 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Obama disappoints again
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:31 AM ""Like I say, you have to consider each issue separately regardless of the speaker or sponsor and not act like you are part of a tribe"" So how come all your positive posts are about Repubs, and all your negatives about Obama or Democrats? Do tell. I would really like to know if you actually believe any of what you say. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:45 PM Because Obama is part of a tribe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 10 - 01:04 PM I don't follow your example about Iraq, Don. When did we pull out of Iraq after an initial military occupation of the country and the setting up of a client regime there? I don't recall that ever happening. We are still very much in Iraq, and we have a client regime there, just as in Afghanistan. Look, when a mighty military empire invades and occupies a small nation, it always sets up a client regime which is superficially run by some local people (Quislings?). You can always find some local politicians who will work for you. And why wouldn't they? Someone is going to take the job after all, and the job always provides some significant personal advantages (along with definite risks). It provides a title, a secure job, a good salary, some personal power and privilege, opportunites for self-enrichment through corruption. Someone will definitely take it. Karzai is that someone. Those are the people you call our "friends". Are they really our friends or are they simply ambitious people who see an opportunity? I think they are probably the latter in most cases. Meanwhile there is the general population suffering the occupation and the resistance against it, and what do they want? What does the average family want in any occupied country? They want safety, food on the table, jobs, peace, and regular stuff like that. Those are their foremost concerns. You talk about finishing the job in Afghanistan. I suspect it is a job that will never be finished, because it is unfinishable. I suspect the same about Iraq. They are jobs which should never have been taken on in the first place, and they are not finishable, at least not in a way which will satisfy the American agenda. The American agenda is based on unreal mythology about "liberty", "freedom", "democracy", and other things like that which the USA does not accomplish when it goes into foreign lands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:18 PM "You can always find some local politicians who will work for you. " And of course, some of these people had lobbied the US for years to invade.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:35 PM The Taliban were considered to be USA and Pakistani allies for some time also...in the early years of their takeover. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:07 PM As was Saddam. But that doesn't mean much -- wolves in sheeps' clothing are common enough to be proverbial. Sucks to find out the petty dictator you set up is really a Pinochet, but then again that's the price you pay for setting up petty dictators. Most of the US's nosing around in foreign countries where it doesn't belong is done for the benefit of huge corporations -- mining, agribusiness, oil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:28 PM "Most of the US's nosing around in foreign countries where it doesn't belong is done for the benefit of huge corporations -- mining, agribusiness, oil." And most of it has ended in great profits to the US Military Industrial Complex - paid for by US Taxpayers - and many other countries like Australia, Canada, great Britain, and some parts of Europe have been dragged in too. Cheers to the Dutch on kicking out their stupid US brainwashed Govt. Pity the Troops are really needed for reconstruction there - but at least it demonstrates that some people can only be suckered so far... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:38 PM Does that mean as soon as we get rid of Obama we won't be suckered anymore? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:43 PM Riginslinger: Does that mean as soon as we get rid of Obama we won't be suckered anymore? Is Obama the last politician? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:43 PM "Does that mean as soon as we get rid of Obama we won't be suckered anymore? " Nope, the people suckering us that Obama is the problem, ARE the problem - how are you going to get rid of those without Genocide? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:03 PM Anyone care to revisit the original premise of this thread, which was offshore oil drilling? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:14 PM I'm sure if you had something interesting to say about it, people would respond. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:16 PM ""I don't follow your example about Iraq, Don. When did we pull out of Iraq after an initial military occupation of the country and the setting up of a client regime there? I don't recall that ever happening. We are still very much in Iraq, and we have a client regime there, just as in Afghanistan."" Bad memory LH? I'll refresh it for you. In the first Gulf war, there were thousands of disaffected Iraqis, who were eager, and were actively encouraged by the USA and Britain, to rise up as an anti Saddam Hussein resistance. They were the people who would have provided the stability for a fairly swift withdrawal of our troops, had we finished the job. The UN wimped out, declared the war won, and ordered the troops out. Saddam slaughtered all those Iraqis, and carried on as before. In the second fracas, there were very few who welcomed the Coalition. Those who might have were alldead, and it was our fault. If the Coalition pulls the troops before the pro West Afghans are capable of governing, and maintaining order, then the same thing will happen again. Withdrawal has to be geared to run alongside of improving the capabilities of the Afghan military, and police. Obama is right not to order a premature withdrawal. We should not have been there in the first place, but now that we are, we have to keep faith with those who need our support. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:21 PM Yeah, off shore drilling is stupid... What, at best all we are going to get in 6 days worth of oil out of it... That means less than 1/3rd of 1%!!! That's squat!!! Better off just asking folks to take one less trip a month and come out better than the drilling... b~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:27 PM ""Those are the people you call our "friends". Are they really our friends or are they simply ambitious people who see an opportunity? I think they are probably the latter in most cases."" No LH, those aren't. The four who came to the UK, were not government politicians. Each was a religious leader of considerable stature, and their overiding response was anger at how they had been conned by Taliban propaganda, and gratitude for the treatment here of their brethren. Now they are going back to tell their countrymen how they've been lied to, and taken for fools. I think that might have a wider and more positive effect than any politician's visit. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:07 PM "In the first Gulf war, there were thousands of disaffected Iraqis, who were eager, and were actively encouraged by the USA and Britain, to rise up as an anti Saddam Hussein resistance." So we elected Barrack Hussein to show us the way... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:12 PM Don, I do remember well how the USA let down the Shiite Muslims in Iraq whom it had encouraged to rise up against Saddam, yes. But I think they were so encouraged simply as a temporary strategem, to give Saddam more grief and make it harder for him to fight his war at the time. So they were used and then abandoned. No new story there. An imperial power always uses disaffected sections of an enemy populace to fight the group who are in power there. It's standard military policy, and everyone's been doing it since the Romans and Greeks, if not long before. For instance, in Vietnam the USA (and the French before them) used Catholic Christian Vietnamese against the Buddhist majority. They also used ethnic Montagnard tribesmen against the Vietnamese majority. It's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine. In what is now Mexico the Spanish once used a big confederacy of other Native tribes to fight the Aztecs...but the poor suckers who helped the Spanish destroy the Aztecs ended up enslaved and decimated by the Spaniards as soon as the Aztecs were gone. But I suspect that's not the point you wish to drive at, right? ;-) Well (shrug) the only thing that counts to me is that the USA should never have put its combat troops and its military bases anywhere in the Middle East in the first place, and I do not support an American occupation of either Iraq or Afghanistan upon any rationale. Thus you and I will continue to disagree on this subject, and much bandwidth will be consumed. ;-) (unless I get smart and do something else with my time instead...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:20 PM Besides, us Yanks are tired of paying for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:26 PM "So how come all your positive posts are about Repubs, and all your negatives about Obama or Democrats?" Not true. You can see it right in this thread but your subjectivity supersedes your objectivity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:35 PM Losing our defense, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:45 PM ""In the first Gulf war, there were thousands of disaffected Iraqis, who were eager, and were actively encouraged by the USA and Britain, to rise up as an anti Saddam Hussein resistance." So we elected Barrack Hussein to show us the way... " In 'Formal debating' practice. that is a 'non sequitir' argument - in other words gibbering NONSENSE! "the only thing that counts to me is that the USA should never have put its combat troops and its military bases anywhere in the Middle East in the first place" But a World Imperial Power just HAD to... the same as it HAD to get into Vietnam... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Apr 10 - 12:38 AM Yes, well, there is a certain inevitability about all imperial policy, isn't there? An empire expands and maintains itself by devouring resources. When those resources get scarce, it has to expand further and the level of violence goes up. And up. And up. Where it all ends is hard to say, but I don't think it will be a nice thing to witness. With a bit of luck we will all die before that happens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Apr 10 - 12:48 AM The Church of Convenient Bible Interpretation is looking for more Today's Sermon: Just do what we say and nobody gets hurt. I do note however, that they seem to have sent some evangelists into the BS threads already.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 11:08 AM ""But I suspect that's not the point you wish to drive at, right? ;-)"" It's precisely the point, and I'm surprised that you haven't caught on. Whether or no the troops should be there is immaterial.....THEY ARE THERE! Accepting that fact, you have to decide what your exit strategy should be. If, in the first Gulf War, we had finished the job by arresting Hussein, we would have had a lot of friends willing to help bring back order and stability, and an exit strategy which would allow withdrawal in a very short time. We blew it, abandoned them to the tender mercies of a psychotic tyrant, and they were slaughtered. Now we have only what you call a client government, no friends, and it looks like being many years till the last US troops can leave, without anarchy following. In Afghanistan, we still have many allies, and we have two choices. We can keep faith with them, and stay until they no longer need support, or we can cut and run, leaving the country and those friends at the mercy of the Taliban. You blythely accept the slaughter of such allies as something natural, and state ""An imperial power always uses disaffected sections of an enemy populace to fight the group who are in power there. It's standard military policy, and everyone's been doing it since the Romans and Greeks, if not long before."". Does that make it right, in your opinion, to sacrifice allies? As far as I can see, that would only be strategically acceptable if you don't care what happens when you leave, or when you have no intention of leaving. Firstly we have not invaded Afghanistan with the intention of making it part of our empire, so forget theRomans and Greeks. Not the same scenario. So, we plan to leave......Sometime! Again, two choices. 1.) We don't care what happens. We leave, they die, the Taliban are back in control. Why the Fuck were we there then? 2.) We care. We keep faith with our in country allies. It takes a little longer, but we leave a stable regime, capable of maintaining order. We have friends in that country, it is better living there than it was before we came. WE HAVE DONE SOME GOOD! Which of those alternatives would give you the better feeling about yourself, and your country? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Apr 10 - 11:29 AM Legalize opiates in the west. Their economy collapses; a civil war breaks out; they kill each other off, and the UN declares it a wilderness area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Apr 10 - 01:07 PM I think, Don, that our exit strategy should be the same as it was for the Russians. They presented the same set of justifications for being in Afghanistan, after all ("We were asked to come in by our friends there."), so why not? What exit strategy should the Germans have used in regards to Poland in 1944? They couldn't just abandon their position there, after all, could they, and leave people behind to the mercy of the Russians? It could lead to further very bad repercussions to do that... ;-) You know, it's easy to get into a war, but it's damned hard to get out of it if you cannot achieve a final and decisive victory. People have been discovering that ever since anyone can remember. I disagree with your statement: "we have not invaded Afghanistan with the intention of making it part of our empire" Oh, yes we have. But empires don't look the way they used to, you see. They are not official now, in terms of setting up colonial regimes under the authority of king and country. That has become politically unacceptable. Empires are now achieved by extending corporate control over the marketing and allocation of key resources...and the control of strategically important areas through client governments that are officially independent...but quite definitely controlled by a combination of bribery, economic arrangements, trade arrangements, and the direct presence or imminent threat of the empire's military forces. The USA has built some very extensive military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really think the USA has any intention of abandoning those bases? I don't. So they are garrisoning those countries, just like an empire does in its colonies. Furthermore, a very large part of the USA's military committment in those areas is by private contractors...mercenaries, in other words. Not a peep has been said about ever withdrawing any of them. They will stay as long as they are paid to, and the corporates who employ them will profit by it. Empires are not run by kings now, Don. They are run by the boardrooms of a consortium of banks and corporations. They do not require a flag or a uniform to exist. They require money to exist, and money is what they have. Money can buy all the firepower, lawyers, and crooked politicians necessary to maintain the empire. It isn't a poltical empire like the old ones were. It's a financial and mercantile empire that takes effect through the power of money and violence. I have no particular liking for the Taliban. I have no particular liking for the Northern Alliance. I have no particular liking for Karzai's people. I have no idea which one of them would end up in control of Afghanistan once the foreign troops left, but my guess is that they'd be fighting each other for years, just like they used to after the Russians left. This whole Afghan mess started when the Russians went in there. That's when the place go destabilized, so the original blame is on the Russians. They opened Pandora's box and ended a long period of stability in Afghanistan under the old king. It's been hell there ever since. The Americans and Pakistanis found and funded every Islamic fanatic they could find back in the 1980s to break the back of the Russian occupation (and its client Afghan government under Najibullah). Those Islamic jihadists were called the Mujahedin, and they eventually beat the Russians and drove them out...with much CIA and Pakistani assistance in supplying weapons and training. Then the different Mujahedin factions all starting fighting amongst each other. The most effective among them turned out to be the Taliban, who were also the most extremely fanatical in a religious sense. They took over most of the country, but never succeeded in defeating the Northern Alliance people in the northeastern areas. The Pakistanis regarded the Taliban as a key ally to keep the Russians out of the area, and were loathe to abandon them when the USA eventually decided that the Taliban, former allies, were now to be considered "enemies"...but the USA basically put a gun to Pakistan's head (by implied threat) and said, "You either abandon the Taliban or you are fucked." So the Pakistanis swallowed the bitter pill and gave in to American pressure. This has led to massive destabilization of Pakistan and Afghanistan both. It has been an immense tragedy. Don, you would very likely never even have had a Taliban...if the USA and Pakistan had not colluded to raise Islamic fundamentalist forces from all over the Middle East to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. America and Pakistan built the Frankenstein monster they are now fighting against...they did it to kill Russians. It's just a huge mess. Russia's to blame for it. The USA's to blame for it. They are both to blame for it, because they were both out there playing the game of empire. You're just looking at one single angle of it...which is that the Taliban are a bad outfit. I agree with that! They are a very bad outfit. But that's just one angle of a huge, giant mess that was created by Russia and the USA playing imperial games on other people's land. It started long before the Taliban even existed. They're a symptom of a much larger problem. You don't cure a disease by battling a symptom. The disease is Russian and American imperialism, which is really corporate imperialism to all intents and purposes. It's all being done for strategic resources and strategic positioning. It's not being done so that ordinary Afghans can send women to school or hold corrupt "democratic" elections in a facade of democracy. That's just window decorations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:28 PM ""That has become politically unacceptable. Empires are now achieved by extending corporate control over the marketing and allocation of key resources"" What Resources? It's a friggin' desert. And I'm sorry LH, but I am not in need of a history lesson. Believe it or not, I have a brain, I have eyes, I am capable of rational thought, and I am not in the least interested in how, why, or when this started. My concern is for what we do now for the people of a country which is totally different than it was when the Russians took over. The Russians faced total opposition, because they were, as usual, helping themselves. We have a number of enemies, a larger number of friends, and largest of all is the undecided segment. We have a good chance to win most, if not all of those hearts and minds. Obama is keeping faith and striving for an exit strategy which will not amount to a betrayal of trust. In that I judge him right. Your disease analogy is fallacious, in that the people we are supporting are not the symptom, nor are the Taliban. As I see it the Taliban are the Cancer, the people we are backing are the leucocytes, and they can deal with the disease only with the help of an antibiotic. Our troops are that antibiotic, and with that assistance, an immunity can be built up. With that, one small but potentially lethal tumour is removed. Without it, the patient dies. Sorry about the roundabout language, but you chose that analogy, and I'm afraid you must live with it. The proof of the pudding will be in the outcome. If the troops leave in the not too distant future, your theory about empire building is shot. What will a new stable Afghanistan have that we need? Sand? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:31 PM Very well said Sir! Corporate imperialism has replaced Military imperialism...much more dangerous and insidious and closely related to Global capitalism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:54 PM That's a good point, ake. There's no way to know who the share holders are, and they can become victims of hostile takeovers at any minute, without a shot being fired. The house of Rothschild could end up controlling the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Peter T. Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:07 PM The original question (not on this thread, but there you go) in Afghanistan was about eliminating a staging ground for Al-Qaeda, that was the whole purpose. The need for a stable government was to prevent the Taliban from regaining power, and by extension, bringing back Al-Qaeda. But that now seems implausible as a domino theory. The allies are now talking to the Taliban, and Karzai is threatening to go over to them. The Taliban will always be there: it is a tribal society. It is very, very hard to see how the Allies can create a stable government in such a situation. Anyway, it probably doesn't matter any more. I'm someone who thinks that the Osama bin Laden days are over, it was one "lucky" demented moment -- it could have been blown earlier, if the Bush administration had been paying attention. He's a cave dweller now. Everyone has been warned about that particular toxic mix. If something new is going to happen, it isn't going to happen like before. When you look at what has happened since, it is obvious that there is no vast Al-Qaeda army (which even reasonably sane people could have been forgiven for thinking in the aftermath of 9/11). What there is is a bunch of semi-connected, disaffected Muslims -- none of whom are Afghans! -- most of whom are in the West, well-educated, and angry at America's policies concerning Israel and the Palestinians. The solving of the terrorist problem, as a million people have said, is in Jerusalem, not Kabul. There will always be nutcases, an army will not solve them. The problem is that America has a hammer, and everything looks like a nail. Using external armies to create stable internal governments hasn't worked out all that well recently. The Afghans should be left to work out their own fate. We will always be interlopers and do-gooders (I say this as someone who has helped fund a girl's school in Afghanistan -- among the few sensible things the Allies have grudgingly decided was a good thing). The whole thing breaks one's heart, but that's the terrible reality, not just in Afghanistan, but in many parts of the world. yours, Peter T. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:31 PM If we leave before the Kabul government is strong enough, and the military and police properly trained, what do you suppose will be the fate of that girls' school Peter, and the girls who attend it? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:50 PM In my last message, I was refering to Little Hawk's excellent post. Lest anyone gets the wrong idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:54 PM Yes, and you're both right. One only has to look at what is happening in Greece at this very moment to verify the whole thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 07:30 PM "What Resources? It's a friggin' desert. And I'm sorry LH, but I am not in need of a history lesson. Believe it or not, I have a brain, I have eyes, I am capable of rational thought, and I am not in the least interested in how, why, or when this started." Maybe not history, but you're certainly in need of a GEOLOGY lesson!! This also casts doubt on your other claims(above). :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 07:39 PM "The USA has built some very extensive military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really think the USA has any intention of abandoning those bases? I don't." From Little Hawk's post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:08 PM OK smartarse, educate me. Tell me about the gold, or oil, or whatever those Afghans are sitting on which they don't seem to benefit from. They're poverty stricken, so where are they going wrong. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:28 PM Iraq.....Natural resources Afghanistan .....Strategic positioning. Now, put on this nice big pointy hat and go stand in the corner!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Apr 10 - 09:22 PM "Afghanistan .....Strategic positioning." The British tried to play that game as well as "The Middle East"... funny how the USA wanted to push THEM out... "It's OK - as long as we have THEM, it justifies US..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Apr 10 - 09:40 PM At the end of the day, it takes boatloads of weapons, munitions, and young men and women to advance anything in either place. The people who are profiting from that are the real enemy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Apr 10 - 09:51 PM "The people who are profiting from that are the real enemy. " And I'm bemused by how, when the USA claims to not have the money to send more troops, the money can be found to send more higher paid US mercenaries... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 07 Apr 10 - 10:22 PM Afganistan??? Lots of poppi fields... But forget them... We have a number of last-century thinkin' go on here about how important Afganistan in this bigass geopolitical game... Ahhhhh, I don't get it??? We have a ever increasingly tribalized, world economy now... This ain't yer grandfather's planet... No, what we have is an enormouse military/industrialist complex in the US of A that is very much interested in keeping them federal dollars comin' their way... Thus, they create one boogie-man after another... I agree with Don that Obams is stuck playin' out a hnad he was given... But, I think he is doing it with a mindfull eye that both of Bush's wars weren't wars he would have gotten US bogged down into... I mean, he has (in spite of Republican resistence) worked toward restoring the US's reputation as a world leader (as opposed to a world bully)... He deserves credit for this... And let's keep in mind here the simple fact that what you see from Obama is exactly what he said you would see so if folks are disappointed then shame on them for creating in Obama something that Obama never promised... Yeah, the drilling is bone-headed but, hey, I understand why he has thrown the right a bone here... I mean, that's what the entire Repub '08 campaign was about with "Drill, Baby, drill" and so he took that one off the table early in the hopes of not allowing the Repubs to get lathered up over that... Smart politics but hardly a major misrepresentation of the man's core beliefs... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:38 AM Bobert:I mean, he has (in spite of Republican resistance) worked toward restoring the US's reputation as a world leader (as opposed to a world bully)... He deserves credit for this... " (On the 'news' today)..After he declared his new defense 'strategy' the president of Iran, now calls him an 'amateur'. I'm not sure that instills a lot of confidence in me that he is not being perceived overseas,(and by our enemies), as weak, and us vulnerable. Time will tell...for all those who are 'slow' to grasp. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 08 Apr 10 - 07:28 AM Well, GfS... I reaslly don't consider a tin-horn dictator who carries out of the wishes of a right wing thoecrats to be much of an authority on much of anything... The fact is that Achma-ding-a-ling, in making such statements, is evidence that Obama's work in restoring the US as a world "leader" is working... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Peter T. Date: 08 Apr 10 - 08:12 AM I thought that it was obvious what I thought would happen to the girls. That was my point. The idea that we -- WE -- can make a stable government in Afghanistan and train the military and the police is a chimera. The powerful people there have to want this. I don't see any evidence that they do. The weak will suffer. We cannot protect everyone in the country unless we take over the country, and we aren't able to do so. We can't do the same in the Congo, Burma, Burundi, the Sudan, and the list goes on....The great question which is obscured by the details of this misguided operation is how the world deals with messed up countries -- even before one focusses on the ones that might be seedbeds for terrorism (and it should be noted that the main seedbed for terrorism in the world has been and is Saudi Arabia, which funds on a grand scale fundamentalist wahabi schools all over the world, and is a gallant ally of the United States, how stupid is that?). At the moment humanitarian needs and military invasions are mingled together in a hopelessly toxic way. This could be improved (not made perfect, but improved) if certain countries who will remain nameless began to think internationally again in a serious way. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 08 Apr 10 - 08:21 AM I totally agree, Peter... Neither of Bush's wars had any chance of a favorable outcome... I hate it that Obama is so politically boxed in on Afganistan... It's almost like Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam... It's heartwrenching because these senseless wars are not only draining our treasury but crippling our abilities to move forward for our own people's best interests... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Apr 10 - 12:03 PM Bobert, I understand that you don't like Ahmadinejad.... ;-) That's fine with me. But....you refer to him as "a tin-horn dictator". Huh? On what basis? He is an elected politician, Bobert. They have multi-party elections in Iran at scheduled intervals. In simply glibly referring to him as a "dictator" when he does not fit that definition, you are unwittingly echoing propaganda for people who would very much like to have a war with Iran. Sort of like going on about Saddam's "WMDs" back in 2003. It sounds really scary, but it's not accurate in the sense of communicating anything with a factual basis. If the theocrats in Iran had appointed Ahmadinejad to his position for life, then he'd be a dictator, but he has to face elections and win them, and the last election there was hotly contested. He might well have lost it. If he had, you'd probably be calling the guy who replaced him "a tinhorn dictator". ;-) See what I mean? There were allegations of election fraud by the losers of that Iranian election. Uh-huh. Well, there are also allegations of election fraud in Afghanistan's last election....and there undoubtedly was some election fraud there. But we don't call Karzai "a tinhorn dictator", do we? We claim they have a democracy now, because they have multi-party elections...like in Iran. And there are often allegations of election fraud in the USA too...and I bet it happens. But we don't call the American president "a tinhorn dictator". Do you see how words are used to create sweeping impressions of good and evil about nations? Iranians are routinely demonized in the western press by the selective use of trigger words like "dictator", Bobert. That's propaganda. It is intended to get people onside for supporting another war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Apr 10 - 12:34 PM I'd like to say that I am NOT disappointed over Obama's new agreement with the Russians to mutually scale down their number of nuclear warheads. Good job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 08 Apr 10 - 05:09 PM Okay, LH... He's a tin-horn incorporated puppet elected by bogus elections... Ya' like that better??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Greg F. Date: 08 Apr 10 - 05:19 PM But we don't call Karzai "a tinhorn dictator", do we? We should! Or at least a "a tin-horn incorporated U.S. puppet elected by bogus elections". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 08 Apr 10 - 05:19 PM Not Mr Obama? Shurly shome mistake! |
