A collective “huh?!?” could practically be heard around the world last Friday when President Barack Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
Even the president himself was taken aback, given the fact he has nothing concrete to show for it during his nine months in office.
“To be honest,” he said, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”
Finally, something everyone can agree on.
Obama is only the third sitting president to receive the prize. Theodore Roosevelt, the 1906 recipient, won for his role in ending the Russo-Japanese war. Woodrow Wilson won in 1919 for founding the League of Nations and helping frame the post-World War I peace. Jimmy Carter, who won the prize more than two decades after his term in office, brokered the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt.
But only citing our current president’s ever-enduring promises and the “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee made a tough case to the world when they lumped Obama in with the likes of those former presidents and other award laureates like Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Elie Wiesel.
It seems more like a prize for a promise. Not much else.
But the implications for its influence on his administration’s approach to foreign policy in the months and years to come cannot be ignored. Will it mean more diplomacy or less? More military action or less? A tough president or a soft one?
From Afghanistan to Iran and the Middle East, everyone can also agree that peace is far from a reality in many regions of the world. And answers to the questions above are on the minds of most Americans right now.
What will this standard put in place by the prestigious prize mean for an administration involved in two wars and other unstable foreign relations worldwide?
The president says it is a “call to action.” Let’s hope so.
Because, as the committee stated, it will take nothing less than some “extraordinary efforts” — popular or not on the world stage — for this year’s winner of the Nobel Peace Prize to forge ahead in making progress for peace in many parts of the world.
Whether Obama can live up to the prize he may prematurely have been awarded, only time will tell.
Actions always speak louder than words.
Ashley Knecht Walker
Editor
rcakmon (anonymous) says...
How dare a group of Norwegians decide to award a prize to whoever they like with their own endowed funds? Why didn't they consult with the people who might disagree? Funny, but so true!
Time will tell indeed. I feel like they were sending a message that they are glad our country now has a leader that doesn't follow a "shoot first, talk later" mentality. Diplomacy trumps war.
October 15, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
How dare people have opinions that are contrary to the Norwegians!
October 15, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
It would seem that a lot of the people who are against anyone who advocates " PEACE " are those who are making a lot of money and getting wealthy or wealthier off of the making of war and the killing and dieing that war brings and most of them are those who sell arms and make the war machines that cause death and dieing !
Yes, there are those in the world that have basically a tribal mentality, who will always war amongst themselves and their tribal neighbors, but these types of peoples have been waging war against one another for thousands of years and I don' t think that they will ever learn nor want to live a different way of life that they have lived or are now living !
Can anyone name one country in the middle east or Africa that is waring amongst themselves or their neighbors that do not live by a tribal mentality and way of thinking and living ?
Even the rest of the world basically lives by a tribal rule or mentality also, even the U.S. ! I say this, because when people consider themselves either Democrat or Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Independent or Libertarian, etc. and try to get people to agree with their point of view or join their particular party and way of thinking and living and fight/war amongst themselves and others and try to get their people elected to high government offices, this is nothing more than tribal mentality.
October 15, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
When there is no more divorce, I will believe that peace on Earth is possible. If two people can't get along, how can billions?
R.
October 15, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/...
October 15, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
There is a time for war..... and a time for peace. After we were attacked on 9/11 it was not the time to sit back and "make nice" with those sheltering Bin Laden. Actually, we did to an extent make nice (well we certainly didn't go after them very hard) under the previous administration..... and look what that brought. Not to mention basically handing North Korea nukes.
So I hope that everything works out, we all wing kumbaya, and a year and further from now people can look back and say this award was deserved. Fingers crossed!!!!! ;-)
October 15, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I meant "sing" kumbaya..... ;-)
October 15, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I don't know that one I usually just "wing" it anyway.;-)
R.
October 15, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
This is my take on the current state of flux. A shadow government is reinventing the Nation-State. At the national level, there are 4 areas that have been particulary fertile ground for reinventors: redefining the concept of national soverignty, reinterpreting national constitutions, redefining the role of the armed forces in society and re-educating the people to accept these radical changes.
October 15, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
food4thought (anonymous) says...
Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke.. and all it has done is make winning it not such a big deal. I feel sorry for the people who actually deserved it and didn't get a chance.
October 15, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
nobama being given that award cheapened the award, cast doubt on the process and those that gave it to him. He has done nothing to earn his paycheck, let alone an award. 2010 can't come soon enough so we can dump the leadership in congress, thenin 2012 we can get rid of the liar in the whitehouse.
October 15, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Said it before, will say it again:
An American won this award, he also was awarded 1.4 million in prize money which he donated to charity.
And for that he gets:
"nobama being given that award cheapened the award, cast doubt on the process and those that gave it to him. He has done nothing to earn his paycheck, let alone an award. 2010 can't come soon enough so we can dump the leadership in congress, thenin 2012 we can get rid of the liar in the whitehouse."
Your a piece of work dale011, don't let anyone tell you otherwise
October 15, 2009 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
" Actually, we did to an extent make nice (well we certainly didn't go after them very hard) under the previous administration..... and look what that brought. Not to mention basically handing North Korea nukes."
Are you implying Clinton was at fault for 9/11? Are you also implying that North Korea did not make forward progress on their nuclear program during the Bush administration? It sure sounds like it.
October 15, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
What I am implying, goodoleboy, is that we were attacked and declared war upon during Clinton's administration, and did very little about it. I'm not blaming Clinton for 9/11 - there are alot of factors that all had a hand in it. Just trying to make a point that, as I said, there is a time for war, and a time for peace. True peace these days is often misconstrued to be just looking the other way while those who aim to go to war with you simply arm themselves better and continue on with their plans. That is not true peace.
Nor did I ever imply that they did not make forward progress on their nuclear program during the Bush administration. However, they did not start from scratch as soon as Bush took office and have nukes a few years later. (Everyone likes to point out the faulty intelligence about Iraq - well, Clinton's military chief of staff testified in 1998 that North Korea did not have an active ballistic missile program. One week later the North Koreans launched a missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast). Anyway, instead of taking the hard line, we sent Carter over and came back with a piece of paper that was worthless, saying Kim Jong had agreed to stop his nuclear development. With virtually Zero verification in the agreement. So we gave him hundreds of millions of $$ in food, oil, and even a nuclear reactor. (Sounds like they should have been Nobel Peace Prize candidates, right?) In return, he starved (by even the lowest estimates) at least 1 million of his people and forged ahead with his nuclear bomb program.
So in other words......taking a hard line is usually unpopular.... but sometimes its the right thing to do. So sometimes those who really do the most to keep and ensure peace overall aren't the ones ever considered for Nobel Peace Prizes. These days I really have no clue as to what it takes to win a Nobel Peace Prize. It's not Obama's fault, its the politicalization of the prize that has been going on for many years. This is just the latest example. Obama is not to blame here. If they're going to politicize it they just as well give it to an American and he's going to give the money to charity, good. As I said, maybe at least it will be something to try to live up to now. But that may not be the prudent and correct thing to do in some cases........ nor the one that saves the most lives and brings peace to the majority in the end....
October 15, 2009 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Point taken, but the second worst terriost attack took place right down the road in Oklahoma, yet it took 9/11 to wake us up to the fact that there are factions foriegn and domestic that seek to commit violent acts to futhur their own agenda. It sounded as if you were partisian about it at first. Thank you for explaining. There have been a great deal of mishaps and both parties have dropped the ball, and sadly I predict it will happen again, and again until we learn to secure our ports and borders.
October 15, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I agree. One of the things I did not approve of Bush's handling security-wise was our borders & ports. Basically it seems very few on either side of the aisle appear to want to do that....... unfortunately......
October 15, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
That's because they don't want to do anything to inhibit trade and the pursuit of that......well you know what kind of dollar it is.
October 15, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pizza (anonymous) says...
I was a little surprised to see anyone from the Gazette even question The One. Was a breath of fresh air.
The award does nothing but cheapen its value for all the good people who have worked a lifetime to earn it. Obama did nothing to earn it and certainly does not deserve it. Wonder what charity he gave the money to....Acorn?
October 15, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I don't believe dale011 is an American. Real Americans at least have enough respect for the office itself to refer to the President by name, or "The President". Instead we get name calling, and BS. Un-American!
I've said it once and I've said it again. You must be awfully uncomfortable living in a country whose leader you despise so much. Tough!
October 15, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yeah, I sure wish all those people that claimed they would move out of the country if Bush won in 2004 had actually moved. Sure would have helped the housing crisis. All those mansions in Hollywood, sitting empty....... I coulda had me some really nice digs cheap! LOL
October 15, 2009 at 7:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"The award does nothing but cheapen its value for all the good people who have worked a lifetime to earn it. Obama did nothing to earn it and certainly does not deserve it. Wonder what charity he gave the money to....Acorn?"
Nope done nothing, nothing at all. By those same standards what would you deserve considering your accomplishments?
Another dandy.......
October 15, 2009 at 7:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Wow Observation! For once I agree, more cash4clunkers!
October 15, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
create
It is a shame that people like YY4U and dale011 have no respect for the office of president as we have seen from their posts on this thread.
R.
October 15, 2009 at 9:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Do they allow homosexuals in the alliance? Anyone referring to another man as intelligent, articulate, good looking and pays careful attention to his swagger when carrying himself, well.... I just hope your a she=)
October 15, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
He was in office 12 days when they put his nomination in for the award.
October 15, 2009 at 11:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Token award for a token politician.
October 16, 2009 at 1:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
dale011....you should change your username to dalethezero.....it would fit better. If for no other reason.....the office of President of the United States should be given some respect. And before I have to wade through dozens of links about things that were said about G.W. Bush....let me say I realize that. And they were just as disrespectful of the office then as they are now.
But for many of you who talk so proudly about your religion...I was always taught in Sunday School that two wrongs don't make a right.
October 16, 2009 at 6:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I was explaining the religious training I had received as a boy.....about getting even....Not making negative statements about all religious people.
October 16, 2009 at 7:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
People you have all of these handouts known by different names such as " Cash for Clunkers, tarps, bailouts, etc., which all sounds just fine and dandy on paper and fiction writing and sounds good to those who benefit from such a program. Such as the Auto Makers and the Auto Dealers. But has anyone ever stopped to think about exactly what started the economic quagmire the U.S. is presently stuck in ?
I may be wrong but wasn' t it the enticement offered by Banks, Mortgage Banks, Investment Banks of being able to buy a house or property with no money down and no or low interest loans, which caused people who could not afford the house or property in the first place to buy beyond their means to pay for what they bought ?
And now it is starting all over again, only with the Auto Industry/Government program of " Cash for Clunkers " ! Just how many people do you suppose bought a vehicle they couldn' t afford in the first place, with the promise of getting something for nothing or less than expected, when they couldn' t afford it in the first place !
Do people not realize that when the promise of something for nothing or next to nothing is made, that the something you get for next to nothing is going to cost you or someone in the long run ? Such is the case with any kind of government sponsered/backed handout, bailout, tarp, " Cash for Clunker ", etc., it will eventually end up costing us all in the end !
I was taught to never buy or live beyond or above your ability to pay !
October 16, 2009 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Let's not forget what the cash for clunkers program did for the steak knife industry.
R.
October 16, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Now, having got that off my chest !
As for President Obama receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace,
there are a lot of people who hate Obama for the color of his skin and his political party " affiliation " and nothing more than that !
We all gave others a chance to improve this county and some were successful and some did not do so well. So why is it that this particular man does not deserve the same chance to either improve the country and lives of its citizens.
As I have said before, " racism and hatred " is still alive and flourishing in this country, maybe even more so now than ever ! And what is really sad is the fact that, even, some of our most prominent and influential citizens are as guilty of " racism and hatred " as anyone !
Above all the hatred and dislike that one political party has for another political party, the hatred within the political partys themselves, along with the corruption within political partys is what makes it impossible for government to function in the best intrests of the citizens of that country and improve the quality of life for its citizens, no matter where or who that country is !
October 16, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Methusla
He was voted in. HE IS GETTING HIS CHANCE!! The question at hand is whether or not he should be awarded for what may come out of his chance. If not being 100% for him is automatically racism and hate, is being for him and giving him awards prematurely not motivated by the opposite? Did they just give the award to him because of his race and political party? Some can and do argue that. Please can we drop the whole if you disagree with him you are automatically racist stuff? If you have to guilt people into agreeing with him by making them think it's racist to disagree then his message and his ideas aren't that good. Let the man stand by his principles and ideas. I think he is going to accomplish a lot of what he is setting out to do and will probably deserve(by the Nobel peoples standard) the award he has already received but I don't have to agree with all those accomplishments and that doesn't make me or anyone else that disagrees with his policies racist.
R.
October 16, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Let's see here
Cash for clunkers,tarp,probably national health care and we're all pointing a finger at one party or another.
It doesn't make any difference in the head guy in charge was the former white president or the one now.
It doesn't make any difference what color they are in the house or the senate.
It doesn't make any difference which party they are from.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
I would just like to know how the hell are grandkids are supposed to pay for all of this. As far as I'm concerned the gov. doesn't have any business butting into private business, whether it's local (smoking ban) or nation wide (Chrysler).
The people who own them should make the decisions that sink or swim with the business.
Methusla
Here we go again with the racist crap.
I guess I don't know what color I am because right now I don't know if there are 10% of the people in office I would agree with. So I guess you would have to just color me neutral.
I've always been told the people who yell the loudest ought to look in the mirror, they might just be the pot calling the kettle pink. Yes I know the way it's supposed to go but I really don't want to be called a racist more than once a day.
October 16, 2009 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I never singled out anyone by name or otherwise as being racist or a hater !
And exactly what determines whether you, me or anyone is or is not getting a " fair shake " ?
Why doesn' t anyone get as upset about all the coruption, shady dealings going on in our government as they do about who won an election, who is POTUS or who or why someone was awarded a Nobel Prize ?
Oh to hell with it ! I am done posting on these forums !
October 16, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Meth I know you never singled anyone out but the theme right now is usually if we don't agree with the pres then we are racist. It's a common blanket statement here and in the national press.
I agree with you on the coruption, but that just digresses into the same name calling and finger pointing.
Like I said 10% maybe.
October 16, 2009 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
One last post, I have survived fairly long, and thru several bad times and I will try to continue to survive, I might add, without the help of anyone ! Again, I singled out noone as being a racist or hater by name, etc. ! If you believe that I did, you need to reread my post. Thank you very much !
October 16, 2009 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Who says no one gets upset about the corruption in government. I voted for a third party candidate that I knew had no chance in winning because I am fed up with the crap from both sides. I am smart enough to realize that if I see some(a lot) corruption in my (former) party (Republican) that doesn't mean there isn't just as much in the other party. This is how people think though, they think if they point out all the flaws with the other party that somehow makes their party better but it only makes it better by comparison and that is usually only the case if you don't look to closely at their party. Gee I hate politics!
R.
I am done posting on these forums for the last time until the next time again!!! ................................... ever!
October 16, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
methusla
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn-enj...
October 16, 2009 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Meth I said you never singled anyone out.
I reread your post. Quote "there are a lot of people who hate Obama for the color of his skin and his party "affiliation" and nothing more than that.
Another "And what is really sad is the fact that "even' some of our most prominent and influential citizens are as guilty of "racism" as anyone.
No you never pointed out anyone specifically but you painted a picture with a pretty large brush stroke.
October 16, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
We go from one party to the next..... and nothing ever really changes. And I doubt it ever will, because anyone that would truly change things will be so hammered by the press, political parties, lobbyists, etc..... they'll never survive it. What we need is a total house cleaning. Doensn't matter if they're Repub or Democrat, or whether they claim themselves as Independent just to avoid the label. Next election.... take a hard look at all the candidates.....not just the slick/smooth talkers. I'd love it if about 95% of the Senate/House all lose their re-election bids. Not that I think they all might not be deserving of re-election.... but just to send the message broadly to our government in general. Listen to the people..... or you're out.
October 16, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
observation......I did not start posting on here until late June of last year.....(I know to some of you it must seem much longer ago than that)......and when I started most of my initial postings were about the smoking ban. So I have only been posting here for about a year about national politics. That's not to say that I never said anything disrespectful about him.....and especially Cheney......during that time. My political persuasion...(though not always other things :-)....) became clear to you and others quite quickly. But I'm not claiming to be right or perfect here. But just because I was wrong....doesn't make it any more right for others to disrespect the office now......at least that's how I remember my Sunday School lessons
October 16, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Question is. say, let's suppose Obama is not re-elected, and a Republican is next time:
Will everyone suddenly come (back) down with a case of amnesia again?
Probably
;-)
October 16, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open-eyes....I agree totally with your last post...how's that for a surprise.
I did not vote for G.W. Bush either time he ran....and I was outspoken in my opposition to him....does that make me a racist. I would like to hear your reasons either way.
October 16, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open-eyes,,,,make that your last two post.....god I hope you don't post again before I get this up.
October 16, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
LOL biscuitboy.
No, it didn't make you a racist, or disrespectful, as long as you weren't carrying signs that said Bush is a Nazi, Assassinate Bush, etc..... nor posting similar things. There's a difference between some sarcastic humor such as The Chosen One or Messiah and Hitler/Satan. Both are sarcastic, one is making humor of how many seem to perceive one, the other is just downright disrespectful. Calling someone a socialist/follower of Marxism, or a warhawk, or a pawn of the rich fatcats is referring to policies. Disrespect is rude namecalling such as NoBama, That Jacka$$, Hitler, etc.......
I think there's a line (sometimes very fine) between outspoken opposition, and downright disrespect. SOME tea party members cross it. SOME (actually, I think Many) war protestors crossed it. SOME posters here (from both sides) cross it. SOME people cross it regularly but complain any time the other side does.
And some people just don't care - LOL
October 16, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes....that's three in a row.....I hope this doesn't continue or this will become much less interesting.
observation......I thank you for your steak knife offer.....unfortunately, with my advancing age......and the economy being as it is.....I may be driving the last new vehicle I ever own. I hope I'm wrong about that...:-)
Seriously though...I was at times outspokenly critical of Bush the younger and his policies....I do not however believe I ever sunk to the level of disrespect that open_eyes described in his last post. If I did I would be ashamed of myself for it.
October 16, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
everyone is self justifying
October 16, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I think Al Quada had something to do with getting us into one of those wars. The other .............. well Sadam Hussein was found guilty and executed for something so apparently there was some justification for taking him out. The someone that is soley blamed(by some) as being responsible for the current economy tried to regulate the housing fiasco but was blocked for partisan reasons. One man was not responsible for everything for the last eight years but you can't convince (some) liberals of that.
R.
October 16, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm just curious..... Al Qaeda declared war on us first, back int he 90's. Who should we blame for that?
October 16, 2009 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Yes seriously.....but what
Saddam was found guilty and executed for was not what we were told we going to war for and that's the rub in my eyes. And I have serious doubts the American people would have committed the lives of our service men and women to a war for those reasons.
I was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning but I didn't become angry about it until it started to become very clear that the reasons we were given were deceptive at best.
October 16, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I will admit that the Iraq war has produced more positive results than I originally thought it would...but it as of now has come nowhere near close to the claims of the last administration at the wars inception....and have come at a much higher cost. In addition we are now having to play catch up in the war I did support from the beginning.....the one in Afghanistan.
October 16, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
What did our current secretary of state have to say about the wmds before the war? I believe she was talking about them when she was still first lady. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, what I am saying is that if you're going to be upset about it don't be lazy and find out who all you should be angry at. A lot of people were convinced that there were wmds(not that that was even the sole reason for going there) and Bush and his administration didn't make up the intel, they just believed it like a lot of people did. It's easy to look back and see it was a mistake now but then it might have been a harder decision. President Obama is doing a lot of things now in the name of national security that Bush started. You can look at that a few different ways. You can criticize him for carrying on some of the mistakes of Bush which a lot of Obama's supporters are doing or you can give him the benifit of the doubt and assume he knows something that we don't and has good reason for doing so. I'm somewhere in the middle, I don't like the patriot act but if Obama is wanting to keep some of it around I gotta think that maybe there is something to his reasoning for doing it and some reasoning for Bush for doing it in the first place. There's a lot to think about with politics. I think that's why people just take the easy way out and pick a team and assume that everything their team does is super awesome and everything the other team does is poop. I hate politics!
R.
October 16, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"If you recall, it was the Regan/Bush administration who provided equipment and training to Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting Soviets who occupied Afghanistan at the time."
That was back when we were still trying to fight communism instead of just converting to it.
October 16, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Yes.....a lot of people were misled by the WMD claims......including many in that other party that starts with a D. But as President Truman proclaimed when he wore the mantel of President.....the buck stops here. When you are the big cheese (or one of his worshiping throngs), you have to learn to accept the blame for your failures as readily as you gladly accept the accolades for your successes. Obviously the first is a lot harder to do than the second.
This is a lesson that will soon start to be learned by Obama's supporters.....and I hope they will learn it better than the conservatives have done......but I have my serious doubts.
President Bush...or Bushes...Reagan......Clinton....nor Obama......were singularly responsible for their wins or losses......but there devoted followers sure find it easier to claim all the credit than they do all the blame. You can't have it both ways buckaroo.
October 17, 2009 at 5:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
While I'm on the subject....I see a lot of people very ready to ponce on any statement that even implies the slightest bit of disrespect for their team....by throwing out all kinds of statements made by the other side....to justify their bad behavior.
And while to the victors go the spoil....some of those crying loudest now seem to have totally forgotten the bragging and arrogance displayed by their side when they were in the drivers seat. But many people left of center have not forgotten those immortal words of Ann Coulter...."How to talk to a Liberal.....if you have to"....all followed by chuckles and grins and back slapping. So I guess paybacks really are hell. And when the fortunes of political war change again the short memories will just go on and on.
October 17, 2009 at 5:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
"It was the Regan/Bush administration who provided nerve agents to Saddam who was fighting the Iranians..."
One haunting image I have is that of Saddam Hussein standing there with a noose around his neck asking, "Why? Why?"
Was one of his "whys" based on having been given the nerve agents? Of course we can remember that he used those nerve agents against the Kurds in northern Iraq too. Still, that doesn't excuse the fact that the U.S. gave the stuff to him to begin with.
Here's something to think about: Is it truly possible to discuss any of this without getting partisan?
We seem to have a number of fairly deep thinkers on this forum. Instead of blaming, and instead of getting silly, what is the possibility that the situation in the Middle East and Afghanistan can be discussed at all?
We're so deeply involved, our precious American lives have been lost, but does that situation have any real solution?
October 17, 2009 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Whew ! Glad I am not in this anymore ! Good luck everyone.
October 17, 2009 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I will be reading and keeping up on your comments, but am not going to comment, even if I have to nail my hands to the desk !
October 17, 2009 at 7:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
We were attacked on 9/11.
Our response was to go after bin Ladin and terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
Although we didn't get bin ladin, it was what I considered a resonable response to an attack on our country.
What changed?
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq;
Whether the proof of those excisted or not we went after saddam. Not a good response in MY opinion.
What changed?
At the time it seemed, (to me), a pay back from our president to saddam for the attempted assasination of The Presidents father. Then it turned into a nation re-building exercise.
It seems that our priorities in afghanistan are creeping that way also.
What do either of these two countries have to do with the national security of the United States?
Those who served in another unpopular "police action", (viet nam), and lived to come back to an ungrateful populace sometimes wonder if their service was worth it. What changed?
When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbour, The American congress declared war on Japan.
Only congress has the authority to declare war.
The 2 "wars" we are involved in now, at this time, do nothing to protect our country.
They are however costing our country dearly in, (as the news pundits like to say), our countries blood and treasure.
Until the American people hold their elected officials (BOTH PARTIES), ACCOUNTABLE, nothing will change the direction of our countries downward spiral.
This doesn't mean keeping score for your political party.
It means demanding accoutability from those elected officials no matter what party they belong to.
For an easier slant on this look at it this way:
DEMOCRATS---8
REPUBLICANS-8
AMERICAN VOTER--0
DISCUSSION?
October 17, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
create......I don't think we can discuss it without getting partisan because there are so few clear cut rights and wrongs. Just like the situation you allude to with the nerve gas. We may have given it to Saddam for what we deemed at the time to be good reasons...but that doesn't change the fact that we gave him a weapon to terrible to be sanctioned by the international community because we didn't have the "eggs" to use it our self......then hung him when he used it on different people than we intended.
Throughout our involvement in the Middle East contradictions and hypocrisies abound....such as the only nation on earth that prides itself on tolerance and acceptance of others and their religions fighting a war against Islam. Much of our policies in that troubled part of the world are piecemeal and opportunistic......always have been....giving us ample ammunition to throw blame at which ever side is in control.
The bottom line however....in my opinion.....is the same now as it has been since the late eighteen hundreds. Everything we do over there is based primarily on the albatross that part of the world has around its neck.....black gold---
Texas Tea--oil that is. Puts new life to the phrase--"be careful what you ask for."
October 17, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
HEY biscuit,
What's your take on this question?
If the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are not declared wars, does our elected president have the power to just bring all our troops home, right now, by a stoke of his pen? He is the Commander in chief.
October 17, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Steve...I don't see much to discuss......I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Good post.
methusla...I would hate to feel I was responsible for your nailing your hands to the table. so I won't belabor this point.....but nobody's
views are going to be accepted here one hundred percent of the time. And some people....when they disagree with you......apparently don't have the upbringing and class to do so without resorting to personal attacks.
I myself have been called some terrible things here and at times....usually in response......have said some bad things right back. Often to one or more of the people you are probably upset with now. But old friend....if you let them shut you up....they win.....which is often what they are trying to do anyway. Just tell them it's hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man......they like that one.
October 17, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Steve
I completely agree with you here.
"It means demanding accountability from those elected officials no matter what party they belong to."
The problem is here.
"But as President Truman proclaimed when he wore the mantel of President.....the buck stops here. When you are the big cheese (or one of his worshiping throngs), you have to learn to accept the blame for your failures as readily as you gladly accept the accolades for your successes. Obviously the first is a lot harder to do than the second."
If we lay all the praise or all the blame on one man or woman's (Palin maybe, just kidding) why would we hold the Senators or Congress persons or any other politicians accountable? one can not do it. Look at Barney Frank, He is largely responsible for stopping regulation that could have lessened the impact of the housing crisis. Where is he now? He still has his job and has probably got raises since then. Why because the buck stopped at Bush. So you see we only hold the president accountable. How's that workin' for us. I hate the Republican party (except Ron Paul). I Hate the Democratic(socialist/communist) party. How's that for bipartisan?
R.
October 17, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Steve.....I'm not a student of Constitutional authority...but I believe he in fact does have that right. In fact.....he intimated that he would quickly use it prior to his election. The fact that he has chosen to stick so closely to his predecessors policies in that part of the world since taking command.....tells me he either found their policies to be more useful than his.....or he succumbed very quickly to the power of the inside the beltway crowd.......or he just decided to lie to the American people before his election for reasons that remain unclear.
Whatever the case....the first two are somewhat of a conundrum to his detractors however Since he is following closely to Bush's ideas how can they ridicule him for being wrong.....if he fell under the sway of the belt way then his predecessor must have been doing the same. Interesting.
October 17, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
:)
Nothing like a bipartison hater, huh?
Actually though, the buck should stop at our wallets.
When did these people forget they work for us?
I believe the current anger displayed at town-hall and tea-parties have sent a message.
Now if voters would back up their frustrations with a real vote in the next couple of elections things could get better.
Maybe.
October 17, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks....I only hope you will be so generous when Obama and the Democrats are removed from power......I'll be watching to see. :-)
October 17, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks......the whole premise behind the Nuremberg trials as well as our execution of Saddam was the belief that the head is responsible for actions that occur on his watch...weather he had a personal hand in those actions or not. We have sentenced people to die on that principle.....the problem is whenever it starts being applied to somebody we like or agree with it becomes very easy to do away with.
October 17, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
I'm glad you responded further. I asked the question because I think, (my opinion), that it would be the number 1 best thing our president could do at this point in time. Not one more American killed in 2 countries that don't want us there, and in 2 wars we don't need to be fighting in.
If he did this it would probably ruin any chance of re-election but it would restore some faith in the American voters who believe the promises made in campaigns.
It would be nice to find a politician who actually thinks about their constituents, their country, and doing the right thing, and not worry about staying in power.
And think of the money spent on these two conflicts and how that money could have been used to stimulate the building of a new American energy infrastructure. Nucular, wind, solar, and the grid structure to deliver it. It would have gone a long way to getting us off our dependence of that Texas-tea.
October 17, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
seriously....you must hate the Democrats with a different hatred than the Republicans since you felt the need to infer they were all socialist/communist while passing up on the opportunity to infer that the Republicans were the party of no and obstructionist. I thought hatred was hatred but apparently some hatreds aren't as bad as others.
October 17, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Steve...Obama...during the campaign.....alluded several times to his willingness to be a one term President.....if that's what it took to do what was right for the country. Excuse me if I sound cynical, but I believe that is just about as likely to happen as it will be for seriouslyfolks to be as generous when the dems lose control.....lol
October 17, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"seriouslyfolks......the whole premise behind the Nuremberg trials as well as our execution of Saddam was the belief that the head is responsible for actions that occur on his watch."
Our government works a whole lot different than those governments. We can't afford to just let all politicians except the president do what ever they want and then just blame it on the president. We can't afford to do this but we will because we are lazy and it is just easier to do it that way. So congresspersons can make huge mistakes and then just blame the president and we say "ok" and reelect that congressperson. Sounds like a swell plan. WHOOOOOOSH!! That is the sound of the country being flushed down the toilet.
Vote for anybody but a Democrat or a Republican. Write in Scooby Doo if you want.
R.
"seriously....you must hate the Democrats with a different hatred than the Republicans since you felt the need to infer they were all socialist/communist while passing up on the opportunity to infer that the Republicans were the party of no and obstructionist. I thought hatred was hatred but apparently some hatreds aren't as bad as others."
Yes there are degrees of hatred and your assessment is correct.
October 17, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
biscuit
What exactly do you mean by this? I'm confused(not suprising ;-) )
"seriouslyfolks....I only hope you will be so generous when Obama and the Democrats are removed from power......I'll be watching to see. :-)"
October 17, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I think I understand what you are saying now. Correct me if I'm wrong. You are asking if I am just going to blame everything on Obama himself. Correct? Well I have already started not doing that. At a recent family get together my brothers-in-law were complaining about Obama and the health care reform and my mother-in-law and I pointed out that in order for health care reform to even happen it has to go through the rest of the government so if it happens Obama is neither to blame solely or to be given credit solely(depending on how it turns out). So you don't have to wait and see, I've already applied commonsense and my knowledge of how the government actually works to this president like I did to the last. I regret that I didn't have this mindset when Clinton was in office and I had wrong views of him because I wasn't looking at things this way then.
R.
October 17, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
You do understand what I meant then that no president accomplishes any thing in this country,,,,,,,good or bad.....on his own....if he could we would call him your highness the King. The generous part will come in when you stand as ready to point the finger of blame at the republicans for some of the failures of the Obama administration as your are willing now to point the finger of blame at the democrats for some of Bush's problems.
I do appreciate your honesty on the varying degrees with which you hate. You gave an honest and straightforward answer which I admire even as I question your reasoning...:-)
October 17, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I see an effort....weather planned or not......to usurp the independent label as a conservative icon. A true independent would shun alignment with any ideology and consider each issue on its merit regardless of its being deemed left or right. The "independent" I usually see however is independent only in how much further right he is than mainstream.....one that generally marches in lock step with republicans except when he wants to push things even further right. An attempt if you will to build a new republicanism.....under a new name.....even further to the right.
The interesting thing however is that such a move would then leave the moderate republican middle free to expand the tent to welcome middle democrats there by leaving the far right and left with little power without forming coalitions with each other. Oh to think....perhaps to dream......
October 17, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Wow - some really good comments here lately from both sides of the fence. Biscuitboy, I do question your comment about us "waging war against Islam". I wasn't aware that is what we are doing. Can you explain better how you feel we are waging are against Islam in general? Didn't certain facets of that religion declare war on us first? Does fighting back against those mean we are at war with all of Islam? Does tolerance for other religions extend to those that openly declare war on us?
October 17, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
YY4U;
wow!
Were those your quotations, or someone elses?
They sounded almost biblical.
October 17, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So... I'm curious. Obama campaigned heavily on adding resources & concentrating on the war in Afghanistan. He did increase troop levels marginally early on. But now, his generals are asking for large increases. And he seems to be waffling and taking his time. Is this because the generals are not telling him what he wants to hear? Is it because he lied during the campaign? Is it because he has changed his mind? The generals seem to think it is urgent. Or does he have a better plan? I'm reminded during the 2004 campaign how Kerry had a "better plan"....... he was going to "ramp up" training of the armies and police there........(even though we were currently training them as fast as was humanly possible, and as we found out later, hurrying up the training too much only allowed more of the enemy to slip in as pretenders and create even more havoc).
I like your line, YY4U, "Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought". I also remember during all the clamor for a plan that it was stated that the situation was fluid and changed daily, and calculations also did thus. Seems you have to adapt as it goes along, too. I hope Obama is doing that, trying to come up with a better plan. The surge worked beyond everyone's hopes in Iraq (even though Obama remained opposed to it, even after it was obvious it was working) - so is he going to remain opposed to what has proven to work yet longer?
In other words, to get back on topic...... he might win a Peace Prize for taking the soft touch here, but in the long run, is that actually going to truly buy more "Peace" and save more lives? Or make things worse?
October 17, 2009 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
We have not officially declared a war on Islam.....but a great number of U.S citizens have certainly defined the war in those terms. I say this is a very similar situation to the racism involved against President Obama. Not everybody that opposes him are racist...and some that even sound racist may not feel that way. But there is no doubt that a lot of the just can't stand the man opposition to him is steeped in racism...and once that cat of prejudice is let out of the bag (either against religion or race0 it can be very hard to get back in.
Having said all that I agree it was probably a weak example.
October 17, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
YY's outstanding post on war sounded very similar to the writings contained in a centuries old Chinese manual on waging war that I saw one time. Don't recall the name of the book or the author.
October 17, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
The Art of War is required reading at West Point.
I remember a quote I kept in my billfold during the entire Vietnam war. I referred to it often. "All wars are fought by old men in council rooms apart from the battlefield."
"And he seems to be waffling and taking his time. Is this because the generals are not telling him what he wants to hear? Is it because he lied during the campaign?" --open_eyes
Perhaps we should consider that since taking office, and getting briefed daily on the goings on in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama knows a great deal more about what's at stake than what the public does. We can only presume to know, which is never enough. We can also watch the news and see the Taliban ramping up its efforts with more and more suicide bombers killing larger and larger numbers of people. It would seem that the Taliban is sensing that it is being pushed into a corner and is fighting harder as a result. If that is true, then we are making headway.
I have often wondered what would happen to that area if we just pulled out and came home, leaving them to their own devices. Please, I am just making a speculation here. I am remembering the Russians and the British before them. That society is as ancient as the rocks upon which it lives. What changes can we ever expect to see?
Then too I remember Vietnam. 56,000 lives lost and that little country lives on with it's ancient beliefs and modern technology.
What Biscuit says bears repeating, that too many in this country actually believe we are at war with Islam when in fact we are not. This is not the Christians against the Muslims, but many really believe that. Is it easier to paint a face on the enemy in order to hate it? Tell me people in the U.S. don't look askance at Middle Easterners in general.
And if we were to find Bin Laden tomorrow and bring him to justice or just plain kill him on the spot, what would change?
October 17, 2009 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"And if we were to find Bin Laden tomorrow and bring him to justice or just plain kill him on the spot, what would change?"
Absolutely nothing except for the Dems claiming they "got him" and the GOP yelling "no you didn't". I even go out on a limb now and say that if Bin Laden is caught or captured during Obama's tenure he will be reelected, and the sheep of this country will forget all about the lives and resources squandered in 2 wars.
October 17, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Here's a wee bit o' sunshine for ya. If we get Bin Laden tomorrow it won't matter because there is someone to take his place or someone already above him running the show. I don't for a second believe that he is solely in charge and if you get rid of him that will be that. I don't believe that, just like I don't believe that our president is all powerful and actually runs thing alone but there are many that do or at least want to believe that for whatever stupid reason.
R.
October 17, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree create...I find it amusing that as George W Bush constantly modified and redefined our mission in the War on Terror his cheering squad countered all questions about the changing mission with the argument that as Commander in Chief he had access to information that we didn't have. But now that Obama is Commander in Chief....when he changes his position its assumed its because his generals are not telling him what he wants to hear or he lied to us during the campaign. What up with that?
October 17, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
What WILL happen if we just pull out and leave them to their own devices?
Both countries will go through a type of civil war and in the end be ruled by a group of "Tribal leaders" Some of them very rich due to the money we are giving them not to fight us, and the rampant corruption going on.
What will happen if we stay the course for 8-20 more years and
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS KILLED.
The same thing.
So it's time to come home and really protect our country.
October 17, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I believe we lost the war In Afghanistan the minute it ceased to be an effort to capture Osama bin Laden and became an effort to build a nation there. There was already a nation there and it had been there while our European ancestors were still living in caves. The problem was it wasn't a nation built in our image and for some reason that is very bothersome to us. Therefore we went down the same path that the British and the Russians had followed to ruin before us.
We lost the war in Iraq before it ever started by declaring it to be The International War on Terror. Folks we will never defeat terror with a nuts and bolts army.....terror is not an enemy its an idea and nuts and bolts armies aren't meant to fight ideas.
As long as there are people in the world who believe they are dispossed and have no power or recourse there will be terrorists. It is the only weapon those people have and they will if need be use it. They always have and they always will. If you believed you were being wronged and lived in some backwater outpost with three jeeps and two pickups with mounted machine guns wouldn't you chose terror over face to face conflict with the most powerful military the world has ever seen
October 17, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
YY4U......We could call it the passing gas exit strategy.....or maybe riding out on the wind.
October 17, 2009 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Which is precisely why we can't win this war on terror in a military sense. We lack the stomach to annihilate them from existence so they hide among the general population, It is a lose--lose for us.
October 17, 2009 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
You have all made such valuable points and I agree with you. I like the way you said it, Steve -- It's time to come home and protect our own country.
I believe you will find much interest in the following video I watched at 4 this morning. It relates to the subject we have tackled here. I hope you have 20 minutes or so to watch this from PBS Bill Moyer's Journal.
The video covers Mark Danner, journalist and teacher, discussing politics, violence, and war. It would be worth your time to watch it. Why do you suppose he calls our soldiers "bait"?
I found great interest in his reference to the Taliban's "light footprint" in Afghanistan, how they can and will simply relocate very easily to such other lawless areas as Somalia or Sudan if and when they become uncomfortable where they are.
And yes, YY, you are right. They prefer many sons in order to continue this age-old concept of dominance.
seriouslyfolks is right. There's no beating these Jihadists; you beat one, another takes over. They can go anywhere to fight us because what they offer is a powerful belief system. They've already won the hearts and minds of their believers long ago. They knew they had defeated the Russians and British before us. 9/11 was the bait to get us into Afghanistan and on the ground where they wanted us to be.
Danner believes we need to gradually disengage from Afghanistan. There is no solution there. He is encouraged by Obama reconsidering campaign comments about the war because the facts on the ground have changed, and the corrupt recently-elected officials contribute greatly to the muddy picture there. I must agree.
The concept of Evil is nothing more than a tool.
Something to think about on your Sunday morning.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/101...
October 18, 2009 at 6:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
This has been a great thread.....many good thoughts from all quarters. Thanks Ashley for inspiring it. Of course we drifted a long way off topic at times but that has never really bothered me...go where the discussion leads you.
October 18, 2009 at 6:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
You know, biscuit, I agree; this has been a great thread. Good solid discussion with no cheap shots.
I must say that we really did skirt the issue of the Nobel Peace Prize somewhat; however, Bill Moyer's Journal interview of Mark Danner touched on it albeit lightly.
He says it is likely that the Norwegians had no idea that their choice would create so much controversy in the United States. However, he believes that the committee presented the prize as a clear expression of how our President is viewed internationally. The committee's message is that Obama's vision is "so beautiful, so striking" that they wanted to embody those ideals with true action. And that was to confer that prize in order to insure that those aspirations would actually one day take place.
So people like Mark Danner who think deeply about such matters did not participate in that great collective "huh?" of which Ashley Walker speaks.
October 18, 2009 at 7:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
The Nobel peace prize was devalued long ago. It is simply politicians recognizing one of their own, like a Hollywood acting award. No more and no less. "There is no bigger fool than one who can successfully lie to themselves." RF
October 18, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
"The Art of War is required reading at West Point."
" The Art Of War " , does anyone on this particular thread know who the original author/writer of " The Art Of War " was ?
October 18, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
The author of The Art of War was Sun Tzu.....it was written a long time....several centuries....ago. More biographical data on him you will have to find for yourself or get from YY4U or create. They both know a lot more about this than I do.
October 18, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I appologize to anyone and everyone whom I may have offended with my selfish tirade and leaving the forum, I am sorry !
I will try and control my zeal, thoughts and words, even though sometimes I have a hard time doing so, I guess those are my weaknesses, zeal, conviction, passion and love of my country and hometown as well as wanting passionately whats best for all of its citizens !
I will rejoin the forums and discussions, if you will let me, if you do not wish me to rejoin the discussions, I will honor that wish and this will be my last post !
FYI, if anyone would like to read " The Art Of War " it can be read at the following site, http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html.
Also it is interesting to know that some of the strategies in the " Art Of War " are employed by some businesses to take over another business ! Hence the term " Hostile Takeover ", which is a warlike takeover of a business by another business, using strategies discussed in " The Art Of War " such as " know your enemy " and " using spies " !
October 18, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Also I agree with USNretired, about the Nobel Peace Prize being devalued a long time ago !
October 18, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
You are correct and it was written in the 6th century B.C. and is very interesting reading !
October 18, 2009 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Since the statement was made about how the previous administration failed to heed the advice of generals unless the generals told them what they wanted to hear, I think its obvious and prudent to ask the same question now, since the general is publicly asking for more troops and more troops quickly, and our commander in chief seems to be not very open to the advice. Just asking the same questions..... both directions........ I DO believe that situations change, and the strategy needs to change as needed. However, it seemed often that the decisions WERE left to the generals, for the most part. That was my perception for much of it, anyway. Were there alot of areas where the generals were told no? (Possible exception of not having enough body armor available when wanted)......
On the topic of nation-building.... perhaps.... the only way to truly win the war...... is to make less places "fertile" grounds for their brand of extremism that they can easily move to and set up shop. In whatever ways those may be....
October 18, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I have a vision that in the next year, all war will be abandoned, all militaries lay down their arms, all violence will cease, and every last soul on earth will live in peace and harmony. There. I have put forth a message that is so beautiful and striking that I should be given the Nobel next year, in order to insure that those aspirations would actually one day take place. (I'd even be willing to bet there are alot more people out there with visions even more beautiful than mine.)
Where do I go to accept the award? ;-)
Just curious - say, Condi Rice or Colin Powell was elected Prez as a Republican. Would we hear as many accusations of racism everytime a Democrat voiced their displeasure? Would they be correct?
October 18, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Should Neville Chamberlain have been given the Nobel Peace Prize? (His older half-brother actually did). His "vision" of "peace in our time" was certainly one to be admired as beautiful and striking. While Churchill was reviled by many as a warmonger...... it was said in the late 30's when Hitler was on the rampage that Churchill could count his political friends and allies on the fingers of one hand........ which had a greater hand in restoring actual peace to the world? Is simply allowing your enemy to overrun you while doing nothing count as more peaceful than fighting back? Does long-term count same as short-term?
Ethical Question: Personally, if we're going to just do simple math...... I'd prefer to see 10,000 bad guys killed to save 5,000 good people, than to stand by and just let 5,000 good people be slaughtered by 10,000 bad guys. (Which would be less deaths overall). But that's just me.
Just questions I muse over at times.....
October 18, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes......only if the people making those criticisms were as blanket in their condemnations and as spiteful and hateful in their rhetoric as some.....CERTAINLY NOT ALL.....right wingers are about Obama. If their condemnations were as blanket and extreme then they should be called racist just as SOME....NOT ALL.....of the right wing should be called that now. Colin Powell however is the only republican in years I would have voted for had he ran....and Rushey Baby Limbaugh wanted to drum him out of the party.....many others agreed with the fat man.
The other day you gave me a very thoughtful and intelligent answer to my question about if I should be called a racist for voting twice against Bush the younger and vocally opposing some of his policies. I wondered however to what extent your answer presumed that I was white. What if I was to tell you now that I am black. Think about it before you answer.
October 18, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Neville Chamberlain......a prominent liberal of his time..... probably did as much to enable Hitler and prolong the war as any other single person of his day....and Churchill was knighted for his herculean efforts to oppose Hitler and win the war. But the difference is in degree of threat. Few today would doubt the menace that Hitler already presented while Chamberlain was still pursuing his policy of appeasement. Many would doubt that bin Laden,,,the Taliban...or Saddam Hussein have ever risen to that level of threat.
If we followed the logic that I think I'm seeing here we would have been justified in invading Germany after the Beer Hall Putsch (sp?) in terms of relative threat.
October 18, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
methusla...Welcome back.......
October 18, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Biscuitboy, I will answer you immediately before I have any chance whatsoever to think about it, because I don't need to. I did not care then, nor do I now, what your race is. I made no presumptions whatsoever about race or gender. I've been posing my questions, I will admit, pretty much strictly from the point of view of left/right/liberal/conservative/Repub/Dem.
I still do not think you a racist. I certainly didn't agree with all of Bush's policies, and some was very much in disfavor of some of his decisions. But since racism gets injected often into these discussions (usually by accusation) - would 90% of blacks have voted for Obama if his opponent was Rice or Powell, and they both had the exact same policies as McCain/Palin? I know, its just a hypothetical question.... but if the answer is no, then one has to admit racism there from the other side also. Interesting thought: What if both candidates were black - would all the racists have stayed home? (I'd prefer they all would anyway ;-) Anyway, just kinda thinking outloud..... about thoughts I never had nor worried about before, because I never cared what the candidates skin color was, only their policies.
Your question/statement that some (NOT ALL) right wingers are blanket in their condemnations of Obama. I also see that some (NOT ALL) are every bit as blanket in their condemnations of everyone that attends a tea party or protests higher taxes. And there's the rub. Problem is, those making the accusations about tea party attendees have the national stage and spotlight at their disposal - they get plenty of air time on MSNBC and others, people in visible positions such as Pelosi make blanket statements about them being Nazi's, etc, (all the while forgetting she publicly stated she was all for the same type of actions a few years earlier). The idiots who are racist aren't getting on a national stage and blathering their stupidity all the while having commentators and journalists nodding their heads in agreement with them.......... They are idiots, and most of us know it. When they get exposed it is to righfully deserved riducule. Those making the same kind of blanket accusations from the other direction are idiots also....... only a few of us realize it, and many swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
But, thinking about it a little deeper........ one thing I hadn't considered.....of course, the racists are totally wrong, and the blanket accusers are only partially wrong, that is the difference. I guess as one who gets lumped in with the minority therein lies my grievance. But I do see that point.
October 18, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
But, at that time, Chamberlain was the hero, (he was received by cheering throngs when he proclaimed "peace in our time"), and Churchill was the...... "Bush" (LOL).
I'll give you 50% of the point that they did not pose the same level of threat. Because...... one must remember....... that was in the day........ before Nukes. Iran, or Pakistan losing control of nukes, can end up being much graver.
Or, perhaps, if one adds up all the attacks yearly around the world (Indonesia, Pakistan, England, US, etc) of Al Qaeda & Muslim extremists associated (however loosely) with Bin Laden, could it be perceived to be as big a threat, or one that involves the entire world? Just as a mental exercise, imagine every terrorist act along those lines, across the world, that have to do with radical Islam, in Sudan, Darfur, Somalia, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc..... and think of them all concentrated in one area, such as the German expansion was. Maybe that was Hitler's mistake, instead of just concentrating in one or 2 areas, he should have spread out his agents and wreaked havoc in say.... 60 different countries or so (I think that's the figure figure for Al Qaeda presence)...... well, I get carried away with idle speculation at times ;-)
October 18, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
And I think the real point i was attempting to make is that to some degree racism will always be perceived to be a factor as long as racial differences persist. I believe had I been a black man voting as I did....and feeling as I felt....about George W. Bush it would have been legitimate to ask how much of my opposition to him was based on race....especially if his opponents had been black. Of course my opposition to him was not considered racist as long as we were both white......but had I been black....supporting a black candidate that was defeated by him......I don't see where the potential for racist feelings would not almost be expected.
By the way....I am white.
October 18, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Yes the world is a much different place than it was back in the thirties making it very difficult to make any meaningful side by side comparisons.
I am on a role....this is my third straight post with no spelling errors detected by spell check......I'm the man....I am the man. Of course I had five or six in a recent one.
October 18, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yeah....... I'm sure........ exactly what steps do you think McCain would have taken that would "have the world on fire"? (Remember, they have to be things that Pelosi and Reid would have ok'd) ........ ;-)
October 18, 2009 at 6:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
YY4U just loves his team so much he has to trash talk the other team as much as possible. We call that partisanship. If the democrats literally set the entire world on fire he would defend their actions and say they had good reason to do it. That's how true believers are.
R.
October 18, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fotoman13 (anonymous) says...
I agree "McCain would have been a continuation of Bush" ...I think Obama is doing the best with the trash that Bush left behind, after Clinton built something great. Kudos to Obama for stepping into a republican's mess and trying a little.
October 18, 2009 at 8:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Nope, No Sir, I am not going to comment on this whole who or who should or should not receive or who should have received the Nobel Peace Prize or any other Nobel Prize !
Ive never seen anything so trivial as a " Prize ", cause so much heated discussion, before ! One would think that a " Prize " given to someone, is a world changing event, when in acutality this the Nobel Peace Prize or any other Prize will not change anything, for the better !
Good grief, I said more than I intended to, sorry !
October 18, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Hey YY4U, try googling "Bush admits mistakes", since you seem to believe otherwise........
Clinton built some great things...... like North Korea's nuclear reactor.......passing laws forcing banks to give loans to underqualified people...... unfortunately those straw houses didn't stand the test of time.
Looks like many of Bush's policies everyone hated so much have been continued by Obama, and in some cases carried further. So what we've got now is, in quite a few ways........ a continuation....... of.......(I won't say it, don't think I could stand all the crying....... ;-)
October 18, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
How a discussion about who or who should not have received the Nobel Peace Prize changed to a discussion about war and terrorism ! War, terrorism, etc. should be a totally different form for discussion !
October 18, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It's all the flip side of the same coin, meth - you can't talk about peace without also discussing war - LOL
Let's see, since Bush did more for Africa than any other president in history, and when he left office the US had an 80% favorability rating among Africans there (you know, yet another one of those countries that hated us) - if YY4U claims he did nothing of credit.....
does that make YY4U a racist? ;-)
October 18, 2009 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Hey biscuitboy! Does YY4U's comments of late qualify as one of your "blanket condemnations" you were talking about? - LOL
October 18, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
As I've been reading along with all of this, a dialogue keeps springing to my mind...I will share.
Pres. George H.W. Bush was always known as being set in his mind and confrontational....whatever he decided, that was how he believed. As a result, he had a strong political career with some liberal opposition. When he and that Congress declared war on Sadaam Hussein and Iraq, the nation took a deep breath and stood strong. He was one of the most involved Vice Presidents in recent history in one of the most successful terms of presidency of a government by the people. He exuded confidence and that inspired most Americans and we were all to ready to naively place all out trust in him. Sadly, a bit of political "honesty" was all it took to destroy the trust that was so readily placed in him. ("no new taxes was technically true.......raised existing taxes aren't technically new ones)
Conversly, Pres. George W. Bush lived a good portion of his early adult years in a bottle. He had his opinions, but they could waver if an argument was strong enough and he hated confrontation.....thus the bottle. His political career was not nearly as focused and driven....nor was it as confident. He was always very well intentioned and wanted to accomplish many great things, but was always unsure about the best way to get there. In wisdom, he always consulted others who knew more about things than he did.....so much so,that it turned to a fault.
(cont)
October 18, 2009 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
(cont)
By 3:00 CST on September 11, 2001, the entire nation was angry, scared and ready to declare war. He said "No." He said that information would be pursued, and experts consulted. An investigation would be necessary. We were mad. He did what he said and maybe he listened to the wrong people, but evidently, they are the same ones Pres. Obama is listening to. Finally, when he felt convinced that a confrontation was necessary, he approached Congress to declare war on terrorism, beginning with Iraq. Many of the same Americans who were mad at being told "no" on 9/11 were once again mad. They have stayed mad and to this day refuse to give him any benefit of any doubt. Prominent ones have fabricated scenarios between him and his advisers and told them as truth. Less prominent ones have believed it. Some of the stories are true, but then again, so are many other stories about many other Presidents.
He is by far, not a perfect man, but I find the constant criticism of him to be disgusting. The Democratic Party messed up in their 2004 nomination. There were many people who wouldn't have voted for Bush's second term if the Dem nominee had been a more trustworthy person. Many voters were afraid of a presidency by John Kerry and voted for Bush by default. It is ridiculous to be angry about Bush's second term when the other choice was so poorly made.
For the record, I have a history on these forums of not trashing any President, past, present or future. When I look at any President, I realize two things: 1) I must be respectful even in disagreement, 2) hindsight is 20/20 for everyone, including him and including me and decisions are never made there.
I think those five Norwegians are foolishly optimistic, but if it bothers me that badly, I can just start an award panel of my own. This is not the end nor even the beginning of the world. I also have to realize that the nation is collectively sliding toward liberalism; present day liberalism is more liberal than it has ever been before and there are more liberals now than there has ever been before. It is what it is.
October 18, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I am really beginning to wonder if we should elect four or five Democratic terms consecutively to see if these recessions are really the result of the Republican presidencies or of the Democratic ones that preceded them. According to my studies in practical economics, the blame lies on the preceding Democrats, but with all this bouncing back and forth it's hard to know if reality matches the theory. The closest match we have is to look at the George H.W. Bush recession that followed the Regan presidency. But then again, war changed the equation, so we'll never know for sure if it follows all overspending (governmental or civilian), no matter what the presidential party.
October 18, 2009 at 10:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
My opinion is, the political parties and politicians in this country cannot absolutely, totally agree on what is in the best interests of this country as well as all the people of this country, especially those politicans who were, elected by " the people " , to do what is in the best interests of the " the people " and I do mean " The People ", all the people and not just whats best for themselves ( the elected officials, that is ) and the few who just happen to be pulling the elected officials puppet strings and their " wallet " and " bank account " strings !
Until there can be total agreement on whats best for the U.S. and all the people of the U.S. then, there is going to continue to be political in fighting, power struggles, and eventually civil upheaval !
Greed, corruption, and lack of any form of " congruence " between the political partys, politicians and elected officials, as to what is best for the U.S. and ALL of its citizens is what has led the U.S. down the road it is now on and has traveled down for some time now !
Look about you, people, if this discord between political parties and elected officials does not stop, and the greed and corruption continues, this Nation will eventually tear itself apart !
October 18, 2009 at 11:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes......Sorry, I was taking my much needed beauty rest. :-)
I believe you however are so much more qualified than I to stand at the citadel of republicanism and defend the faith.....that I must regretfully decline your invitation to join you in your exorcism of the errant YY4U. In fact....I fear it might border on blasphemy to enlist the aide of an unrepentant liberal such as I in your quest to find the grail.
Brother Limbaugh has shown you the correct path. For any republican with the temerity to actually break party line and think as a real independent......he shall be cast into the blackness of liberalism and ignored then forever.
I know that I for one can't hardly stand a person who might actually have a thought that didn't follow party line. To the good fight then. LOL
October 19, 2009 at 6:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I really have no clue what you just said, biscuitboy. I guess what you are saying is that blanket condemnation..... is only allowed.... from one direction. Double standard? Those who have a "blanket condenmation" of Obama are mostly racists, while those who have a "blanket condemnation" of Bush are "thinking as real independents"? Sure sounds like the old double standard to me........ and yes, one lacking such purity of heart, is, alas, not pure of spirit enough to join on a quest for the holy grail..... (I'm not qualified either, by the way ;-)
October 19, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You're absolutely right, YY4U - lots of people in Iraq had it cushy under Saddam. They're ticked now because they don't get to brutally supress 80% of the population and get all the good jobs. Guess I'd be mad too ;-)
October 19, 2009 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"You're absolutely right, YY4U - lots of people in Iraq had it cushy under Saddam. They're ticked now because they don't get to brutally supress 80% of the population and get all the good jobs. Guess I'd be mad too ;-)"
Are you kidding me? So by that logic we only have about %20 of the population upset at us? OK....
And by the way, Bush did a bang up job in those "six party talks" with North Korea, he did no more than Clinton did, which you claim was nothing. And McCain and his cronies had a HUGE hand in deregulation of the financial industry in the late 90's, is it easier to just blame Clinton? Gosh with Republican majorities everywhere in in the first half of this century you would think they could have been, you know, fiscally conservative like they claim to be and cleaned everything up instead of cutting taxes and spending. At least Dems don't "claim" to be conservative LOL.
October 19, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Don't feed bad open_eyes. I said I supported Obama and goodolboy called me gay. lol"
Better than a racist=)
October 19, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
What exactly were the bombs dropped on? Day-care centers? Hospitals? Maybe they didn't like us shooting at mosques....... you know, the places where the bad guys would hole up and shoot out from......... personally, I don't think it's right to drop gas on an entire village, either........ but I guess none of those people are around anymore to "not" throw shoes at Bush........
October 19, 2009 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Good points, goodoleboy. Unfortunately..... those 20%.... are the ones with the guns and bombs. Of course, it all depends on who you talk to (this was a year after the war started):
"The poll finds that 78 percent of Iraqis reject violence against coalition forces, although 17 percent — a sixth of the population — call such attacks "acceptable." One percent, for comparison, call it acceptable to attack members of the new Iraqi police.
There are huge differences in these and many other questions between Arab Iraqis, who account for 79 percent of the population, and the Kurdish minority (17 percent). Forty percent of Arabs say it was right for the United States to invade; that soars to 87 percent of Kurds. Just one-third of Arabs say the war liberated rather than humiliated Iraq; it's 82 percent of Kurds. Thirty percent of Arabs support the presence of coalition forces, again compared with 82 percent of Kurds. Positive views of the invasion also are held disproportionately in the south of the country, as well as in the Kurdish north."
I never claimed he did any better than Clinton in the six party talks. I'm just asking what wonderful thing it was that Clinton actually got accomplished - that he "built" - with his endeavors with them. (I did find it amusing that when NK DID "agree to dismantle their reactor" (if even for a short time) - all the praise was because of the other countries involved......... you know, by the same people who were mad because we wouldn't engage them one-on-one, that Bush wanted others involved.)
And yes, I DO blame the Repubs in the late 90's also. Just as I blame the Repubs for abandoning their fiscal conservative principles under Bush. Just trying to again, determine exactly it was that Clinton "built".
I don't see where Bush did any better than Clinton in those endeavors (well, at least he TRIED to get Fannie/Freddie under control, but we all know who shot that down).
Yes, Clinton did some good things - budget surplus being the top thing, in my mind. Just as Bush did some good things.
I just asked what some of these other wonderful things that got built were (you know, "blanket approval")....... seemed to me we had some "continuation" of Clinton policies in many areas...... just as we have "continuation" of many policies now..... ;-)
October 19, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Right, YY.....lots of mistakes in the past, by lots of different people. Good question: When is it time to right wrongs? Ever? Never? I hope we never again give a country chemicals/gas for warfare......... I think 2001 had something to do with the 2003 decision. JMO. I don't think it was to "right wrongs" made in the past. But I again, I hope we never again follow policies such as that. Regardless of who our leader is.
October 19, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Seems to me that it is next to impossible to " make right " , the " wrongs and mistakes of the past " ! The only thing that can sensibly be done with " wrongs and mistakes of the past " is to learn from them and have the commonsense and intelligence to not make the same " mistakes and wrong decisions again, now or in the future " ! However, it would seem that, greed, power and control has a way of clouding or obscuring ones judgement, common sense and ability to make informed, intelligent and rational judgements and decisions !
October 19, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
YY4U,
I agree that the possiblity of large amounts of profit for certain individuals and companys had a great deal to do with influencing the decision to go to " War " against Iraq, which is known to have the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world !
I believe it has been pretty well proven that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks ! Look at the facts, BinLaden is and was the one behind the 9/11 attacks, he has admitted to this and BinLaden is a Saudi and several of the 9/11 attackers were known to be Saudi also, along with others who were not Iraqi ! It has been proven Iraq did not have a stockpile WMDs ! So why the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars ? Sure beats me, I can think of no logical reason to go to war with a country half way around the world, because of false or misleading information !
Again, I believe that the decision to go to war and invade Iraq is another perfect example of how greed, selfishness and power is the determining factor behind much of this countries policies, both foreign and domestic !
October 19, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Right, YY..... lots of questions there as to why we went to Iraq. Good questions.
I guess, what I'm trying to ascertain here overall (in my own amusing sort of way) - is what the definition of "blanket condemnation" of a president is, and why it seems to only work one way. Anyone who has "blanket condemnation" of Obama is, ultimately, a racist - and anyone who has "blanket condemnation" of Bush, is ok. And anyone who tries to point out the hypocrisy of that is somehow a "citadel of republicanism faith" or some other nonsense of that sort.
Amusing.
October 19, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
True that ;-)
October 19, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Okay, this morning, I'm confused as to why the same posters who were loving the quotes from "The Art of War" are making criticisms of where a bomb was dropped in a country we were at war in. To clarify, I will give three quotes.
"If your neighbor offends you to the point that you must war with him, kill them all lest they rise up against you. If you are not prepared to kill every man, woman and child and annihilate your neighbors from existence, then you are not offended enough to war with him."---The Art of War as quoted by YY4U
(this seemed like a quote of approval to me)
"We lack the stomach to annihilate them from existence so they hide among the general population...." ---biscuitboy
(this seemed like a criticism of our lack of dedication)
"Maybe those Iraqis that don't like Bush didn't think it was necessary to drop 5,000 pound bombs in the center of a metropolitan city in the middle of the night."
(this seemed to have a sarcastic bite to it, meant to defend the Iraqis and to attack the US)
Now, I know we weren't supposed to be at war with the Iraqi population, but I also know that our soldiers were getting ambushed by "the general population" and that changed the equation. Changing tactics as the theater changes was also encouraged above by the same posters. The posts I quoted seem like double standards to me, but if they aren't, please explain how.
October 19, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
We need to find out who makes the dominant political parties dominant. Therein lies the problem.
Seriously R. Folks
October 19, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes.....I'm at lunch so only a brief response.
I never claimed to be perfect my friend......I was just trying to say in a light hearted way....You look out for your side.....I'll look out for mine.
October 19, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
YY4U
I agree with your statement as it applies to the country as a whole, but I have to disagree that the ones running the war were not offended enough. There were Americans inside and outside of the government who were offended enough that they were willing to take out any man, woman or even child who opposed US soldiers. It seems like every generation in America up until the baby boomers have known that civilians, women and children are always involved in war. Since the baby boomers, however, there have been two major conflicts in which this concept has been incredibly divisive. I am not necessarily blaming that generation, but rather pointing out the pattern. It exists in Europe as well, so it can't solely rest on the shoulders of one American generation. It is an incredibly naive stance, that, paired with a victim mentality, has resulted in a nation becoming increasingly dependent on a government that doesn't even morally support it's own military. Schools that are funded by the same government that funds our military passively tear down our childrens' concept of the military and of their patriotism.
What is the cure for this? Do we, like Switzerland, refuse to enter any conflict until we can all agree? Do we remain split down the middle and each party take it's chances until finally another civil war breaks out and we all agree finally that we are offended enough to kill each other's families? Do we decide to start making military service mandatory for two years following 18th birthdays, thereby supporting the military and reinstating patriotism?
Seems to me, the first step toward healing is to individually let go of the offendedness toward one party (and it's people) and start voting based on merits and integrity, holding accountable those who don't follow through. It may be too late for that, however. Was the United States of America destined for failure upon it's inception and the first Civil War outcome just a prolonging of the inevitable?
October 19, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof.....my deeply felt fear is that your civil war scenario is where we will end up unless we figure out a way to quit playing this lunatic game we are playing. And that applies to all sides. The genius of our system of government as it was written was the way in which it encouraged compromise and had safeguards against one group dominating another. We have now apparently totally forgotten that as we seek to continue this game of one-upsmanship and domination by one party our another.
October 19, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
We try to laugh and joke about this on here sometimes.....but that actually reminds me a lot of Nero and his fiddle. This is a deadly serious game we are playing here and I'm not at all convinced that many of us have a clue how to stop it......or even a desire to do so.
October 19, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I don't feel that I always try to "look out for my side"..... I just try to look out for what I feel is right.... whichever side that may fall on. If my beliefs align so that what I believe is "right" falls more often on one "side" than the other, then so be it. But I've seen plenty on the conservative side that I consider wrong, and plenty on the liberal side that I consider right. My problem is the blind and closed-minded (on both sides) who love to give a "blanket condemnation" of the other side. Therein lies the true problem with this country and, as you put it, the lunatic game we are playing.....
October 19, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Then we might actually end up with a functioning government ;-)
Of course, it will all depend on who gets branded "far right/left", and by whom. Seems to me these days anyone even slightly differing from your view is "far" one direction or the other. So I think you just eliminated.... oh...... 100% of the voters...... LOL
October 19, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof
One thing you have to keep in mind is, " The Art Of War " was written, around, 600 B.C. at a time when morals and morality was not an issue !
The problem with modern warefare is, during the late 19th century or middle of the 20th century someone I don' t know exactly who, decided to write rules for war and combatants called " Rules Of Engagement" ! What this rule did and does is basically tie the hands of the combatant/combatants who abide by the " Rules Of Engagement " and puts them at a disadvantage, if their opponent or enemy does not abide by or have any such rule/code called " Rules Of Engagement " !
Who ever thought up the rule/code " Rules Of Engagement " , must have thought that war was a civilized game such as soccer, football, baseball etc. !
How would you like to be in a battle, engagement, skirmish, firefight or whatever with your enemy, have them on the run, beating them badly and your commander tells you that you cannot follow your enemy beyond a certain point and annihalate them when you are primed and ready to do so, especially when you know that your enemy knows that you will stop at a certain point and let him come back and try to kill you another day, and you know that the same thing will happen again and again, if you are the only one that follows the " Rules Of Engagement " !
My point is some of our enemys take " The Art Of War " seriously and have no rules to obey and follow ! Which puts our fighting men, women and our country at a distinct disadvantage !
Terrorism is a form of war and terrorists who carry out terrorism, believe that they are at war ! The only thing about it is it is a different kind of warfare, with no distinction or rules !
War affects everyone, warrior, civilian and countrys ! Noone is immune from the affects of a war !
October 19, 2009 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
YY4U,,,,,,,liberal conservatives and conservative liberals....oh to think....perhaps to dream.......
October 19, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Yes, methusla, I am aware of the Rules of Engagement and that is my point. As long as those rules are in play, we are never able to engage in real warfare. To do away with those rules, however, is so offensive to some that they would declare war to enforce them. My question is, who is who? That was what was so obscure to me earlier and it still is. Where do you personally fall? Do you believe war is war or do you believe that the Rules of Engagement are priority? How about biscuitboy and YY4U? The earlier statements seemed conflicting about that. I still have no clarification. You three seem to like both, depending on who you can criticize using either. I am hoping that I am wrong about this.
October 19, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well oh4theluvof.......I hope you are wrong about it also. My problem on these boards often seems to boil down to my reluctance to be bound with absolutes. I think war is at the very best a necessary evil...and evil that should only be entered into for the best of reasons.....and after due diligence.
Some times however I believe it is necessary.....I thought the first Gulf War was such a war and was very unhappy when we let total victory slip from our fingers. Because I do believe that if we believe something is worth sacrificing our young for....then we need to put our total effort into it. In the last few years however we have become enamored with these so called clean wars. We continue to believe that with enough technology and air power we can fight a war without any of our guys getting hurt....and we continue to be disappointed every time it fails. Then as the body bags start piling up we start looking for a way out.
If that is being hypocritical then I guess maybe I am.....but hypocrisy is often a lot easier to see when you are looking across the street than it is when you are looking in the mirror.
October 19, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy, I think you said it about as well as it can be put. I only hope Obama makes up his mind soon.......
October 19, 2009 at 8:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
So, if I have this right, it wasn't the military approach used over the past eight years that bothered you, biscuitboy and YY4U? You didn't believe that the methods used were ever too much, you just didn't approve of the war in the first place? I just want to make sure I have this.
YY, thank you for slowing down for me, but really, I just needed to clarify if you were defending the Iraqi civilians as per the Rules of Engagement, because if you were, it contradicted the rest of what you said.
October 19, 2009 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I would call it war...nothing more, nothing less. I do not take war lightly and I am not in any way trying to mock you or to point out hypocrisies. I am trying understand statements that seemed to contradict one another. I am in agreement with most of what has been said by you and biscuitboy, but before I could know for sure, I needed to understand those things that conflicted in my mind. I have no problem with anyone being against war up until that anti-war fervor puts our nation at risk or even worse, our overseas soldiers. If you didn't like Bush or Cheney because they were, in your eyes, war-happy, that is fine. I would disagree about Bush being so based on my earlier observations about his anti-confrontationalism, but that is only my assessment as a people-watcher. I have to confess that I am worried that a blanket anti-war sentiment got an equally weak president elected, but if the GOP made the same mistake in having a poor candidate this time as the Dems did in '04, then they bear a part of that, just as the Dems bear a part of Bush's second term. Hopefully, my fears will not be realized and we will find we have a much stronger leader in this term. Right now, I only feel we have one with a more confident face, but even that counts for a little bit. Time will tell, indeed.
October 20, 2009 at 12:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof.......I think you pretty much have it with one exception. I didn't agree with policies used in Iraq.....not because of the policies but because I didn't think we should have been there at all.....we weren't sufficiently offended to fight an all out war.....Instead we were trying to win the hearts and minds of those that controlled the oil fields.
I too...in retrospect have come to look at Bush as less of a war hawk....The real war hawks were Cheney and Rumsfeld.....and I think Bush eventually saw this and began to distance himself from them. Too bad he didn't see it sooner.
October 20, 2009 at 6:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Even after watching Saddam Hussein standing there with a noose around his neck asking, "Why? Why?" I was still against the war in Iraq because we had no clear-cut reason to be there. Oh there was a neatly tied bundle of threats and past offenses citing Saddam's past crimes, yes. In the minds of many it was enough, but not in mine.
This is not to say that I am against our troops. I will never say that. My late Marine husband held the Distinguished Flying Cross for things he did in Vietnam at a time when the lives of helicopter crew chiefs were easily regarded as walking casualties. I remember how even heroes were treated back home -- what YY calls "ribbons and bad memories." I support the troops but not the war.
One thing that invading Iraq did accomplish was to bandage the wounded American psyche after 9-11. America's image of itself being all powerful and then suddenly attacked by a handful of nut cases running planes into buildings was incredibly hurtful. Enraging! But the image of those tanks rolling across the dessert during "Shock and Awe" was intensely satisfying. Vindication! Add to that the picture of Saddam's statue being torn down, then later President Bush landing on the deck of a carrier. Superpower!
I agree with biscuit that "we were trying to win the hearts and minds of those that controlled the oil fields." Yes, oil that is secure or tied to political control of the area so we install democracies. The area is vast. Ah, yes, business interests.
Americans believe themselves to be number one. Hubris. Aristotle called that the "tragic flaw" or the error in judgment that eventually destroys the hero. What we need instead is humility, at least enough of it to dilute the strength of this warlike attitude.
Perhaps we do have some humility, just not enough. Humility is what allows us to kill the neighbor, but stop short at killing the child by "smashing it's head against the corner of a cement wall..."
We educate the child.
October 20, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I have already stated War is War and is HELL and if you are going to start a war and fight a war, you should be in it, to win it by any and all means available, as quickly as possible with no " GAME " rules !
So called " Police Actions " , I can think of two that were called such, Korea and Vietnam and as such both cost a lot in the way of money and lives and I don' t know what the " Gulf War", should or was called and the still continuing " Afgan and Iraq Wars" which are costing tremendous amounts of money, etc. and for what and what should these so called wars be called ? These people do not want us there and I believe never did !
YY4U, I agree completely with everything that you posted in your last two comments !
October 20, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Did the Norwegians recognize the power of Humility?
Many believe Humility to be a weakness. Is it? Humility is far more powerful than Hubris.
Something to think about on a Tuesday morning.
October 20, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I would always pick Humility over Hubris - when possible. But does it always save the most lives? Was the Humility of Chamberlain more powerful than the Hubris of Churchill? Did it save more human lives in the end? Or would more Hubris early on in the face of someone who obviously couldn't care less about how much Humility we showed (actually took advantage of it) - have been the correct path, with ultimately less loss of Human Life?
How much (at least so far) do those we are fighting against care about Humility? Humility won't get them 72 Virgins in Heaven.....
As you say, educate the children. What are they being taught in Madrasses throughout the area? Same thing they were taught long before our last decade?
Just asking more questions to ponder....
October 20, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
http://www.theonion.com/content/video...
October 20, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Good questions, open_eyes, especially with regard to what those children have been taught in Madrassas -- that Allah is the only God; that Christians are the infidels; that women are subservient among other things, concepts to be expected in a male-dominating society. (Can't think of the term right off). The question I have for them is "How's that working for ya?"
I will say, nonetheless, that we seem to have made a little bit of headway with regard to women's rights. However, I'm afraid that it will take generations before their women are valued as human beings.
Now we see that the Afghan election was tainted. Well aren't we surprised to hear that! That entire area is tainted by corruption because they can't seem to govern without it.
Sometimes I feel like we need to just say, "Look, what is your worth as a people? Heroin farmers for the world? You people are corrupt and not worth our soldiers' lives. We're outta here!"
Remember the town Josie Wales saved? That place was a microcosm of larger areas in this world where citizens are too fearful to take on corrupt governments. They don't dare have tea parties. Unfortunately, we're no Josie Wales.
Too simple?
October 20, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Right, create - their's is a society that is built in many ways, and accepts as the norm, bribery. Hard to reason with that - corruption is built-in to their society.
October 20, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Speaking of women's rights, I remember a couple weeks ago a member or leader of "Code Pink" was on Fox talking about how they had a delegation in Afghanistan talking to people, expecting to find support for their position of withdrawing all forces. What they found, however, especially among women, was that they very much wanted the coalition forces to remain. Interesting short read here about it:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1006/p0...
October 20, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Yes, that was a good read; thanks for offering the link. I must certainly agree that those women are sunk if the coalition troops leave. Sunk for sure and I can see that area immediately plunged into civil war. Once again, the Taliban would be opening up the soccer stadium for Sunday beatings of women.
I say let the women pull out too. Take the children and run. Leave those stupid men behind to battle each other to the last man standing. Let not one woman remain behind. Leave the men with nothing -- no food, no laundry, no nooky.
October 20, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Now there's an idea..... pull every woman, child, and decent man out. Let the country be flooded with Taliban & Al-Qaeda. Then, at the height of the poppy growing season.......we quietly surround the entire country...... and slowly make the noose smaller and smaller...... until we all meet in the middle. Of course, no nooky means they'll be even more eager to die for their 72 virgins....... ;-)
Or maybe at that point a nuke will take care of the poppy growing fields. For years to come. I'm all for speeding up their meeting with the 72 virgins.
October 20, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
create,
You know...there have been female suicide bombers over yonder too. (of course a man probably put them up to it) I, personally, even know a few mean-spirited shrews in these very United States. My point is that you can't assume all women are innocent and worth saving whilst the men should all burn. A bit sexist, ain't it?
I do see your point, however. I just saw this disgusting article today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia...
Muslim teaching at its finest...
'enry
October 20, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Thanks for that article, Henry. Disgusting, yes, and it brought thoughts of Salem in our own country's history when ignorance caused so many women to be burned at the stake or drowned.
From the article:
"Hundreds of people, mostly women, have been killed in India because their neighbours thought they were witches.
Experts say superstitious beliefs are behind some of these attacks, but there are occasions when people - especially widows - are targeted for their land and property."
I think that final sentence says it all. Land and property seem to take precedence over superstition.
Was I being sexist earlier? Yup.
open_eyes, I like your idea of surrounding the entire country in a noose. Say, did they ever say whether those 72 virgins were women? :)
YY, yes, women can be more vengeful than men. I just don't understand why those women's fathers have not protected them. What has kept those women from helping themselves? Those men have to sleep sometime. Perhaps they could have an agreement beforehand. At 2 a.m., whilst he slumbers away, every single woman, hundreds of them, will take a heavy metal pipe to those brutes. Bammo!
Uh oh. Create has a nasty side!
October 20, 2009 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
LOL create - maybe for gays, it is 72 virgins of the same sex..... ;-)
Yes, YY4U - I think those organizations are just as backwards as those we are talking about. But its not limited just to religious organizations. NABMLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) - calls for the abolition of all age-of-consent laws, particularly between men and minors(boys). I recently heard a discussion on them by an FBI agent that had been undercover - the things he described that they discussed I can't print here or I'm sure the post will be yanked. But he scary thing is that “Safe Schools” Czar, Kevin Jennings, praised Harry Hay, an outspoken supporter of NAMBLA, as one of the people that inspired him......
October 20, 2009 at 7:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry, got the acronym mixed up - NAMBLA. The FBI agent was part of a sting that netted 8 pedophiles. Despite their stated purpose, there was never any discussion or lobbying efforts to work on changing the laws. It was basically a cover for pedophiles to get together to discuss the best places to prey on young boys.
But of course the ACLU defends their rights.....
October 20, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Either way..... its been over 7 weeks now since the general made his request for more troops. When will we make a decision about whether to win it or not? Obama did increase troop levels early on...... but the request has been on the table nearly 2 months now.....
October 20, 2009 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
From your link:
NATO currently has about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, of which 32,000 are Americans.
However........also......
"The U.S. military also has about 36,000 additional soldiers there serving outside NATO under a separate command."
So, I am asking, are our current troops there in greater danger and risk because of being undermanned while we take our time to be decisive?
October 20, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Its kind of funny about this part of Bushs quote, " they have a desire to impose their ideology on much of the world.”
I may be wrong, but isn' t this the same basic policy of the U.S. government only it should be " We have a desire to impose our ideology on much of or some of the World " .
And there in a nut shell is the problem ! We do not want anyone imposing their ideologies upon us, so why should we, in particular, our government expect any other country to want us, the U.S. government impose our ideologies upon them and yet we, the U.S. government. cannot understand why other countries are angry with the U.S. !
October 20, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
What happened to Germany, Italy and Japan when they tried to forcefully impose their ideologies on the rest of the World ?
October 20, 2009 at 10:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
This has nothing to do with this topic, but I thought it was some interesting info,
Is poverty at 40 million — or 47 million?
U.S. releases higher figures from revised formula as lawmakers mull change
For 2008, the Census estimated the poverty threshold under that formula would be $24,755. Many of those who would be newly defined as poor under this formula are older Americans with growing out-of-pocket medical expenses.
It would seem that the U.S. has more pressing domestic problems, than fighting two non-productive wars, at the same time !
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33395012/...
October 20, 2009 at 10:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And this is what President Obama says about the war in Afghanistan:
"“We must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity,” he said of the Afghan mission.
The president added: “Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.
“So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defence of our people.”
Sounds pretty well-defined to me. Furthermore, from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...
"President Barack Obama's former chief advisor on Afghanistan has warned that it would be a "fairy tale" for the US to think it could split the Taliban away from al-Qaeda.
Bruce Riedel, who has advised three presidents and spent 29 years in the CIA, also emphasised the dangers of "dithering" as Mr Obama conducts a second overhaul of Afghan strategy in only six months.
As he seeks an alternative strategy, some leading advisors are pushing a dramatic new approach to the Taliban. They want to differentiate between some Afghan factions of the Islamic movement, arguing they do not represent a major threat to US security abroad, and extremist Pakistan Taliban and their foreign al-Qaeda allies, who are driven by virulent anti-Americanism.
Several respected national security strategists and Pentagon advisors have expressed severe reservations, however. Gen McChrystal warned on Friday that a beefed-up counter-insurgency campaign was required to prevent a new Taliban takeover.....
Mr Riedel's comments carry particular weight as he was a senior policy advisor to Mr Obama's election campaign and then headed a major review on Afghan and Pakistan policy for the new president.....
Mr Riedel, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, a Washington thinktank, is dismissive of the talk of splitting Afghan factions of the Taliban away from the foreign jihadists of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror faction. "This is a fairy tale," he said.
"Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been closely aligned ever since Osama bin Laden came back to Afghanistan in the mid-1990s," he said. "What is most remarkable about that partnership is that it has survived and endured.
Mr Riedel also pointedly addressed the time it was taking Mr Obama to decide his new strategy."There's a delicate line between rethinking and dithering," he said.
October 20, 2009 at 11:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I bet Obama was just kiddin' about all that stuff about the Afghanistan war bein' "a war of necessity”. He knows that Bush just went in there cuz he wanted to start a rug store chain and he heard that them Afghans made a pertty good rug.
R.
October 21, 2009 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
**** of get off the pot in my opinion. Whether we belong there or not, our trrops are there in harms way, get them out now, or give them the zerg they need to push through.
October 23, 2009 at 7:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Hey, goodoleboy - we agree! Stop the dithering, Prez.....**** or get off the pot. If you want to implement a different strategy, you can take your months to figure it out while the requested "surge" gets things stable and safer.
October 23, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Let me play, " Devils Advocate " for just a moment, for the sake of disculssion and thought, please read the following info I have gleened from the internet !
NBC News reported in May 2002 that a formal National Security Presidential Directive submitted two days before September 11, 2001, had outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks.
However, an article published in March 2001 by Jane's, a media outlet serving the military and intelligence communities, suggests that the United States had already been planning and taking just such action against the Taliban six months before September 11, 2001.
The BBC News reported that, according to a Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would proceed by the middle of October at the latest.
Now, again playing the devils advocate here, it would seem that the war in Afghanistan had already been planned for, far in advance of 9/11 ! And it may have been entirely feasible that Osama Bin Laden knew of the plans to either capture him or kill him as far back as 1999 and could it be entirely possible that this was the reason the attacks of 9/11 were carried out ? The one thing you have to remember is that the U.S. is and was dealing with extreme radicals who believe in " vengence " and are not afraid to die for what they believe in !
Please, don' t get angry at me, I am just putting forth a " hypothesis " for the sake of thought and discussion !
October 23, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think the current administration already has plans on the table and drawn up to invade red states, and laser-guided precision bombing plans to hit any media outlet that dares to allow anyone to voice disagreement with their policies - LOL
October 23, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Moved to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
October 23, 2009 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )