"anti-war" democrats sell-out

[bradleym]

You're hurting America.

 

And I thought that all the conservatives in congress (all except 5) who didn't vote for that war bill were the ones "hurting America"

 

You and your buds FW and KKK (and many others) -- all of whom so eloquently represent simplistic viewpoints -- are indeed hurting america.

[billcoe]

I am mesmerized by the depth of your arguments. As your pal Bill will no-doubt point out to you what a way to "contribute substance to a discussion".

 

I know, but got tired of doing that very thing to 5K years ago when I realized he wasn't ever going to change....you on the other hand jb, I still have great hope for.

 

Here's to "Hope and Change" on the home front

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I am mesmerized by the depth of your arguments. As your pal Bill will no-doubt point out to you what a way to "contribute substance to a discussion".

 

I know, but got tired of doing that very thing to 5K years ago when I realized he wasn't ever going to change....you on the other hand jb, I still have great hope for.

 

Here's to "Hope and Change" on the home front

 

No offense Bill, but I really see little to learn from the simplistic, entrenched opinions of you or anyone else in the bullshit flame-section of a CLIMBING FORUM.

 

j_b is a cartoon who differentiates himself from 95% of the other cartoons by actually taking himself seriously.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's understandable why the playuhz here would quickly resort to name calling, because none of them seem to have the capacity analyze such a fucked up, solutionless situation like Afghanistan.

 

Basically, in 2001 Bush was awarded the authority by the legislature to go after 3 parties: The perpetrators of 911, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, plus all those who provide 'material support' (an entire subject unto itself not without just a wee bit of controversy).

 

None of you seem to have the neural complexity to discuss such minor nits as:

 

How does one prop up a nearly non-existent regime like Afghanistan's over the long term, to ensure that whatever 'victories over evil' occur there stick for more than, say, a week?

 

How does one 'defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban' (excellent goals...if they were actually possible) when they can simply operate in and threaten the stability of Pakistan?

 

How will our bankrupt nation pay for all this shit?

 

Is either the Taliban or Al Qaeda a big enough threat, and I'm including 911 in that assessment, to warrant the trillion + we've spent unsuccessfully trying to exterminate them? Is this new installment $$$ simply throwing more borrowed money after an already failed policy?

 

But of course, this thread is not about any of the above. It's about the emotional need of seeing bad people get their asses kicked (by someone else, of course), or the competing emotional need of seeing a fundamentally wrong headed and corrupt government (our own) fail.

 

Regarding 'dated' references to 1984; Orwell could not be more prescient and relevant right now. One of the four torture memos describes the 11 'acceptable' practices, one of which is 'confinement in a box with an insect' (because the detainee had a phobia if insects). Room 101 anyone? From the Ministry of Love (Dept of Homeland Security), total surveillance, bullshit/endless warfare, and 2.2 million American's in prison, Orwell's vision has been realized, albeit in a freshly mowed fashion with convenient parking and abundant high calories, rather than rationing and near starvation.

 

 

[j_b]

You're hurting America.

 

And I thought that all the conservatives in congress (all except 5) who didn't vote for that war bill were the ones "hurting America"

 

You and your buds FW and KKK (and many others) -- all of whom so eloquently represent simplistic viewpoints -- are indeed hurting america.

 

"simplistic viewpoints"? "hurting America"? LOL You really aren't going to explain yourself? wtf!

[j_b]

I am mesmerized by the depth of your arguments. As your pal Bill will no-doubt point out to you what a way to "contribute substance to a discussion".

 

I know, but got tired of doing that very thing to 5K years ago when I realized he wasn't ever going to change....you on the other hand jb, I still have great hope for.

 

pulllhease! stop taking your readers for morons.

[j_b]

It's understandable why the playuhz here would quickly resort to name calling, because none of them seem to have the capacity analyze such a fucked up, solutionless situation like Afghanistan.

 

Basically, in 2001 Bush was awarded the authority by the legislature to go after 3 parties: The perpetrators of 911, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, plus all those who provide 'material support' (an entire subject unto itself not without just a wee bit of controversy).

 

2001 is late in the story of our involvement there. Carter started, then Reagan expanded the financing and arming of islamic fundies and war lords in the late 70's, and 80's because they opposed a soviet supported government in Afghanistan. The islamic fundies and warlords didn't want their women to go to school and were trying to retain their power over the peons. Then, when Taliban started to wack off the opposition, including the more promising of them (from an evolution towards democracy point of view) we declared hands off.

 

None of you seem to have the neural complexity to discuss such minor nits as:

 

How does one prop up a nearly non-existent regime like Afghanistan's over the long term, to ensure that whatever 'victories over evil' occur there stick for more than, say, a week?

 

How does one 'defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban' (excellent goals...if they were actually possible) when they can simply operate in and threaten the stability of Pakistan?

 

Especially since the people who have political power in Afghanistan today (I mean beside the occupying forces) are the very same warlords as before and they go after women who are trying to change things the same way they did before (murder, mutilation, etc ..).

 

How will our bankrupt nation pay for all this shit?

 

Is either the Taliban or Al Qaeda a big enough threat, and I'm including 911 in that assessment, to warrant the trillion + we've spent unsuccessfully trying to exterminate them? Is this new installment $$$ simply throwing more borrowed money after an already failed policy?

 

Occupying countries and bombing populations has rarely if ever decreased the threat of terrorism.

 

Edited June 17, 2009 by j_b

[kevbone]

Thank you for once more making my point clear.

 

 

NO shit!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Thank you for once more making my point clear.

 

 

NO shit!

 

Look! It's Kevbone:

 

[kevbone]

 

How will our bankrupt nation pay for all this shit?

 

 

 

Ahhhh.....now you are getting somewhere. This is the sole purpose of 9/11. And it is working.

 

 

One world government is coming.

[kevbone]

Hello KKKKK....how is it going buddy?

[j_b]

"Today, because there is no strong central government, Afghanistan is carved up between these same warlords, who have now filled the shoes of the Taliban. Afghanistan is once again in the hands of rapists, murderers and extremists."

 

A voice of hope for Afghanistan's women

 

 

[Doug]

So here's the deal; based on the title of this thread I felt compelled to reply. I personally did not believe that a congress and white house full of democrats would "cut and run" as many had believed they would. So the notion that the war funding was approved was a no-brainer to me. I stand by my earlier comments regarding my belief that going to and staying in Afghanistan was and is justified. Has the effort there been managed well? My opinion is no. The current state there seems to tell that story. Kevbone, I believe that Al Queda did take credit for the September 11 attacks so that was the basis of the statement in my earlier post. The Taliban was and is harboring them. There are lots of opinions of why we are in Iraq, my belief is that the reasons given to congress were bogus at best and totally fabricated at worst. If my interpretation of statements from the White House and Pentagon are correct, we plan on being out of there before Afghanistan.

[j_b]

It speaks volumes about your conscience that you initially felt compelled to reply as well as come back to explain where you came from. Allow me just to counter some of your arguments. It'd be a mistake to believe that the situation in Afghanistan is mostly the result of mismanagement. Afghanistan is by most measures still a feudal society and it'd take decades of occupation and anti-guerilla warfare before a semi-stable nation state evolved out of it, especially since they have been in a state of almost continual warfare for decades now and much of the population is extremely vulnerable to predators. Taking the war across the border in Paksitan to imprecedented level is nowhere close to a political solution to the conflict. As a general rule, there are no military solutions to these types of conflicts unless one is willing to shed a lot of blood and spend a lot of time doing it.

 

As for Iraq, I'd personally have no issue with leaving as soon as possible, it'd probably be better for iraqis anyway; but, increasing the number of mercenaries on the ground is a stark departure from a policy of withdrawal. If you polled people around the world they'd have no trouble identifying oil as being the reason of our presence there. Finally, you'll note in the Scahill interview by Moyers that military brass is evalutating the length of our stay in Iraq, in terms of decades.