I don't consider murder, ecocide, assassination, torture, rape of prisoners' children as an incentive for further cooperation, massive theft and fraud by power players, the purposeful destruction of rights, or the organized approach by the US government agencies to mess up or mess with people's minds as worthy of a relatively reasonable approach to rhetorical argument.

The argument about ad hominem attacks may no longer hold much water in a day when right-wing talk-station jockeys call whole ethnic groups and cultures out in the crudest of ways, when proponents of points of view show up wearing side-arms on their hips, etc. The days of civility have been killed.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones
but names will never hurt me.”

The argument about ad hominem attacks certainly doesn't hold water when discussing a nation whose representative dismissed the deaths of half a million children as the necessary cost of its foreign policy or the assistance lent to the deaths of millions of Iraqis and Iranians, or the purposeful assistance of the use of brutal suppression by agencies like SAVAK, or the hiring and utilization of a company with a dedicated approach to the wholesale murder of people from a different religious belief.

Do you want us to play pattycake with these folks?
“And throw it in the oven with baby and me”

Do you think that we should be nice and polite to those who purvey violence upon others willfully and extensively (or to the people who support them and otherwise condone that behavior)? Is it appropriate to be civil to those in civilian (or military) roles who use their power to poison the pool of our common air and water and who have perverted the polity to their own private gains?

Do you expect that the American people should sit idly by while the US government and its fusion centers label elected officials and those who vote for them as “terrorists”?

“Whether we're talking about dysfunctional abusive families or dysfunctional abusive cultures, social permits are never based (at least not for very long) exclusively on naked force (although force always underlies them).” [page 191, “Welcome to the Machine: a science, surveillance, and a culture of control”, Jansen and Draffan, Chelsea Green 2004.]

How much of the abuse do you think we should quietly and silently observe before we stand up and say “no more”?

Poppycock!!!!! Good for a laugh.


Come on you got your ass kicked a couple of times, so..........it was a while ago............get over it, your pathetic efforts to strike out do nothing for you.

I heard that Jim Jones was not wanting to send more troops. He thinks that they should beef up the diplomatic part of the mission with more civilians. Pure nation-building, which will probably be resented.

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.[/quote]
Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?
[/quote]

In a more just world, what the Pakistani and Afghan cops do about terrorism within their own country is not our call as Americans to make. In the real word, Afghan and Pakistani cops are more able than US troops to negotiate agreements with Pashtun tribal leaders. They can speak the language and better understand the culture.

I think infrastructure reconstruction (schools, hospitals, roads, power and water utilities etc.) can mitigate conditions that spawn terrorism. But 'one hand giving while the other takes away' makes no sense. "Heavy force" that inevitably takes civilian casualties just spawns more terrorism.
[/quote]
Certainly the best thing would be for the Pakistanis and Afghans to do the main job themselves, with no more than some marginal help from others. (BTW, sometimes we can use help ourselves. Certainly the Israelis and British have some useful insights about dealing with terrorists.) But if we literally look at the Afghan cops, well my understanding is that right now they hardly command much respect. That should be improved, of course, but in the meantime what is there? The Afghan military (and probably the best cops in the world would want them to clear out certain areas before they do anything so bold at to attempt to arrest Taliban and Al Qaeda figures. That certainly seems to be the case in Pakistan.) and foreign troops. I think that we would want the Afghans to build up their military as rapidly as possible so that they can deal with things with minimal if any assistance from foreign troops. But I think we ought to allow time for that to happen. I don't think that we can keep this kind of presence indefinitely, that is likely to result in blowback that would cancel out any gains, and more. But it looks like more than six months is needed.

Let's build up infrastructure there. But even you have spoken of protecting that process, and I see good reason for that. The Taliban seems focused on undermining anything the current government does, regardless of how humanitarian it might be. (And then there is their reactionary and often murderous opposition to educating girls.) Now I do think that the emphasis should be on protecting the people over getting the terrorists, precisely because the former is more likely to minimize the causes of terrorism than directly attacking terrorists. I would still do the latter, but sparingly, concentrating on truly high-level targets and avoiding killing innocents.
[/quote]

The meter has been running for nearly seven years!!!!

Obama has sent in 20,000 more troops "to finish the job" but then we hear leaks from the Pentagon that McChrystal may soon ask for 40,000 more troops. Military 'experts' estimate that it will take another decade to complete the mission. In the meantime, we desperately need the "peace dividend" of withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan to help get some semblance of control over deficit spending.

A lot of the public anger over health care reform is a realization that there probably isn't enough money to pay for it. The fear of economic collapse is stalling our political will to invest in domestic reforms. People go to town hall meetings to argue over places to put their deck chairs. The US public has been so brainwashed by the notion of "peace through strength" that only a few of us radicals can recognize the wisdom of "strength through peace."

"Cut and run" makes a lot more sense than "to much invested to quit."

The time for a course change in US foreign policy is YESTERDAY.
[/quote]


I heard that Jim Jones was not wanting to send more troops. He thinks that they should beef up the diplomatic part of the mission with more civilians. Pure nation-building, which will probably be resented.
[/quote]

"Beefing up the diplomatic part" makes for a better, "JOBS" program than sending troops you don't have...

He provided you with a clear response Mac2 -- the question is whether you want to offer him a direct response to the question he posed or if you want to avoid providing a definitive answer as is your MO.

Well, I think the simplest way to achieve your result is to demonstrate the lies...

You have your charge...prove it...

"Those who wish to retain power

do not seek to win arguments, but merely to prolong them...,

do not endeavor to win the argument or the day, but merely prolong it bycreating the illusion that you have a chance of winning the argument if you put forth better ideas, rhetoric or logic...., and

who understand that to characterize that which you have long-debated, -studied and -comprehended as being
eternally beyond any reasonable attempt by them or others to understand
and to finalize one's own clarity

is their method of winning the argument."

What lies? What charges? Be specific.

Try and keep up, tazilo.


No question was posed to me.

And what is your interest here?

Taliban Funding Comes Primarily from the U.S.
August 17th, 2009

Via: Global Post:

It is the open secret no one wants to talk about, the unwelcome truth that most prefer to hide. In Afghanistan, one of the richest sources of Taliban funding is the foreign assistance coming into the country.

Virtually every major project includes a healthy cut for the insurgents. Call it protection money, call it extortion, or, as the Taliban themselves prefer to term it, “spoils of war,” the fact remains that international donors, primarily the United States, are to a large extent financing their own enemy.

“Everyone knows this is going on,” said one U.S. Embassy official, speaking privately.

It is almost impossible to determine how much the insurgents are spending, making it difficult to pinpoint the sources of the funds.

Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, former Taliban minister to Pakistan, was perhaps more than a bit disingenuous when he told GlobalPost that the militants were operating mostly on air.

“The Taliban does not have many expenses,” he said, smiling slightly. “They are barefoot and hungry, with no roof over their heads and a stone for their pillow.” As for weapons, he just shrugged. “Afghanistan is full of guns,” he said. “We have enough guns for years.”

The reality is quite different, of course. The militants recruit local fighters by paying for their services. They move about in their traditional 4×4s, they have to feed their troops, pay for transportation and medical treatment for the wounded, and, of course, they have to buy rockets, grenades and their beloved Kalashnikovs.

Up until quite recently, most experts thought that drug money accounted for the bulk of Taliban funding. But even here opinion was divided on actual amounts. Some reports gauged the total annual income at about $100 million, while others placed the figure as high as $300 million — still a small fraction of the $4 billion poppy industry.

Now administration officials have launched a search for Taliban sponsors. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told a press conference in Islamabad last month that drugs accounted for less of a share of Taliban coffers than was previously thought.

“In the past there was a kind of feeling that the money all came from drugs in Afghanistan,” said Holbrooke, according to media reports. “That is simply not true.”

The new feeling is that less than half of the Taliban’s war chest comes from poppy, with a variety of sources, including private contributions from Persian Gulf states, accounting for much of the rest. Holbrooke told reporters that he would add a member of the Treasury Department to his staff to pursue the question of Taliban funding.

But perhaps U.S. officials need look no further than their own backyard.

Anecdotal evidence is mounting that the Taliban are taking a hefty portion of assistance money coming into Afghanistan from the outside.

This goes beyond mere protection money or extortion of “taxes” at the local level — very high-level negotiations take place between the Taliban and major contractors, according to sources close to the process.

A shadowy office in Kabul houses the Taliban contracts officer, who examines proposals and negotiates with organizational hierarchies for a percentage. He will not speak to, or even meet with, a journalist, but sources who have spoken with him and who have seen documents say that the process is quite professional.

The manager of an Afghan firm with lucrative construction contracts with the U.S. government builds in a minimum of 20 percent for the Taliban in his cost estimates. The manager, who will not speak openly, has told friends privately that he makes in the neighborhood of $1 million per month. Out of this, $200,000 is siphoned off for the insurgents.

If negotiations fall through, the project will come to harm — road workers may be attacked or killed, bridges may be blown up, engineers may be assassinated.

The degree of cooperation and coordination between the Taliban and aid workers is surprising, and would most likely make funders extremely uncomfortable.

One Afghan contractor, speaking privately, told friends of one project he was overseeing in the volatile south. The province cannot be mentioned, nor the particular project.

“I was building a bridge,” he said, one evening over drinks. “The local Taliban commander called and said ‘don’t build a bridge there, we’ll have to blow it up.’ I asked him to let me finish the bridge, collect the money — then they could blow it up whenever they wanted. We agreed, and I completed my project.”

In the south, no contract can be implemented without the Taliban taking a cut, sometimes at various steps along the way.

One contractor in the southern province of Helmand was negotiating with a local supplier for a large shipment of pipes. The pipes had to be brought in from Pakistan, so the supplier tacked on about 30 percent extra for the Taliban, to ensure that the pipes reached Lashkar Gah safely.

Once the pipes were given over to the contractor, he had to negotiate with the Taliban again to get the pipes out to the project site. This was added to the transportation costs.

“We assume that our people are paying off the Taliban,” said the foreign contractor in charge of the project.

In Farah province, local officials report that the Taliban are taking up to 40 percent of the money coming in for the National Solidarity Program, one of the country’s most successful community reconstruction projects, which has dispensed hundreds of millions of dollars throughout the country over the past six years.

Many Afghans see little wrong in the militants getting their fair share of foreign assistance.

“This is international money,” said one young Kabul resident. “They are not taking it from the people, they are taking it from their enemy.”

But in areas under Taliban control, the insurgents are extorting funds from the people as well.

In war-ravaged Helmand, where much of the province has been under Taliban control for the past two years, residents grumble about the tariffs.

“It’s a disaster,” said a 50-year-old resident of Marja district. “We have to give them two kilos of poppy paste per jerib during the harvest; then we have to give them ushr (an Islamic tax, amounting to one-tenth of the harvest) from our wheat. Then they insisted on zakat (an Islamic tithe). Now they have come up with something else: 12,000 Pakistani rupee (approximately $150) per household. And they won’t take even one rupee less.”

It all adds up, of course. But all things are relative: if the Taliban are able to raise and spend say $1 billion per year — the outside limit of what anyone has been able to predict — that accounts for what the United States is now spending on 10 days of the war to defeat them.

http://cryptogon.com/?p=10450

thucydides Says:
August 17th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Awesome.

It’s as if NATO forces dropped into Sicily, to drive out the Mafia crime families, and in order to actually get anything done once they got there, they need to … pay off the crime families!

*****


Who is Funding the Afghan Taliban?

You Don’t Want to Know

By Jean MacKenzie

August 16, 2009 "GlobalPost" --- KABUL — It is the open secret no one wants to talk about, the unwelcome truth that most prefer to hide. In Afghanistan, one of the richest sources of Taliban funding is the foreign assistance coming into the country.

Virtually every major project includes a healthy cut for the insurgents. Call it protection money, call it extortion, or, as the Taliban themselves prefer to term it, “spoils of war,” the fact remains that international donors, primarily the United States, are to a large extent financing their own enemy.

“Everyone knows this is going on,” said one U.S. Embassy official, speaking privately.

It is almost impossible to determine how much the insurgents are spending, making it difficult to pinpoint the sources of the funds.

Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, former Taliban minister to Pakistan, was perhaps more than a bit disingenuous when he told GlobalPost that the militants were operating mostly on air.

“The Taliban does not have many expenses,” he said, smiling slightly. “They are barefoot and hungry, with no roof over their heads and a stone for their pillow.” As for weapons, he just shrugged. “Afghanistan is full of guns,” he said. “We have enough guns for years.”

The reality is quite different, of course. The militants recruit local fighters by paying for their services. They move about in their traditional 4×4s, they have to feed their troops, pay for transportation and medical treatment for the wounded, and, of course, they have to buy rockets, grenades and their beloved Kalashnikovs.

Up until quite recently, most experts thought that drug money accounted for the bulk of Taliban funding. But even here opinion was divided on actual amounts. Some reports gauged the total annual income at about $100 million, while others placed the figure as high as $300 million — still a small fraction of the $4 billion poppy industry.

Now administration officials have launched a search for Taliban sponsors. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told a press conference in Islamabad last month that drugs accounted for less of a share of Taliban coffers than was previously thought.

“In the past there was a kind of feeling that the money all came from drugs in Afghanistan,” said Holbrooke, according to media reports. “That is simply not true.”

The new feeling is that less than half of the Taliban’s war chest comes from poppy, with a variety of sources, including private contributions from Persian Gulf states, accounting for much of the rest. Holbrooke told reporters that he would add a member of the Treasury Department to his staff to pursue the question of Taliban funding.

But perhaps U.S. officials need look no further than their own backyard.

Anecdotal evidence is mounting that the Taliban are taking a hefty portion of assistance money coming into Afghanistan from the outside.

This goes beyond mere protection money or extortion of “taxes” at the local level — very high-level negotiations take place between the Taliban and major contractors, according to sources close to the process.

A shadowy office in Kabul houses the Taliban contracts officer, who examines proposals and negotiates with organizational hierarchies for a percentage. He will not speak to, or even meet with, a journalist, but sources who have spoken with him and who have seen documents say that the process is quite professional.

The manager of an Afghan firm with lucrative construction contracts with the U.S. government builds in a minimum of 20 percent for the Taliban in his cost estimates. The manager, who will not speak openly, has told friends privately that he makes in the neighborhood of $1 million per month. Out of this, $200,000 is siphoned off for the insurgents.

If negotiations fall through, the project will come to harm — road workers may be attacked or killed, bridges may be blown up, engineers may be assassinated.

The degree of cooperation and coordination between the Taliban and aid workers is surprising, and would most likely make funders extremely uncomfortable.

One Afghan contractor, speaking privately, told friends of one project he was overseeing in the volatile south. The province cannot be mentioned, nor the particular project.

“I was building a bridge,” he said, one evening over drinks. “The local Taliban commander called and said ‘don’t build a bridge there, we’ll have to blow it up.’ I asked him to let me finish the bridge, collect the money — then they could blow it up whenever they wanted. We agreed, and I completed my project.”

In the south, no contract can be implemented without the Taliban taking a cut, sometimes at various steps along the way.

One contractor in the southern province of Helmand was negotiating with a local supplier for a large shipment of pipes. The pipes had to be brought in from Pakistan, so the supplier tacked on about 30 percent extra for the Taliban, to ensure that the pipes reached Lashkar Gah safely.

Once the pipes were given over to the contractor, he had to negotiate with the Taliban again to get the pipes out to the project site. This was added to the transportation costs.

“We assume that our people are paying off the Taliban,” said the foreign contractor in charge of the project.

In Farah province, local officials report that the Taliban are taking up to 40 percent of the money coming in for the National Solidarity Program, one of the country’s most successful community reconstruction projects, which has dispensed hundreds of millions of dollars throughout the country over the past six years.

Many Afghans see little wrong in the militants getting their fair share of foreign assistance.

“This is international money,” said one young Kabul resident. “They are not taking it from the people, they are taking it from their enemy.”

But in areas under Taliban control, the insurgents are extorting funds from the people as well.

In war-ravaged Helmand, where much of the province has been under Taliban control for the past two years, residents grumble about the tariffs.

“It’s a disaster,” said a 50-year-old resident of Marja district. “We have to give them two kilos of poppy paste per jerib during the harvest; then we have to give them ushr (an Islamic tax, amounting to one-tenth of the harvest) from our wheat. Then they insisted on zakat (an Islamic tithe). Now they have come up with something else: 12,000 Pakistani rupee (approximately $150) per household. And they won’t take even one rupee less.”

It all adds up, of course. But all things are relative: if the Taliban are able to raise and spend say $1 billion per year — the outside limit of what anyone has been able to predict — that accounts for what the United States is now spending on 10 days of the war to defeat them.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23276.htm

"Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again", said the Prez.

So he drank the Kool-Aid too. [Well, no, that's a misstatement; he's now the Purveyor-in-Chief of the Kool-Aid.]

Clearly he doesn't put any weight in the "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" paper, hasn't read this article*, or these two, or Peter Dale Scott's recent piece, or any of the eight books on the subject by David Ray Griffin, and certainly isn't aware of this finding by the GAO**, or this one***, or reflected on Daniel Sunjata's thoughts on intellectual dishonesty in an age of universal deceit.

It is an expression of the arrogance of power in an age of universal deceit.

-----

* "Retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul was the Director General of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) from 1987 to 1989, during which time he worked closely with the CIA to provide support for the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Though once deemed a close ally of the United States, in more recent years his name has been the subject of considerable controversy. He has been outspoken with the claim that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were an "inside job". He has been called "the most dangerous man in Pakistan", and the U.S. government has accused him of supporting the Taliban, even recommending him to the United Nations Security Council for inclusion on the list of international terrorists."

** "In the past year, investigators successfully smuggled bomb-making materials into ten high-security federal buildings, constructed bombs and walked around the buildings undetected, exposing weaknesses in security provided by the Federal Protective Service."

*** 29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11; More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation.

Ah, back to the ad hominem attacks because of your inability to post a substantive response...

Here is one question posed to you....which you failed to answer...

And here is the explanation...



Now answer it if you can...if you dare...

And when you fail to answer Mac2 -- we all will see and understand...

This is distribing...not the first time it has happened, but it is still disturbing.

And Mac2 -- its tazvilo....

Were you reading the complete post or just my responses

Here is the language I was responding to from IStoodForU

Actually, Magmak1 was the source of the language in the post quoted below:

[size="3"][/size]

I heartily agree with Mag's point here. Quite a number of links have been posted on this and other threads that identify spin, disinformation, and propaganda leading US foreign policy into the military intervention in Afghanistan. After almost seven years, this intervention continues to be a stalemated counter-insurgency effort.

Insanity could be defined as repeating the same strategy over and over again, expecting a different result.

Not to mention the funding comming from our Saudi allies who support the Taliban. No one wants to talk about that either since that would offend our supply of oil. That is why the war is not winable.

Do I understand, Taz, that you want a recounting of the lies, faulty logic and propaganda?

Is it logical that "Obama" (US policy as expressed by him) is in Afghanistan and its environs because Bush made a case to take us there? Does his policy not stand on the shoulders of the Bush decision and doctrine of pre-emptive warfare? Are you endorsing and subscribing to pre-emptive warfare?

Hasn't Obama re-stated Bush's casus belli recently when he said "Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again"?

Do you not know (how can you not know?) that I have been very vocal about my disbelief of "the official story"?

Did you see post #110?

What am I not understanding here?

Or what are you pretending not to know?

If the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is the prevailing principle, what is to prevent me (and a gang of thugs and criminals I recruited) from coming over to your home and office next Tuesday night and taking your paycheck, bank account, cars, jewelry. food, goods of value, wife and children (after water-boarding them) because I am convinced that you are making improvised explosive devices in your basement that you are going to mail to me next month? [I am quite sure of it because i have proof that you've been reading my posts recently....]

See my thread, Out of Afganistan, Too...

Thats all you got, .................................its weak.............very weak. No surprise.

Have you read Ghost Wars?

I would commend it to you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ToYxFL5wm...;q=&f=false

I see you conveniently ignored post no. 111....LOL

I think that the Prez is right. I think he would know if it were different. And quite frankly I see no reason to believe that he is lying about this basic point.

Now does this mean that we should run around like chickens with our heads cut off and endorse just anything sold as a response? No. But I do think we have to deal with what is going on in that part of the world. Maybe Bush did it wrong, and maybe Obama is doing it wrong now. But I do think we need a serious, even lengthy, discussion about that and how it might be done better. Frankly I don't care who wins the argument (I don't think this is a game to win) or whose ass gets kicked. And I certainly don't think it is time to pay honor to the same old same old bromides.

I would like to thank those who have been trying to discuss this stuff seriously, if contentiously.

The assertion is a partial truth at best and was used to justify our past and present actions--not
enlighten the US public...

i AM sure Obama knows the Bushies are always plotting

therefore statement is true just not referring to who you may think it was

No question was posed to me, you are badly misinformed and your responses are moronic.

Having just read the "prologue." I'm puzzled as to what I might learn from this book that would lead to me to see more justification ar optimism for the current military intervention in Afghanistan.

The discussion needs to be framed in such a way as to include a serious and careful consideration of a withdrawal.

A serious discussion of "doing it better" needs to account for the "opportunity costs." In other words, what opportunities are foreclosed by trying to do it better----health care reform, balances budgets, reduced trade deficits, mitigation of global warming, developing more renewable energy, building a more sustainable prosperity here at home.

Well "doing it better" might very well turn out to involve withdrawing the troops, sooner rather than later. Or perhaps not, the answer does not seem so obvious to me, which is why I think the discussion is needed. And indeed we need to discuss the costs as well as benefits of any course.

You certainly don't seem to be increasing our degree of enlightenment here. Does that come later perhaps?

Who was responsible for the attack on 9/11?

I don't wish to make this a 9/11 thread.

But the answer provided the premise for the foreign policy, the deaths, the expense, the PTSD, the suicides, and the debate. So it seems we must be clear and specific, and not duplicitous or in support of what has been proven, even if only on the surface thus far, to have been a pack of lies.

We continue to be in Afghanistan on the shoulders of those lies.

We cannot leave Afghanistan or Iraq because to do so might imply or admit that the American people were grossly misled.

So those who continue to promote our presence in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere might be this:

"What are you pretending not to know?"

I'm one of them un-enlightened publics...

So do you think that we should foreswear contributing anything to enlightenment ourselves, and wait for the politicians to enlighten us? Well, the wait may not be all that short...

There is plenty of documented duplicity involving bogus threats of terrorism without having to draw 9/11 "false flag" theories into the debate.

Just today:

Tom Ridge to blow a whistle

Yes, of course, ISFU, and there is no doubt other fodder for the debate beyond contentiousness about deep politics. Also in recent news is the contractual and secret arrangement between the CIA and Blackwater, all neatly beyond any public awareness, scrutiny or oversight. We should not be surprised, though, as the "long train of abuses and usurpations" is available for inspection if one is willing to examine it and see it for what it is.

Yes, but that still leaves the issue of how much of a threat remains in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to us and the rest of the world, and the best way to deal with it. And there are more than two ways of looking at it, say Bush's way vs. the reject Bush way. I for one am not pretending not to know that.

Yes, Blackwater is in the thick of WIGO now in Afghanistan:

Blackwater arming US drones for CIA: NYT

Various estimates put 10 or more civilians killed for every combatant killed by predator drones.

"Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again", said the Prez. [/b][/quote]
I think that the Prez is right. I think he would know if it were different. And quite frankly I see no reason to believe that he is lying about this basic point.

Now does this mean that we should run around like chickens with our heads cut off and endorse just anything sold as a response? No. But I do think we have to deal with what is going on in that part of the world. Maybe Bush did it wrong, and maybe Obama is doing it wrong now. But I do think we need a serious, even lengthy, discussion about that and how it might be done better. Frankly I don't care who wins the argument (I don't think this is a game to win) or whose ass gets kicked. And I certainly don't think it is time to pay honor to the same old same old bromides.

I would like to thank those who have been trying to discuss this stuff seriously, if contentiously.
[/quote]

The assertion is a partial truth at best and was used to justify our past and present actions--not
enlighten the US public...
[/quote]
You certainly don't seem to be increasing our degree of enlightenment here. Does that come later perhaps?
[/quote]

I'm one of them un-enlightened publics...
[/quote]
So do you think that we should foreswear contributing anything to enlightenment ourselves, and wait for the politicians to enlighten us? Well, the wait may not be all that short...
[/quote]

I'm all ears...

Yes, but I think it has been your knee-jerk response to exaggerate that threat. For 7 years the Bush administration has been beating war drums with this message, the MSM has hardly ever given this message a critical evaluation, and the Obama administration is continuing with the war drums without missing a beat.

The threat of terrorism is widely distributed throughout the globe. Making the rubble bounce and killing civilians in Afghanistan helps to recruit more young Islamic militants from all over the world seeking revenge, We need a foreign policy that really protects Americans without perpetuating cycles of violence.

Beware the, "but" in yes, but...

I think you are absolutely right. We do need a complete discussion of policy and every option has to be on the table...

But the policy has to be driven by facts and not conjecture and not conspiracy theories.

I think our policy is changing there...I have repeatedly pointed out positive occurrences there that are a direct result of Obama's policy and pressure and support of Pakistan.

Exactly my point.

You can suggest that our policy is based on lies...but produce evidence of that...

Just because domestic terror alerts by the Bush Administration were tied more to a political calendar than a realistic threat assessment...is nothing knew with the Bush Administration...

We are all quite aware at this point that 9/11 was an excuse to implement a regime change effort in Iraq.

So, we know the Bush Adminsitration was not the most honest information broker.

But where is the evidence that al Q aeda is not longer a threat in Af/Pak to the US and our allies.

They still issue warnings to the US and our allies.

They still appear to be engaged in activity.

They are still supported by the Taliban and support the Taliban financially who are enemies to the democratically elected governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There is still a risk that if we leave the region that Pakistan and Afghanistan could destabilize and reconsitute the original threat to the US that sent us there in the first place.

I want a recounting of what "lies" you and/or IStoodForU are referencing regarding our policy in Afghanistan and which in particular you think Obama continues to propagate -- and evidence that these are indeed lies...and not merely conjecture...



The American people were and are in complete agreement that Afghanistan is where the war on terror needs to be fought for several reasons which I have repeatedly outlined.

-An unstable Pakistan which has nuclear weapons is a threat to the region, the US and its allies.
-An unstable Afghanistan poses the same threat and could lead to or foment instability in Pakistan.
-Al Qaeda is still alive and well there.
-The Taliban is working to destroy the democratic elected governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
-Our evacuation from the region would create a humanitarian crisis.



What evidence do you have that they are not? That Obama is lying.

Our intelligence has consistently suggested that reality and our intelligence has rejected Bush's position on issues...so I tend to trust our intelligence in this regard.

You tend to distrust it - but I see little reason why I should agree with your dismissal of such intelligence.



I know what you believe I just do not understand on what credible evidence it is based.



Where is the doctine of preemptive warfare being implemented by Obama?

Certainly not in Afghanistan. We were attacked by al Qaeda who was supported and given shelter by the Taliban. We asked the Taliban to give up Bin Laden to us and they refused continuing to give him aid and comfort. This is why we went into Afghanistan -- because al Qaeda if you have been reading my posts engaged in the largest attack against the US on our soil in our national history.

Remember the doctrine of premptive warfare was used to get us into Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Our efforts in Afghanistan were and continue to be retaliatory...and a direct consequence of our attack on 9/11.

I understand completely that you do not agree -- I guess I am waiting for you to offer proof that your beliefs are more than just conjecture...but that they are indeed based upon hard evidence.

I want to be persuaded to your beliefs...but I see little concrete support for your point of view.

AND I see you attacking Obama for supposedly an inconsistent policy when he is doing nothing of the kind and his actions in Afghanistan are consistent with what he has been saying at least back to 2007.

And Magmak1 -- in this post I made more than just a comment on the lies...

I also think we need to discuss Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye on just what we are doing over there and be wary of "mission creep". I've made my initial position clear that I believe Afghanistan was justified and that Iraq was not.

Still, I hate war and even justified, war is organized mass murder. I use the term "murder" not to be hyperbolic but to remind myself at least that many innocent people on both sides in any conflict no matter the justification are just that - "murdered". To call them "collateral damage" or victims of "friendly fire" or victims of "terror tactics" is an attempt to mollify what remains of our conscience that we allowed such mayhem to be organized on our part or anyone's part.

I am no warrior and perhaps if I were I'd see things differently. But I remember seeing that Lt. Colonel on "60 Minutes" last Sunday talking about our use of "Un-manned Drones" to hunt the Taliban and Al-Queada in the mountains. How he kisses his wife and children in the morning and drives to work where he sits thousands of miles away from the battlefield and pilots the drone through our marvelous technology and as in a video game blows people (presumably the enemy) away from far above in the clouds.

I remembered something as I listened to him talk about how he'd never go back to flying a Jet himself if he has his druthers. It was in the movie "The Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen" that the good Baron was being given a tour by the God Vulcan (Blacksmith of the Gods) when they came upon a nuclear missile being built on "order" for some future time. Vulcan described the operation of the missile to the Baron's questioning look. Vulcan said something to the effect "Well my good Baron, with this weapon one can destroy one's enemy and all he has just by pushing a button while sitting safely thousands of miles away." The Baron was incredulous and scoffed. "No self-respecting warrior would use such a coward's weapon." Vulcan smiled and said. "Oh! You'd be surprised my good Baron. You'd be surprised."

I have no right to criticize since I did not serve. And if doing such saves the lives of our troops then my position may be further discredited. And in this case (with the drones) we are not talking about nukes. Yet still I felt uneasy as I listened to this no doubt brave warrior sing the praises of the remote controlled weapon he was piloting. It certainly allowed him to return to his family each night and that is good. And those who attacked us attacked innocent civilians on planes and at work in buildings. And finally there is no greater"cowardice" than to sit in a cave thousands of miles away and send others to their deaths killing those innocents.

But... As I watched the warriors on the ground (Taliban? - Al Queada?) being blown to smithereens at the push of a remote button I could not, no matter how hard I tried, not... feel just a bit... ashamed.

Perhaps just some naive thoughts.

Exaggerated threats, and the creation of pseudo-events to make it appear as though those threats are real, and the hidden hand-in-glove back-channeled manipulation of events to force foreign policy and provide growth hormone to the military-industrial complex have been with us for decades, certainly since the late 50's, probably going back to around the time that Truman created the national security apparatus in '47 that has generated so much badness. I think of the "missile gap", a game which continues extended into today; they might... we should... because we did, they have... so we must respond aggressively. There are many other examples. We have scores and scores of wanna-be napoleons. The rapacious expansion of American force-of-arms, economic warfare, the degradation of culture, and the obvious actions to assassinate and overturn leadership in place in foreign lands has only made us enemies who will do what is necessary to protect or revenge themselves. The threat that emanates from Islam is what we created, As Zbig said, "What is better? A few stirred-up Muslims or the end of the Cold War?" Well, the Cold War goes way way back, and much of that was also exacerbated by the actions of our own intelligence agencies. Recently it has been profeered that the U-2 shotdown of Powers was set-up so as to disable Ike's attempts at defusing the nuclear tension. ISFU said it very well when he said "We need a foreign policy that really protects Americans without perpetuating cycles of violence."

Arundhati Roy offers up these snippets:

“The mullahs of the Islamic world and the mullahs of the Hindu world and the mullahs of the Christian world are all on the same side. And we are against them all.”

“Do you think that the people of South Africa, or anywhere on the continent of Africa, or India, or Pakistan [or South America, or Central America, or East Asia] are longing to be kicked around all over again?”

"“Why not have your nuclear bombs in your briefcase? All of these policies that America upholds, nuclear weapons, privatization, all of these things are going to mutate and metamorphosis into these dangerous things.”

The discussion about the reasons and the lies has been ongoing in the American polity and on this web site for years. If you wish to continue to believe, I cannot change your mind. To suggest that Obama's policy is not based on pre-emptive warfare when you have stated that very doctrine in your response (the threat of an unstable country with nuclear weapons) is laughable. Why not then just nuke the entire region and be done with it?

Whole books are being written on the psychopathology and hypocrisy of power.

Don't forget to wipe the spittle off the chin of the American visage after you are done playing your games with the world.

As RoboCop said to his partner (while tightening a loose bolt in his head) in response to her justified outrage watching the evil CEO ride off in his Limo scott free. "Have patience Helen... We're only human..."

Likewise, conjecture, innuendo, conspiracy theories, and unsupported statements and accusations have been levelled.

I have witnessed such statement with regard to Iraq and I have agreed with them...

But I am one of the top posters on this site and I have NEVER seen a credible argument against our being in Afghanistan based on lies and misrepresentations...so I do not think it is too much to demand some description or link to a description to support your point of view...

I have laid out my point of view clearly and repeatedly and you have provided absolutely nothing to counter that position...other than you conjecture...

I do not see what we are doing as playing games...

We are influencing policy consistent with our domestic and foreign policy and our national security interests.

You just have a problem with those policies...and as I have suggested before...you balk at Obama accusing him of being inconsistent but you cannot show anywhere where his policy approach in Afghanistan is any different from what he articulated as far back as 2007.

I have repeatedly agreed that our errant bombing has to stop and that it has had some of the impact that you have suggested...

But over and over and over again you refused to acknowledge the vast differences between our presence in Afghanistan and that of others...

We are there on the side of the Afghan government and the Afghani people. Russia and others were not there for that purpose...

There are bad people in this world that seek to do us harm...you do not seem to want to acknowledge this...the reality that if we were to leave the Afghan army would likely be unable to secure any area beyond the city limits of Kabul which would result in the Taliban and al Q aeda returning and plotting against us free and unmolested.

America's Top 50 War Criminals
http://pubrecord.org/commentary/3717/fifty...als-prosecuted/