hated the meddling policies of a few dozen politicians murdered thousands of our civilians, who were just going about their daily business... so the answer is to invade even more countries, enrage even more people?

Running around the field hitting hornet nests with baseball bats is a great way to keep getting stung.

I believe the military action in Afghanistan was approved by NATO and NATO forces are there every day, dying in an attempt to help that country move out of the Middle Ages.

don't forget that there were plenty of people from OTHER countries that died on 9/11 - and that the mantra bin Laden and AQ uses isn't just against the US but generally Western culture as a whole. Which covers more countries than just the US.

[William Haskins]

Barack Obama hasn't been on the job for a week yet and already rallies should be held calling for his head?

nope. i never said that and i'm not sure anyone else has.

[William Haskins]

Willie, I think he's being a smartass. Now that Bush isn't President, he's making it into a Blood for Oil war whereas when Bush was President he called people who thought that way...erm...not nice names.

while i won't argue that billy's not a smartass, there has been, over the past 7 years, a highly visible and vocal movement alleging that afghanistan is, indeed, "blood for oil".

i've already provided a link to a timeline of major protests against that particular war and you can google afghanistan blood for oil unocal (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=afghanistan+blood+for+oil+unocal&start=110&sa=N) if you need a reminder.

[mscelina]

Oh, I don't need a reminder. I remember--quite well the 'blood for oil' tirades over the last few years. It allowed me to recognize Billy's sarcasm for what it was. If it was blood for oil two weeks ago, then certainly it must still be blood for oil now, right?

[James81]

The whole "blood for oil" thing actually cracks me up.

Mainly because if we were fighting for oil, then you'd THINK that after we won the war in Iraq gas prices would have gotten better and NOT spiralled out of control into record prices.

[MattW]

The whole "blood for oil" thing actually cracks me up.

Mainly because if we were fighting for oil, then you'd THINK that after we won the war in Iraq gas prices would have gotten better and NOT spiralled out of control into record prices.Controlling the oil doesn't mean you actually have to sell it. Sit on it and watch the prices climb...

But claiming the Iraq war was for oil is as convenient, and as flimsy, of an excuse as claiming it was for WMDs.

[Jerry B. Flory]

I believe the military action in Afghanistan was approved by NATO and NATO forces are there every day, dying in an attempt to help that country move out of the Middle Ages.



Why? I get suspicious when I keep hearing these "help someone out the middle age or the dark ages" comments.
Why is it mandatory that technology be thrust upon every living being? It's possible some people find it offensive and a move out of their present age concerns more than technology but values and principles they don't care to leave behind.
And why might they feel that way?
Because the friggin' shining light of technology in the west has, to their eyes, cast aside all their values in favor of sloth and greed.
Not everyone wants to live like us, yet we seem determined to force them to.
We've dumbed down Jeopardy to Who's Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? Australia has these awesome shows that allow Americans to belittle themselves by answering simple questions like "how many sides does a square have?" incorrectly.

I'm pretty sure quite a few people find the middle ages preferable when all they have for a measuring stick is us.
They see us as pigs and fear their God would not love them if they allowed themselves or encouraged their youth to be like us.

Another measuring stick is that, yes, a lot of them do come here to go to school because they don't have those resources. One area we really seem to have it going on is education and information access, libraries, yet some dumbass American still manages to answer "six" to that square question. But, they come here, they get their education and go right back home to use their education to help their families and communities.
Not everyone is enamored with our shining society and quarter pound food pellets on demand.

[Sheryl Nantus]

Why? I get suspicious when I keep hearing these "help someone out the middle age or the dark ages" comments.
Why is it mandatory that technology be thrust upon every living being? It's possible some people find it offensive and a move out of their present age concerns more than technology but values and principles they don't care to leave behind.
And why might they feel that way?
Because the friggin' shining light of technology in the west has, to their eyes, cast aside all their values in favor of sloth and greed.
Not everyone wants to live like us, yet we seem determined to force them to.
We've dumbed down Jeopardy to Who's Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? Australia has these awesome shows that allow Americans to belittle themselves by answering simple questions like "how many sides does a square have?" incorrectly.

I'm pretty sure quite a few people find the middle ages preferable when all they have for a measuring stick is us.
They see us as pigs and fear their God would not love them if they allowed themselves or encouraged their youth to be like us.

Another measuring stick is that, yes, a lot of them do come here to go to school because they don't have those resources. One area we really seem to have it going on is education and information access, libraries, yet some dumbass American still manages to answer "six" to that square question. But, they come here, they get their education and go right back home to use their education to help their families and communities.
Not everyone is enamored with our shining society and quarter pound food pellets on demand.

yeah, letting women get educated is sure a horrible thing.

:Shrug:

[James81]

yeah, letting women get educated is sure a horrible thing.

:Shrug:

I'm failing to see that mentioned anywhere in his post. ??

[Jerry B. Flory]

I said something about women?
That's up to them.
You have to look at what it took, what women had to do to get their voices heard in America. And you have to allow those women the pride, the dignity and grow their own Florence Nightingales and Susan B. Anthonys.
Us trying to do everything for them is what starts shit. Their voices can't be heard over yours.
Painful as it may be you have to let people evolve.
Is it pathetic? Yes. But it was pathetic here once, too and now it's pathetic in other ways.
We're not all bad.
They're not all bad.

[William Haskins]

Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:

1- Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.

2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.)

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice).

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.)

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

15- Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

18- Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are "sexually attracting colors."

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.

21- Modification of all place names including the word "women." For example, "women's garden" has been renamed "spring garden".

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

24- Ban on male tailors taking women's measurements or sewing women's clothes.

25- Ban on female public baths.

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated "males only" (or "females only").

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

29- Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.

Apart from the above restrictions on women, the Taliban has:

- Banned listening to music, not only for women but men as well.

- Banned the watching of movies, television and videos, for everyone.

- Banned celebrating the traditional new year (Nowroz) on March 21. The Taliban has proclaimed the holiday un-Islamic.

- Disavowed Labor Day (May 1st), because it is deemed a "communist" holiday.

- Ordered that all people with non-Islamic names change them to Islamic ones.

- Forced haircuts upon Afghan youth.

- Ordered that men wear Islamic clothes and a cap.

- Ordered that men not shave or trim their beards, which should grow long enough to protrude from a fist clasped at the point of the chin.

- Ordered that all people attend prayers in mosques five times daily.

- Banned the keeping of pigeons and playing with the birds, describing it as un-Islamic. The violators will be imprisoned and the birds shall be killed. The kite flying has also been stopped.

- Ordered all onlookers, while encouraging the sportsmen, to chant Allah-o-Akbar (God is great) and refrain from clapping.

- Ban on certain games including kite flying which is "un-Islamic" according to Taliban.

- Anyone who carries objectionable literature will be executed.

- Anyone who converts from Islam to any other religion will be executed.

- All boy students must wear turbans. They say "No turban, no education".

- Non-Muslim minorities must distinct badge or stitch a yellow cloth onto their dress to be differentiated from the majority Muslim population. Just like what did Nazis with Jews.

- Banned the use of the internet by both ordinary Afghans and foreigners.

And so on...



Many of the anti-women rules that Taliban practiced were first of all the rules formulated and practiced by Rabbani-Massoud government after they came to power in 1992, but no one talk about them and it is painful that today even they are called the champaions of women's rights!!

ON November 8, 1994 the UN Secretary-General presented the interim report on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan prepared by Mr. Felix Ermacora, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/84 of 9 March 1994, and Economic and Social Council decision 1994/268 of 25 July 1994.

Parts of the report about women's rights sitaution says:


The Special Rapporteur's attention has been drawn to the Ordinance on the Women's Veil, which is reported to have been issued by a nine-member professional committee of the High Court of the Islamic State of Afghanistan and which reads as follows:

"A denier of veil is an infidel and an unveiled woman is lewd".

"Conditions of wearing veil:

1. The veil must cover the whole body.
2. Women's clothes must not be thin.
3. Women's clothes must not be decorated and colourful.
4. Women's clothes must not be narrow and tight to prevent the seditious limbs from being noticed. The veil must not be thin.
5. Women must not perfume themselves. If a perfumed woman passes by a crowd of men, she is considered to be an adulteress.
6. Women's clothes must not resemble men's clothes.

"In addition,

1. They must not perfume themselves.
2. They must not wear adorning clothes.
3. They must not wear thin clothes.
4. They must not wear narrow and tight clothes.
5. They must cover their entire bodies.
6. Their clothes must not resemble men's clothes.
7. Muslim women's clothes must not resemble non-Muslim women's clothes.
8. Their foot ornaments must not produce sound.
9. They must not wear sound-producing garments.
10. They must not walk in the middle of streets.
11. They must not go out of their houses without their husband's permission.
12. They must not talk to strange men.
13. If it is necessary to talk, they must talk in a low voice and without laughter.
14. They must not look at strangers.
15. They must not mix with strangers."

[Jerry B. Flory]

So, I ask you, why then would American businesses go to the places and open businesses that sell cosmetics, women's clothes, alluring undergarments, music, television, movies.

Were we just trying to start a fight?

Those are weird, weak, ugly rules that reveal the weaknesses of those men more than anything about the women other than they are beautiful, irresistible and intelligent in ways that threaten these shallow men...you know, everything I love about 'em, especially catching a look at one through an unpainted window:e2shower:

[dmytryp]

Yes, US should stay silent and enclosed in its own little world and allow the ruling elites like the Taliban, kill mutilate, torture etc their citizens and women. As long as they don't die fighting western forces, everything is peachy, right?

[James81]

Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:

<snip>

Can you imagine what it must be like with all these rules?

I mean, imagine a society that pretty much drapes women from head to toe in a sheet. Now imagine what it must be like when, for some odd reason, they are allowed to mate with these women.

No way these guys last more than 20 seconds in bed.

[dmytryp]

I said something about women?
That's up to them.
You have to look at what it took, what women had to do to get their voices heard in America. And you have to allow those women the pride, the dignity and grow their own Florence Nightingales and Susan B. Anthonys.
Us trying to do everything for them is what starts shit. Their voices can't be heard over yours.
Painful as it may be you have to let people evolve.
Is it pathetic? Yes. But it was pathetic here once, too and now it's pathetic in other ways.
We're not all bad.
They're not all bad.
You can't be serious here. We are not talking about western , generally tolerant society (that incidently took centuries to develop). Yes, there was discrimination, but I doubt any politician, however shauvinist, would contemplate killing his daughter for "dishonoring him".
The Afghan society is not medievil technologically, but by a mind set.

[Jerry B. Flory]

That's a war issue.
Women's rights are a war fought by women who are made stronger by their ordeals and rise above it, just like they did here in America.
Is there anything you can do to make it easier?
Wipe out the Taliban. Can women do that or does it take a military action?
With rules like that, go ahead, wipe them out.
Will women there still have societal issues after the Taliban are gone?
Yes they will.
And it will take those women, their ideals, their wisdom to surmount it, because shockingly, they may not want to be just like you.

[James81]

Yes, US should stay silent and enclosed in its own little world and allow the ruling elites like the Taliban, kill mutilate, torture etc their citizens and women. As long as they don't die fighting western forces, everything is peachy, right?

Sounds about right.

One thing that I've learned, through many attempts (and I mean MANY) at giving people advice has been that no matter how much you try to help someone or give someone advice, they have to WANT that help and advice for even 1/10th of it to stick. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT help other people. They have to help themselves.

That goes for other countries who are tearing themselves apart. That goes for your friend who comes to you about his failing marriage asking you advice.

Until someone is ready to change, TRULY READY to change, any measure of help or advice you give them is wasted.

[dmytryp]

That's a war issue.
Women's rights are a war fought by women who are made stronger by their ordeals and rise above it, just like they did here in America.
Is there anything you can do to make it easier?
Wipe out the Taliban. Can women do that or does it take a military action?
With rules like that, go ahead, wipe them out.
Will women there still have societal issues after the Taliban are gone?
Yes they will.
And it will take those women, their ideals, their wisdom to surmount it, because shockingly, they may not want to be just like you.
I am not following you here. The Taliban are not wiped out.

[Jerry B. Flory]

hmmmm testing 1,2,3...
How many sides to a square?

[Captshady]

I'm curious to see what happens in the future. We currently live in a society where tolerance is pushed above all else. We must be tolerant of all religions, we must be tolerant of all cultures -who are we to tell others how to live, even if they live in our own country. Many a citizen in the U.S. demands that we be tolerant of people living here, and sending American money to Hamas. They're not terrorists, so who are we to tell them where they can/can't send money. We have an increasing Muslim population. What will the NOW organization think about when a Muslim claims religious freedom while women are being hit with sticks in U.S. Muslim communities? Either we have to be tolerant, and allow it, or we have to stick up for the rights of these women ... I wonder which one will win out.

[MattW]

I'm curious to see what happens in the future. We currently live in a society where tolerance is pushed above all else. We must be tolerant of all religions, we must be tolerant of all cultures -who are we to tell others how to live, even if they live in our own country. Many a citizen in the U.S. demands that we be tolerant of people living here, and sending American money to Hamas. They're not terrorists, so who are we to tell them where they can/can't send money. We have an increasing Muslim population. What will the NOW organization think about when a Muslim claims religious freedom while women are being hit with sticks in U.S. Muslim communities? Either we have to be tolerant, and allow it, or we have to stick up for the rights of these women ... I wonder which one will win out.Your rights (speech, religion) end where mine (health, liberty, safety) begin, but that doesn't seem to be a practice that nuts of any flavor (religious, ideology, cashew) can grasp.

[James81]

What will the NOW organization think about when a Muslim claims religious freedom while women are being hit with sticks in U.S. Muslim communities? Either we have to be tolerant, and allow it, or we have to stick up for the rights of these women ... I wonder which one will win out.

See, there's a case of where it's happening on our own soil in our own backyard. We DON'T have to tolerate that and those of us around it have a duty to our country and to the people living here that it's "our way or the highway."

In OUR country we don't hit women. That's called domestic violence, and can carry pretty stiff sentences.

[Captshady]

See, there's a case of where it's happening on our own soil in our own backyard. We DON'T have to tolerate that and those of us around it have a duty to our country and to the people living here that it's "our way or the highway."

In OUR country we don't hit women. That's called domestic violence, and can carry pretty stiff sentences.

I'd like to think that too, but we're currently living (IMO) in a tolerance above all else society. I don't think it's beyond reasoning to think that Muslims will be allowed to hit Muslims or something. As ridiculous as it sounds.

[dmytryp]

Sounds about right.

One thing that I've learned, through many attempts (and I mean MANY) at giving people advice has been that no matter how much you try to help someone or give someone advice, they have to WANT that help and advice for even 1/10th of it to stick. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT help other people. They have to help themselves.

That goes for other countries who are tearing themselves apart. That goes for your friend who comes to you about his failing marriage asking you advice.

Until someone is ready to change, TRULY READY to change, any measure of help or advice you give them is wasted.
The history is full of examples of nations forced to change

[Jerry B. Flory]

You know what bothers me?
When we go to other planets, move there, take up housekeeping--and I don't say if, I say when because it will happen--we're going to know every inch of that planet before we step foot on it. There won't be any wagon trains west, no great struggles that build a history and a nation, it'll all be prefab. Isn't that kind of disappointing?
I remember reading the daily journal of a woman in the 1800s whose day started early with aiding an injured husband in his bed, feeding animals, making bread dough, waking her five kids, putting them to work doing chores before breakfast, then she made breakfast for them, got them off to school, by then she had to milk cows, separate cream and before she got to making clothes she gave birth to an 8 lbs. baby boy, then she got to "simmer" and make clothes, rest her back before she had to churn butter before the milk went to waste, the bread dough had risen, the night time meal would need prepared and she couldn't wait for her oldest kids to come home and help because it was hard to do all this stuff while nursing an infant and caring for an injured husband.

Yeah, those days are gone forever.
I fear so is that strength.

[James81]

I'd like to think that too, but we're currently living (IMO) in a tolerance above all else society. I don't think it's beyond reasoning to think that Muslims will be allowed to hit Muslims or something. As ridiculous as it sounds.

Yeah, you're probably right. But I'm just talking from a purely "what is right" point of view.

The history is full of examples of nations forced to change

More like beat into submission.

[dmytryp]

More like beat into submission.
That's what usually word "forced" means. But through that came also internal change.

[James81]

That's what usually word "forced" means. But through that came also internal change.

Do you think so?

Is Russia, for example, any different today that it was in the 80's? Or are they just sheepishly running and hiding from us, waiting for a charismatic leader to incite things yet again?

Also, look at the ramifications of forcing someone to change. Do they look at you as an ally, a friend, or a father figure of sorts? Or do they harbor a certain bitterness towards you? How does the rest of the world view America? There you'll find your answer.

Do you really believe that terrorists attack us because they are anti-god, anti-freedom devils who just want to see our freedoms burn?

or are some of these terrorist attacks just lashing out at the hand that tries to force them into a way of life they don't want?

We like to believe that these people are just heathen devils who sit around and masturbate in their own shit and eat locusts and curse God. But I would wager that some of these people lash out at us because they just want us to leave them the hell alone.

[Lyra Jean]

You'd have to ask the French about that. ;)

I'll need a translator. I don't know French.

[James81]

I'm with Jery on this one.

I think there are certain strengths that are forged by fighting for these freedoms yourself.

For instance, let's look at what we did in Iraq. On the surface, it looks like we did a great thing. We went in, removed a tyrannical dictator from power, and are policing these people and helping them form a democracy. That sounds noble, and just, and good...on the surface.

But did we really help them? Or did we force them to rely on us everytime things go to shit? If a new dictator wrestles his way to power, what do we do then? Do we go and remove him for them? Are they strong enough to fight that kind of injustice? NO, they aren't. Why? Because they haven't been tested. They haven't been forced to rise up from the shit and make something of themselves. In essence, we handed to them, on a silver platter, what took us centuries to forge for ourselves.

Let me pitch it to you in more relative terms...

Let's say you have a friend who is bad with finances. You watch this friend as he makes one bad financial decision after another and soon he is in an unmanageable mess. He doesn't come to you for help, he just tells you what his situation is and how bad it is.

So, you write him a check for the balance of his debts.

Does that person change his financial habits? What change has HE brought to the table that teaches him to NEVER EVER go back to that place again? Not a damn thing. And I think you'll find that these people end up worse off than they were before...because their BEHAVIOR hasn't changed, only their circumstances.

Writing them a check seems like the most simple and noble and really makes you seem like a good person. But in fact by writing them that check, you are actually hurting them because you are enabling their weak financial behaviors. Encouraging it, actually.

But what if this same person comes to you and tells you his situation, but INSTEAD of writing him a check, you give him tips on how to FIX his situation. You inspire him to change. You CHALLENGE him. And then, you allow him to go out and hit rock bottom. You allow him to fall COMPLETELY apart financially to the point where he has faced enough pain that HE decides, on his own, to change his situation.

So he takes on three jobs, lives on ramen noodles, and suffers for 3 years while he slowly, but surely, pays off his own debts and pulls himself out of the hole.

Which person do you think is going to emerge stronger? The man who was written a golden check? Or the man who forged strengths, changed behaviors, and pulled himself out of the hole?

Which change do you think is more permanent?

[dmytryp]

Do you think so?

Is Russia, for example, any different today that it was in the 80's? Or are they just sheepishly running and hiding from us, waiting for a charismatic leader to incite things yet again?

I was thinking more on the lines of Japan and Germany. Russia wasn't beaten, but collapsed internally.


Do you really believe that terrorists attack us because they are anti-god, anti-freedom devils who just want to see our freedoms burn?

or are some of these terrorist attacks just lashing out at the hand that tries to force them into a way of life they don't want?


I think it is a mistake (to put it mildly) to think that everything the other side does is due to your own actions (and egocentrical, I might add).
Here is agood link for you
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/12/23/the-shaming-of-the-shoe-elder-of-zion-hits-the-nail-on-the-head/

[Jerry B. Flory]

Either that or we take advantage of that "friend" and say, yeah I'll cover your debt but you have to sign over your house and if you go in debt again (which we know they'll do because we've given them a fish instead of a fishing pole) then I keep your house. And we sit back and wait for them to screw themselves and gain a house.

Yes, we'll save you, but there's always a price. If it's a pipeline running through your backyard, well, just thank us and move.

[James81]

I was thinking more on the lines of Japan and Germany. Russia wasn't beaten, but collapsed internally.



I think it is a mistake (to put it mildly) to think that everything the other side does is due to your own actions (and egocentrical, I might add).
Here is agood link for you
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/12/23/the-shaming-of-the-shoe-elder-of-zion-hits-the-nail-on-the-head/

And I think it's a mistake to assume that everything the other side does is because they are evil anti-democratic tyrants as well. ;)

[Jerry B. Flory]

As EoZ points out below, the disingenuousness of this response is striking. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo pale beside torture in the average, run-of-the-mill Arab prison, which populate every dark corner of the Arab world. On the contrary, it’s the remarkably high standards of the West that make Abu Ghraib a scandal, not the deeds done there. As for our hero, Al-Zeidi, he’s thrown his foot at the leader for whom he is least likely to suffer reprisal, not the most.

Do you read this person every day? That is some thick, swampy, bogged down writing, man. Gad.

[kuwisdelu]

I'd like to think that too, but we're currently living (IMO) in a tolerance above all else society. I don't think it's beyond reasoning to think that Muslims will be allowed to hit Muslims or something. As ridiculous as it sounds.

If so, it's completely missing the point, as ridiculously as certain misguided "feminists" who believe equality equals female superiority.

It's as Matt said--a person's rights end where another's begin.

We don't allow something like human sacrifice, even though some religions practice it. Hell, we don't even allow polygamy, even though Mormons have been trying to get an exception for that.

[Lyra Jean]

The feeling I get from those around and from what I hear, I don't really study politics so take my opinion for what it's worth. People expect other countries to become what the USA is now overnight.

I just say that's not even possible. You can't get women equal rights, end child labor, and give people religious and political freedom overnight. It took the United States 200 years to get where we are now and we started out as a democracy. These other countries are dictatorships so it's going to take them a lot longer than 200 years to get to where we are now. They have to be willing to change for themselves.

I'm not saying the people over there don't want to change perhaps they do. I just tell people it isn't going to happen in a year or less. Then they just look at me like I don't know what I'm talking about.

[kuwisdelu]

The feeling I get from those around and from what I hear, I don't really study politics so take my opinion for what it's worth. People expect other countries to become what the USA is now overnight.

I just say that's not even possible. You can't get women equal rights, end child labor, and give people religious and political freedom overnight. It took the United States 200 years to get where we are now and we started out as a democracy. These other countries are dictatorships so it's going to take them a lot longer than 200 years to get to where we are now. They have to be willing to change for themselves.

I'm not saying the people over there don't want to change perhaps they do. I just tell people it isn't going to happen in a year or less. Then they just look at me like I don't know what I'm talking about.

Not to mention, as good as we have it, looking upon ourselves as the shining gold standard by which all other countries should be measured is ridiculously arrogant and ethnocentric.

As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

[dmytryp]

The feeling I get from those around and from what I hear, I don't really study politics so take my opinion for what it's worth. People expect other countries to become what the USA is now overnight.

I just say that's not even possible. You can't get women equal rights, end child labor, and give people religious and political freedom overnight. It took the United States 200 years to get where we are now and we started out as a democracy. These other countries are dictatorships so it's going to take them a lot longer than 200 years to get to where we are now. They have to be willing to change for themselves.

I'm not saying the people over there don't want to change perhaps they do. I just tell people it isn't going to happen in a year or less. Then they just look at me like I don't know what I'm talking about.
I think there is a stark difference between "becoming like US" and "stop being 7th century".

[dmytryp]

Do you read this person every day? That is some thick, swampy, bogged down writing, man. Gad.
It's a blog

[dmytryp]

And I think it's a mistake to assume that everything the other side does is because they are evil anti-democratic tyrants as well. ;)
Every side has its own motivations. Some of those are a response to the other side's actions. If they are unacceptable (like, say, terrorist actions) they do not become less so because of the percieved slight.

[Jerry B. Flory]

Aah! Is it your blog?
Did I just throw my foot into my own mouth?

[dmytryp]

Aah! Is it your blog?
Did I just throw my foot into my own mouth?
No, it's not my blog. The blogger is a History Professor from Boston

The point is that it is just a blog

[Jerry B. Flory]

Okay, I feel better, I didn't want to crack on your blog.
However had it been yours I would have referred you to the SYW forums for a few months :D

[William Haskins]

Not to mention, as good as we have it, looking upon ourselves as the shining gold standard by which all other countries should be measured is ridiculously arrogant and ethnocentric.

can we agree that, at the very least, if they want to remain in the dark ages, they stop letting 21st century terrorists who want to use 21st century technology to murder 21st century people train in their back yard?

[Lyra Jean]

I think there is a stark difference between "becoming like US" and "stop being 7th century".

Very true. The people I hear say they should be like the US, not their own country with equality and freedom. Being a US citizen I think we don't have much of a culture anymore and I find that sad.

[Noah Body]

War sucks.

Also, Iraq...hmm...

The beginning was awesome. The plan of "take Saddam down" was good.

Its all the occupation stuff afterward...our whole exit strategy...it didn't work. I don't think it will work without a MAJOR overhaul.

The Army is amazingly good at killing dudes with stuff (hint: use stuff to kill dudes) but they're not good at setting up an infrastructure, a government. Building schools, setting up some stability. We need some kind of other organization, a kind of...Stabilization And Building Stuff Army of Peace.

The same thing I just said can be applied to Afghanistan, just switch Saddam with Taliban and everything else stands.

I don't hate Bush for going in. I hate him for going in...AND FAILING.


Hate to be contrary, but the "Army" (I believe you should say "military" when you wish to be precise) is actually quite good at building schools and infrastructure.

Too bad the MSM fails to report on that, because you know, it isn't newsworthy to them.

SM

[Jerry B. Flory]

With the obvious exception of some very traumatized citizens of NYC and relatives of 9/11 victims, Americans don't know what Iraqis, Afghanis, Israelis, Pakistanis know. We don't wake up thankful that we didn't get shelled or invaded. We take it for granted that tomorrow will be very much like today.
We don't automatically duck into a doorway when we hear the all too familiar sound of missiles ripping the air.
And like it or not, that war torn lifestyle produces courageous strong people, hardy people, like which most Americans are not.
The strongest flowers grow in shit.
Most middle easterners scoff at the idea that fat soft Americans are going to help anybody.
Some people don't want to give up their strengths.

But Willie's right too. If we're going to give them weapons they should be fit to scale. Bows and arrows.
Probably not too effective in Afghanistan, but handing them technology and allowing them to leap years of progress is no help at all.

[Noah Body]

Uh, Jerry? Have you served in any of this nation's branches of military? Your vision of soft Americans are unfounded and unwarranted. Our soldiers are better than any in the Middle East, without exception. If anyone is interested, I can go on at great length about combat operations in Afghanistan, and why the mujis were so taken aback by American resilience and resourcefulness...as well as shock and awe when confronted by things such as JDAMs.

The American military is hard-core tough, capable of pretty much any mission.

[Jerry B. Flory]

Already served.
Not talking about soldiers.
The general population that assumes we can makeover the rest of the world into the US.

[MattW]

Uh, Jerry? Have you served in any of this nation's branches of military? Your vision of soft Americans are unfounded and unwarranted. Our soldiers are better than any in the Middle East, without exception. If anyone is interested, I can go on at great length about combat operations in Afghanistan, and why the mujis were so taken aback by American resilience and resourcefulness...as well as shock and awe when confronted by things such as JDAMs.

The American military is hard-core tough, capable of pretty much any mission.While I agree with you entirely, it's the perception you mentioned that is a problem in the Middle East. Many think of America as a corrupt, decadent, cowardly nation, and their leaders stay in power by reinforcing that perception.

Every time we turn our back on an enemy like that, or show weakness or indecisiveness, they get stronger.

Luckily, there are our brave men and women to disabuse them of those misguided beliefs.

[Noah Body]

If you say so.

[James81]

Very true. The people I hear say they should be like the US, not their own country with equality and freedom. Being a US citizen I think we don't have much of a culture anymore and I find that sad.

This is why letting those larger companies fail instead of bailing them out isn't such a bad idea. This is why recession isn't so bad. Or, *gasp* DEPRESSION.

It's all part of the same idea I mentioned a few posts ago. When you don't have to rise to meet the challenge before you, you become complacent and indifferent...which in turn breeds a sense of disconnectedness of which is devastating to "culture."

But alas, we in America have grown a mindset that bad things can't happen in our world and that it's our job to control things in such a way as they don't happen. We try to clamp down on the reality with our flimsy ideal that if we can eradicate bad things that everything will be hunky dory.

And the truth behind that is, it's a big fat lie. Without the bad things...without the low times...without the motivation to craw out from under a rock of shit, forge the strength and endurace to turn our bad into something better, we can never truly appreciate and cling to the good times...

Which is another reason why many Americans are so willing to throw their freedoms out the window. This generation has yet to be tested. We've been riding high for so long and now it's OUR time to step up to meet the challenge...and what have we done?

We held out our hands to the government and said "Gimme."

Off topic, slightly, but still applies here methinks.

[MattW]

Already served.
Not talking about soldiers.
The general population that assumes we can makeover the rest of the world into the US.This sounds similar to the stereotype of ignorant American tourists. Sure they are there, and some might think America has got it perfect, but I'm sure they are in the vocal, obnoxious minority that only makes them memorable, not the mouthpiece for our entire nation.

I happen to enjoy different cultures. I'd enjoy some of them even more if they weren't as dangerous or inhospitable to outsiders (or even their own people). Maybe that's one piece of First World civilization they could aspire to, but it doesn't have to Little America.

[Noah Body]

While I agree with you entirely, it's the perception you mentioned that is a problem in the Middle East. Many think of America as a corrupt, decadent, cowardly nation, and their leaders stay in power by reinforcing that perception.

Every time we turn our back on an enemy like that, or show weakness or indecisiveness, they get stronger.

Luckily, there are our brave men and women to disabuse them of those misguided beliefs.

And for my money, this is why they'll always be an enemy. The truth of the matter is, most of the ME (and I'll excuse the Iranians) practice ritual warfare, not true force-on-force or maneuver operations. They're also not very bright. When in SA during DESERT SHIELD, I can't tell you the stupidity I saw on display daily, and the conversations with some of the SA enlisteds (not their officers, who are the well-heeled) were mind-blowing.

They're not as bold as a lot of folks make them out to be, and in reality, they're pretty easy to kill.

What we (the US) lacks in this fight is the will to up the stakes so high, to make the enemy risk so much, that it will take the fight out of them.

[rugcat]

As usual, ther's a bit of truth on both sides.

Americans do tend to be naive about other cultures, who often have different priorities and values. We believe that our own values are, without doubt, superior, and can and should be adopted all over the world. It's an arrogant view, and doesn't work anyway.

On the other hand, although giving respect to other cultures and other ways of looking at the world is a good thing, we shouldn't forget that there are indeed cultures and beliefs that are brutal and abhorrent. I don't see a lot of people claiming that we should give respect and understanding to the ideals of Nazi ideology or the regime of Pol Pot.

And the Taliban fall into that category. They embody the essence of repression, and their views are despicable. There is nothing to admire about them, and the world would be a far better place were they to vanish from the earth. I'm in favor of any policy that ensures they will never return to power.

[James81]

the world would be a far better place were they to vanish from the earth.

That depends on what fills up the void that they leave behind when they vanish.

[kuwisdelu]

Meanwhile, I am appalled that no Trekkies have given me reps.

[Captshady]

Meanwhile, I am appalled that no Trekkies have given me reps.

It's the new avatar. You're a stranger now.

[Contemplative]

I'm against the Iraq War and deeply ambivalent about Afghanistan, as I said in the other thread. As for partisanship, I certainly don't see anything unjust in saying I trust Obama to make moral military decisions moreso than I trust Bush and his handlers. I don't trust him as much as Hillary, and I trust him perhaps a bit more than Reagan, who I in turn trust more than, say, Dukakis.

I also don't think its incoherent to say that the social traditions of the Democrat party lead to better military decisions than the Republicans, or vice versa.

But that's not what I really talk about. What I really want to talk about is protesters.

I self-identify as a socialist and a leftist, and have voted (here in Canada) NDP in every provincial and federal election since I've been eligible. But I'm not zealously anti-war -- the US would have won so much loyalty from me if they stood up and invaded Darfur at the start of the genocide, for example. Genocide should be casus belli for any and every civilized nation; I think that would set a great precedent, and honestly that precedent would be worth spending a fair number of lives on.

But about the protesters. There is a professional protest movement. It's very radical and very irrational, and to be bluntly honest I consider the lives of some of the people who inhabit it to be worth less than animals, because that's what they're like.

It's not even really about ideology anymore. It's about showing up for the marches and shouting slogans and throwing balloons full of urine at conservatives and beliving these things make you morally superior to your fellow human beings. It's an industry, a huge one, that works to manufacture outrage and elevate emotion above reason. It's full of very hardline, radical leftists who I'd never want to be seen in the company of these days. There are people, in demographically significant numbers, in the whole anti-war/anti-racism/anti-Western culture amorphious mass who are every bit as narrow, zealous and hateful as the stereotypical ignorant Southern Baptist congregation, despite being on the other side of the spectrum.

The protesters only see "change" and "the man". They aren't sophisticated political thinkers, at least when you get them in a group. They're living proof that absolute ideological purity is as sure a path to ignorance as lack of education. They protest because protest makes them feel good. It's their hobby. The don't protest because whatever they are protesting is especially notable. The outrage is synthetic. You need to understand that, to understand the movement.

Given the socially authoritarian stances quietly held by many members of groups like ANSWER and ACORN, I really think it's legitimate to use the word Maoist to describe them -- at least as much as it's legit to call Bush and Company fascists. They really seem to be trying for a Cultural Revolution, after all -- they just lack state support, so we fortunately don't get a pile of skulls.

The Democratic party will reluctantly and covertly accept support from these people, just like the Republican party will reluctantly accept support from racists and truly fringe fundamentalists, because neither party can afford to alienate supporters into not voting in the very closely tied American elections.

The loudest is neither the wisest nor the most influential, but let's be honest here: nobody can match these people for volume, even the sane protesters for whom protest is legitimate expression rather than a lifestyle.

Please don't make the mistake of assuming the more crazed anti-war, anti-racism or anti-anything protesters are representative of political thought on the left, or of socialism, or of anything but the protest movement -- because they really, really aren't.


EDIT: In response to Captshady's comments on tolerance, I agree that it's not a virtue in the abstract. The kind of protest movement I'm talking about here exists specifically because people are exploiting others' attraction to the concept of tolerance in order to avoid their obnoxious actions being condemned.

[James81]

I'm against the Iraq War and deeply ambivalent about Afghanistan, as I said in the other thread. As for partisanship, I certainly don't see anything unjust in saying I trust Obama to make moral military decisions moreso than I trust Bush and his handlers. I don't trust him as much as Hillary, and I trust him perhaps a bit more than Reagan, who I in turn trust more than, say, Dukakis.


[/I]

Could you list these in numerical order, so that we can get the chain of how much you trust one over the other?

[blacbird]

Uh, Jerry? Have you served in any of this nation's branches of military? Your vision of soft Americans are unfounded and unwarranted. Our soldiers are better than any in the Middle East, without exception. If anyone is interested, I can go on at great length about combat operations in Afghanistan, and why the mujis were so taken aback by American resilience and resourcefulness...as well as shock and awe when confronted by things such as JDAMs.

The American military is hard-core tough, capable of pretty much any mission.

All true. But the central questions, especially in Iraq, haven't been about the toughness or resilience of the individual soldier. They've been about military strategy. History abounds with examples of brave, tough, resilient soldiers being wasted en masse through idiotic military strategy. Google Agincourt, Light Brigade, Pickett's Charge, Gallipoli, Khe Sanh.

caw

[Contemplative]

Could you list these in numerical order, so that we can get the chain of how much you trust one over the other?

You ask a hard question, and I'm not as up on my US presidential lore as I could be. Of the top of my head, and probably forgetting something significant each did, my original list:

1. Hillary
2. Obama
3. Bill
4. Reagan
5. Dukakis
6. Bush Jr, and co.

Hmm. Dukakis is not where I seem to remember him being when I pulled his name out of thin-air; I was looking for one of the hardline anti-war types. Maybe put him up below Bill, and put Cynthia McKinney in as the "barely above Bush" hardline slot:

1. Hillary
2. Obama
3. Bill
4. Dukakis
5. Reagan
6. McKinney
7. Bush Jr, and co.

Basically, I want the president of a superpower to use the minimum force (I feel is) necessary to protect innocent life, and to move heaven and earth to reduce the force needed -- but not to dismiss the idea that a military intervention can accomplish humanitarian goals, or use no force at all and try to wash hands of the logical consequences of that.

Edit: There's a lot I'm suddenly not confidant on in this list. I need to review Reagan, and I'm prejudging Obama pretty severely. I do feel reasonably certain that McKinney could come close to Bush in the bad presidents area, though, for utterly opposite reasons.

[Monkey]

I protested the Iraq war.

On the other hand, I've never been against going after Bin Ladin, be it in Afganistan or in Pakistan.

And Obama was pretty damned clear during the primaries...he was very explicit about his intentions to put more troops in Afganistan and to bomb in Pakistan with or without permission if he felt he had good intelligence. Obama isn't the peacenick some people have thought. But all you'd have to do to know better is to listen to what the man says.

As to the "tolerance" and "pushing Western morals" part of the discussion:

You can't beat your wife, even if you're an immigrant and that was OK where you came from. You can't commit an "honor killing", cause an animal to suffer through a slow sacrifice, or stone a woman for wearing clothes you don't like. There is space and tolerance and permission for people to follow any faith or ideology they like...so long as they remain within the law. There is no "unless". American tolerance extends to just about anything on a conceptual level; as soon as you actually commit an act that breaks US law, that tolerance is GONE.

And it's all well and good to say that women in Iran should stand up for themselves like the women in the US did...except that in practice, it won't work. Women there are NOT in the same situation as the women here were. Our lovely predecessors took it to the streets, and their men might not have liked it, but neither did they gun them down in the name of honor. Those are some crazy mo-fo's over there, and many of them WILL kill a woman for stepping out of line.

They can't even get out and get together enough to organize properly. And the government is not on their side. If they step out of line and get killed for it, no one is going to go after their murderers. To say that they need to rise up and throw off that oppression on their own is to seriously underestimate the amount of force being brought to bear on them.

[William Haskins]

great post.

i'll remind folks that i brought up obama's campaign comments about pakistan way back during the campaign, and was challenged to provide proof by obama partisans who didn't want to believe it.

i support his policy regarding pakistan and the increased troop levels in afghanistan. but this thread isn't really even about obama.

it's about the anti-afghan-war protestors who were vocal under bush and have gone all but silent now.

and, to take it even a step further, it's about water carriers like john kerry and the old school leftists who blasted nixon when he went after the same type of border-hoppers in cambodia and was called a war criminal.

[AncientEagle]

The feeling I get from those around and from what I hear, I don't really study politics so take my opinion for what it's worth. People expect other countries to become what the USA is now overnight.

I just say that's not even possible. You can't get women equal rights, end child labor, and give people religious and political freedom overnight. It took the United States 200 years to get where we are now and we started out as a democracy. These other countries are dictatorships so it's going to take them a lot longer than 200 years to get to where we are now. They have to be willing to change for themselves.

I'm not saying the people over there don't want to change perhaps they do. I just tell people it isn't going to happen in a year or less. Then they just look at me like I don't know what I'm talking about.

There was a technically modern but culturally feudal society known as Japan. Took five years to change them radically, with women gaining equal rights, labor unions functioning fully, etc. We did it by force, and still had 195 of the 200 years left.

I'm not recommending forcefully remaking nations in our image; in fact, I generally find that stupid. My point is that you can't say it always takes forever and can only be done by the country itself. Every situation is different. Every country is different. Every era is different. The trick is to know what will work with who and when.

[Wavy_Blue]

Very true. The people I hear say they should be like the US, not their own country with equality and freedom. Being a US citizen I think we don't have much of a culture anymore and I find that sad.

Every society has the same amount of culture. The meaning of that word has been distorted, but any anthropologist will tell you this. Eating a hamburger in front of a telly is just as cultural as attending an opera or riding in a gondola.

[Wavy_Blue]

This is 100 percent irrelevant, but does anyone else start humming the Bob the Builder theme song whenever you see the Obama slogan?

Bob the Builder,
Can we fix it?
Bob the Builder,
Yes we Can!

I wonder of the Obamas have picked a puppy yet.

[Lyra Jean]

Every society has the same amount of culture. The meaning of that word has been distorted, but any anthropologist will tell you this. Eating a hamburger in front of a telly is just as cultural as attending an opera or riding in a gondola.

Then we don't have much of a culture.

[Lyra Jean]

There was a technically modern but culturally feudal society known as Japan. Took five years to change them radically, with women gaining equal rights, labor unions functioning fully, etc. We did it by force, and still had 195 of the 200 years left.

I'm not recommending forcefully remaking nations in our image; in fact, I generally find that stupid. My point is that you can't say it always takes forever and can only be done by the country itself. Every situation is different. Every country is different. Every era is different. The trick is to know what will work with who and when.

So the US changed Japan in five years? Sorry my reading comprehension skills aren't the best right now but that's what I'm seeing.

Didn't Russia pretty much change in a year or less on their own. The Bolshevik revolution? You're right every nation and country is different but I'd rather take the long view, maybe not 200 years, rather than taking a short view.

[blacbird]

Every society has the same amount of culture. The meaning of that word has been distorted, but any anthropologist will tell you this. Eating a hamburger in front of a telly is just as cultural as attending an opera or riding in a gondola.

Anybody who can elucidate for me what the phrase "just as cultural" means becomes my friend.

caw

[rugcat]

Anybody who can elucidate for me what the phrase "just as cultural" means becomes my friend.Could you use it in a sentence, please?

Concentrated beef broth is just as cultural as agar.

[Zoombie]

You know what bothers me?
When we go to other planets, move there, take up housekeeping--and I don't say if, I say when because it will happen--we're going to know every inch of that planet before we step foot on it. There won't be any wagon trains west, no great struggles that build a history and a nation, it'll all be prefab. Isn't that kind of disappointing?
I remember reading the daily journal of a woman in the 1800s whose day started early with aiding an injured husband in his bed, feeding animals, making bread dough, waking her five kids, putting them to work doing chores before breakfast, then she made breakfast for them, got them off to school, by then she had to milk cows, separate cream and before she got to making clothes she gave birth to an 8 lbs. baby boy, then she got to "simmer" and make clothes, rest her back before she had to churn butter before the milk went to waste, the bread dough had risen, the night time meal would need prepared and she couldn't wait for her oldest kids to come home and help because it was hard to do all this stuff while nursing an infant and caring for an injured husband.

Yeah, those days are gone forever.
I fear so is that strength.


I'm sorry, I'm going to call bullshit.

Firstly, you can't figure out everything about a planet before moving there. We've been telecoping, probing, and sending robots to Mars for roughly 50 years and we don't know everything there is to know about it.

Secondly, anyone who lands on an alien planet to colonize it is going to have balls. Thirdly, we're not going to bring everything if we ever got there. We settled the United States BECAUSE we didn't bring anything. We came with TOOLS and enough supplies to keep us alive till we got a settlement up. It did not quite work the first few times...but it worked in the end.

If we go to another planet, we're going to bring tools and supplies...but its not going to be all pre-fab, not by a loooooong shot.

Its called the final frontier for a reason.

Now!

To get back on track:

Invasions have not worked for over 2,000 years, at least not in the traditional sense of taking over another country and holding it and keeping it as your own forever. Firstly, cultural identity is too strong. IF America was invaded, I'd still be an American first. Secondly, the ability for the minority to resist the majority has improved a thousand fold. 100 guys with swords against 1,000 guys with swords are going to lose if they have a similar equipment and training. But 100 guys with guns can realistically challenge a 1,000 guys with guns. Especially if they are entrenched and have a machine gun.

Now there is a newer form of invasion, wherein you simply try to force CHANGE in the cultural idenity of the people of the region.

It'd be like trying to change America from a democracy to a dictatorship with external force.

This is hard, but its not impossible. It has worked before...but it only works with some kinds of cultures and after some kinds of war.

We did not just beat the Germans or the Japanese. And the Germans and the Japanese did not fight like terrorists. They used more that era's tactics: massed armies, tanks, airplanes, navies. You can fight those kinds of enemies, you can beat them.

We can't change the Iraqui people the way we changed the Germans and the Japanese.

And, really, I'd rather not change them that way. Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki...no thanks.

[Joe270]

Anybody who can elucidate for me

Pervert.

[Contemplative]

Anybody who can elucidate for me what the phrase "just as cultural" means becomes my friend.

caw

I think what's being said is something doesn't have to be aristocratic, or traditional, to be part of a culture, and that culture can be determined by the majority, or even by the lowest common denominator, as much so as by some artistic or academic elite.

And I certainly feel America has a culture. Like any people, it's shaped by the social and technological factors of the society -- so it's consumerist, family-driven, Christian, capitalist, etc. I'm not condemning those things; I'm just saying.

America is also culturally promiscuous. Things that are of American culture are famous all over the world, because the American media industry is the largest in the world. That makes American culture seem like it's the generic standard, and thus invisible, but it's still there. You have NYPD Blue and Star Trek and Dynasty as your cultural mythology, and if we disparage them for being familiar... well, when you study myth and media from other cultures, you often find a lot of it can be prosaic and banal too.

That's not to say America doesn't have truly majestic cultural traditions as well; First Amendment absolutism is an American political tradition that comes off to people in Canada and Europe, I think, as distinctly an American thing.

Culture is shaped by history. Europe is a bunch of linguistically diverse old empires with aristocratic traditions in a tiny space who all know each other so very well many of the stereotypes have become self-fulfilling archetypes. America is made from the settlers who wanted something fresh and new and freer, and rebelled, fighting for independence. Canada is made from settlers who stayed marginally loyal until they negotiated their freedom. All those histories give different outlooks on the world in different ways, but even countries that are inundated by American media (not that that's bad; I love the stuff), can often sense how the values and attitudes are out of step with their own culture.

So yeah, I think American culture is very real.

[AncientEagle]

So the US changed Japan in five years? Sorry my reading comprehension skills aren't the best right now but that's what I'm seeing.

Didn't Russia pretty much change in a year or less on their own. The Bolshevik revolution? You're right every nation and country is different but I'd rather take the long view, maybe not 200 years, rather than taking a short view.

1945 to 1950.