Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Obama Thread II
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 376 of 397 (656246)
03-17-2012 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by onifre
03-17-2012 9:08 AM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
Where does Afghanistan show up as a supporter for Bin Laden, the attacks or financial backing?
I already told you. Via Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban.
Any further questions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by onifre, posted 03-17-2012 9:08 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by onifre, posted 03-17-2012 9:51 AM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 377 of 397 (656247)
03-17-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by crashfrog
03-17-2012 9:43 AM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
Any further questions?
Yes, three more. One of which is a three part question. So try to follow, it will get tricky as I'm goiing to start with the second question first, then work backwards but may switch to forward. Then the three part question is in there somewhere and it too will be out of order. And don't hesitate to ask me to repeat the question/s either. I'm here mainly for you.
First Question (second in the order):
But wasn't Mullah Omar and the Taliban funded and supported with fighters by Pakistan and it's clerics?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2012 9:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2012 9:58 AM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 378 of 397 (656248)
03-17-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by onifre
03-17-2012 9:51 AM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
The Taliban funded al-Qaeda, and received training and soldiers in response. At what point did Pakistan fund al-Qaeda? Please be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by onifre, posted 03-17-2012 9:51 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by onifre, posted 03-18-2012 2:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 379 of 397 (656254)
03-17-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by dronestar
03-16-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
[gonzo]
That hot wife was a deal Kucinich made with the actual real powers running this country to portray himself as a fringe idiot. "You be an extreme leftist to make those way over there think they have someone representing them, a token voice as it were, and we'll set you up with the life-long fuck of your wildest dreams. Deal?"
[/gonzo]

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by dronestar, posted 03-16-2012 3:51 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by dronestar, posted 03-19-2012 11:32 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 380 of 397 (656255)
03-17-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by crashfrog
03-17-2012 8:21 AM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
There's a coherent Afghani identity, a national currency, they've been ruled by a central authority since the 19th century, there's even a national dress.
Do the women each take turns wearing it for one day?
I just don't see how anyone can claim that there's not a coherent Afghani national identity. We didn't go there to fight one tribe or another, we went there to crush the Taliban, the ruling Afghan government which attacked us on 9/11 via al-Qaeda proxies.
These two statements aren't in connection to one another.
Yes, we went to attack the Taliban, but that doesn't mean that there is a coherent Afghanistan.
When the US Army went to attack the Apache, there wasn't a coherent Native American community, then though the Iroquois Confederacy had been around for more than a century at that point.
I don't question why we went to Afghanistan, but like Iraq, it's a land populated by uncontrollable savages who've been engaged in battle with one another since before time began. There's no uniting them, no controlling them.
Frankly, we shouldn't have landed troops at all. Just blast the strongholds to powder, and if they try and put two bricks together again, blow it up too.
The problem American is facing in the post Soviet world, is that we believed our own bullsh1t about being the good guys.
There's a reason we out spend every other nation on Earth (and mostly likely all of them put together) on our military. Afghanistan would have been the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that.
Yes, we would have gotten the stink eye from the world, but W got us that for Iraq anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2012 8:21 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2012 11:40 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 381 of 397 (656266)
03-17-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Nuggin
03-17-2012 11:05 AM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Yes, we went to attack the Taliban, but that doesn't mean that there is a coherent Afghanistan.
No, it's the fact that there's been a coherent Afghanistan since the 19th century that means there's a coherent Afghanistan. You can elide all my evidence by being snide if you like, but I've given copious examples of Afghan national and cultural unity that would more than establish that Afghanistan is not some artificial or synthetic collection of tribes, but a coherent nation that also has tribes.
Scotland has clans, but that's not evidence that there's not really any such thing as "Scotland" or that Scots, clannish as they may be, don't view themselves as belonging to a distinct group called "Scots."
There's no uniting them, no controlling them.
For fuck's sake, what could possibly be your basis for these statements?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 11:05 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 382 of 397 (656408)
03-18-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by crashfrog
03-17-2012 9:58 AM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
The Taliban funded al-Qaeda, and received training and soldiers in response. At what point did Pakistan fund al-Qaeda? Please be specific.
Don't be a twat. Of course Pakistan isn't DIRECTLY funding Al Qaeda, but they do so indirectly through funding the Taliban.
They aided, along with Saudi Arabia, the uprising of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
SOurce
quote:
The Taliban's early victories in 1994 were followed by a series of defeats that resulted in heavy losses which led analysts to believe the Taliban movement had run its course. But Pakistan provided increased support to the Taliban. Many analysts like Amin Saikal describe the Taliban as developing into a proxy force for Pakistan's regional interests. On 26 September 1996, as the Taliban with military support by Pakistan and financial support by Saudi Arabia prepared for another major offensive, Massoud ordered a full retreat from Kabul. The Taliban seized Kabul on 27 September 1996, and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. They imposed on the parts of Afghanistan under their control their political and judicial interpretation of Islam issuing edicts especially targeting women.
further-
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf — then as Chief of Army Staff — was responsible for sending thousands of Pakistanis to fight alongside the Taliban and bin Laden against the forces of Massoud. According to Pakistani Afghanistan expert Ahmed Rashid, "between 1994 and 1999, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistanis trained and fought in Afghanistan" on the side of the Taliban. In 2001 alone, there were believed to be 28,000 Pakistani nationals, many either from the Frontier Corps or army, fighting inside Afghanistan. An estimated 8,000 Pakistani militants were recruited in madrassas filling the ranks of the estimated 25,000 regular Taliban force. A 1998 document by the U.S. State Department confirms that "20—40 percent of [regular] Taliban soldiers are Pakistani." The document further stated that the parents of those Pakistani nationals "know nothing regarding their child's military involvement with the Taliban until their bodies are brought back to Pakistan."
further -
In early 2001 Massoud addressed the European Parliament in Brussels asking the international community to provide humanitarian help to the people of Afghanistan. He stated that the Taliban and al-Qaeda had introduced "a very wrong perception of Islam" and that without the support of Pakistan and bin Laden the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for up to a year. On this visit to Europe he also warned that his intelligence had gathered information about a large-scale attack on U.S. soil being imminent.
That should be specific enough. Pakistan is responsible for the Taliban's rise in Afghansitan, and 20-40% of Talibani soldiers were Pakistani.
Pakistan should have been the target, not Afghanistan.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2012 9:58 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2012 3:10 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 383 of 397 (656410)
03-18-2012 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by onifre
03-18-2012 2:31 PM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
Of course Pakistan isn't DIRECTLY funding Al Qaeda, but they do so indirectly through funding the Taliban.
And Pakistan has cooperated with our efforts to defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban. So, again, I don't see the point.
Pakistan should have been the target, not Afghanistan.
Target for what? Pakistan is our cooperating ally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by onifre, posted 03-18-2012 2:31 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by onifre, posted 03-18-2012 4:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 384 of 397 (656417)
03-18-2012 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by crashfrog
03-18-2012 3:10 PM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
Like I said, Al Qaeda is a militia group with ties to no specific country. Neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan shoud have been the target. I was speaking in hypothetical given that you supported the invasion of Afghanistan due to it's attack on the US, as you claimed.
If Pakistan isn't targeted for indirectly aiding Al Qaeda by funding the Taliban and supporting Bin Laden, then neither should have Afghanistan.
Can you concede on that?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2012 3:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2012 4:33 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 385 of 397 (656419)
03-18-2012 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by onifre
03-18-2012 4:18 PM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
Neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan shoud have been the target.
But, again, I think Afghanistan and the Taliban were a pretty reasonable target considering that bin Laden was hiding out in Afghanistan as a guest of the Taliban. Why would you invade Pakistan when bin Laden was in Afghanistan?
Recall that when we did get bin Laden, it was in Pakistan, with Pakistan's help.
If Pakistan isn't targeted for indirectly aiding Al Qaeda by funding the Taliban and supporting Bin Laden, then neither should have Afghanistan.
That makes zero fucking sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by onifre, posted 03-18-2012 4:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by onifre, posted 03-18-2012 4:36 PM crashfrog has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 386 of 397 (656420)
03-18-2012 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by crashfrog
03-18-2012 4:33 PM


Re: *Removes gym guy hat. Puts on aluminum hat*
And Percy asks why?!
But, again, I think Afghanistan and the Taliban were a pretty reasonable target considering that bin Laden was hiding out in Afghanistan as a guest of the Taliban.
Yup, you're right.
That makes zero fucking sense.
You're even righter.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2012 4:33 PM crashfrog has seen this message but not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 387 of 397 (656497)
03-19-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Perdition
03-16-2012 4:52 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Perd writes:
Tell me what you would have done with both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from January 2009.
As I wrote repeatedly before, it is a loaded question which can't be directly answered because it doesn't address, at all, america's illegal and immoral actions that PRECIPITATED the invasions.
Obama funded the wars, I did not. If you buy it, you own it. He was NOT "supporting the troops" by funding the occupation. One does NOT support troops by FORCING them to immorally occupy a country that america had previously SUPPORTED the radical and violent Mujahideen that spawned Bin Laden which then indirectly led the Taliban to rise. The Afghans remember this. The American public doesn't know or care. Crash certainly doesn't address these pertinent points (. . . again, I am amazed he sways so many people here. He is a self-admitted moral-relativist. Read as: arrogant/dishonest).
Nor does it address america's fanatical interest in the natural gas pipelines PREVIOUS to 9/11. The Afghans know this. The American public doesn't know or care.
The american troop suicide rates are through the roof, no wonder atrocities by american troops keep happening. Ask yourself, why? NOT rhetorical, ask yourself why?
American troop presence is so bad, the population has chosen the Taliban. American government knows this, that is why america WAS in desperate talks with the Taliban (The Taliban has just walked away from the talks because AMERICA was acting so criminally, see sites below).
Since the invasion, America has made things worse. Who doesn't know this? Why in the world would you think in ANOTHER ten years we could help the Afghani police and military secure their own country? C'mon Perd, are you paying any attention to the problems there?
As I wrote repeatedly before, America's CONTINUED occupation in Afghanistan is about hegemony and energy resources. The American government knows it. The Afghan people know it. The American public that watches corporate "news" like FOX news, are unaware. If America was REALLY pro- democracy, human rights and against "terrorism", then you FIRST need to explain america's support/aid for Israel, Egypt, Coloumbia, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc,.
Perd writes:
I would hope any bases built would be approved by the Afghani government.
Are you kidding me?
quote:
March 15, 2012; Karzai wants U.S., allies out of Afghanistan next year, not 2014 as planned
Read more: New York Daily News
quote:
March 15, 2012 ; Karzai wants early US troops pullback as Panetta shrugs off Afghan runway attack
http://www.news.com.au/...ttack/story-e6frfkyi-1226301006989
quote:
March 15, 2012 : Karzai Calls on U.S. to Pull Back as Taliban Cancel Talks
Karzai Wants U.S. Troops Confined to Bases; Taliban Suspend Peace Talks - The New York Times
Edited by dronester, : Re-linked Saddam and Rumsfield photo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Perdition, posted 03-16-2012 4:52 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Perdition, posted 03-19-2012 4:47 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 388 of 397 (656501)
03-19-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by xongsmith
03-17-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
X writes:
You be an extreme leftist
I know your reply was an attempt at humor Xong, but . . .
Someone who carries a pocket-sized copy of the U.S. Constitution and wants the USA to follow its rules and laws and international laws is "an extreme leftist"???
This is the type of mindset we usually get from Crash. Just saying.
Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by xongsmith, posted 03-17-2012 10:52 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 389 of 397 (656529)
03-19-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by dronestar
03-19-2012 11:10 AM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
As I wrote repeatedly before, it is a loaded question which can't be directly answered because it doesn't address, at all, america's illegal and immoral actions that PRECIPITATED the invasions.
I agree that the invasion of Iraq was immoral, probably illegal, and should not have been done. I also think the invasion of Afghanistan made some sort of sense. I don't know if I would have wanted it had I been president in 2001, but I probably would have deferred to my military advisors (which is sort of why they were appointed).
If I had been a senator, again, I would have listened to people with military and intelligence sources. I may have voted for that invasion, I would have voted against the Iraq one.
Once the wars were going on, it would have been a clusterfuck to defund it. It would have left American troops open to retaliation or attack. It would have severely undermined any possibility of an ordered withdrawal. So, I would have voted for funding, all the while trying to convince the president to order such an ordered withdrawal, or maybe I would have listened to those pesky military advisors. Perhaps I would have been wrong, as the evidence we have in hindsight shows, but seeing as how I'm human, and would have been living in the present without benefit of hindsight, that would be understandable.
Had I been in power, I would not have authrorized rendition, nor would I have authroized the waterboarding and other forms of torture.
But again, all this has nothing to do with what you think Obama shoudl have done the day of his inauguration.
So, I've told you what I would have done leading up to and during the Bush presidency were I president or in congress. Can you please answer the question. I don't care what bad things were done, I care what you would have done differently.
Frankly, it seems strange that you're having such a hard time answering this question. I know it's a toughie, but you seem to be very willing to throw Obama under the bus and call him a war criminal, but you have not advocated a single positive position. All you've said is that you're against A and against B. What are you for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by dronestar, posted 03-19-2012 11:10 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by dronestar, posted 03-20-2012 12:43 PM Perdition has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 390 of 397 (656593)
03-20-2012 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Perdition
03-19-2012 4:47 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Perd writes:
I agree that the invasion of Iraq was immoral, probably illegal, and should not have been done. I also think the invasion of Afghanistan made some sort of sense.
Huh? I don't know how you can entertain both extreme ideas in your head. No wonder you find it strange that I am having such a difficult time replying to your posts.
Perd writes:
but I probably would have deferred to my military advisors (which is sort of why they were appointed). If I had been a senator, again, I would have listened to people with military and intelligence sources.
Perdition, this is an area where we are at exact polar opposites. You view the military as a source of potential solutions, I see the military as ONLY a source of PROBLEMS/CRIMINALITY. Asking the military for advice will only get you military "solutions." (Ravhin has cheered your post? Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, Rahvin is also pro-atom bomb/pro-military "solution".)
SENATOR Obama pledged, as an "anti-war" candidiate, he would end the Iraq war. But the opposite happened, PRESIDENT Obama ended up desperately trying to EXTEND the Iraqi war with an immunity clause against criminal actions by american troops. But SENATOR Obama didn't vow just to end the Iraq War, he also vowed to "end the mindset" that led to war. So why did he recommend his cabinet be stacked with war-mongerer appointees to influential positions with foreign policy; Biden, H. Clinton, Gates, Blair, J. Napolitano, Holmbrooke, and Emanuel? These people all fully supported the Iraq war with a disdain against international law, United Nations Charters, and international treaties. Furthermore, H. Clinton, (while continually funding the death to innocent Iraqi women and childrenas did Obama), continued to parrot Bush Jr. lies long after truth's were self evident. WTF? Yet Obama still recommended H. Clinton to SOS.
Some cabinet appointees like the National Security Advisor, ARE appointed by the President without any confirmation process. In addition, some appointees serve at the pleasure of the President, also without any confirmation process, such as Obama's choice of RICHARD HOLBROOKE (a Jimmy Carter aide that made certain Indonesian dictator Suharto received U.S. weapons so that Suharto could invade and massacre 200,000 people in East Timor) special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So, even IF Obama was somewhat constrained by the Senate, it doesn't explain why all, ALL, his recommendations NEEDED to be war-mongerers, . . . exactly the opposite of what he pledged.
As an analogous example: why did so many news writers, military advisers, talk show "analysts," who wrongly promoted the Iraq war, retain their jobs in the media?
quote:
Bill O'Reilly declared on Good Morning America: "And I said on my program, if -- if -- the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
William Kristol, member of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) recommended america invade Iraq for their energy resources, BEFORE 9/11. He is now an American neoconservative[1] political analyst and commentator and a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel.
Judith Miller (born January 2, 1948) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, formerly of the New York Times Washington bureau. Her coverage of Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program both before and after the 2003 invasion generated much controversy.[1] A number of stories she wrote while working for The New York Times later turned out to be inaccurate or completely false. Media observers have criticized Miller and the New York Times for not publishing her role in the Plame-Wilson leak. She became a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank. She is currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations!
It would seem to me, if the corporate media wanted truth and a writer's ability to see through government lies, they should had fired them all and hired the people who instead warned of Bush Jr. Lies. IF the corporate media wanted the truth.
Perd writes:
Once the wars were going on, it would have been a clusterfuck to defund it. It would have left American troops open to retaliation or attack. It would have severely undermined any possibility of an ordered withdrawal.
Yes, I understand that the government and the corporate media would have liked you to believe that (and that Iraq had WMD, and that america is winning the war on terrorism, and etc., ).
Perd writes:
What are you for?
If I was forced at gunpoint to be president of the US on 2009, I would be FOR: surrounding myself with people who have easily seen through the lies of the Iraqi WMD, who understand that "military solutions" are an oxymoron, who understand that only REAL diplomacy can ever achieve lasting peace. Believe it or not, there were many who didn't believe the immoral simpleton, Bush Jr.: "the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom". I wouldn't hire those mentally retarded mindsets, as Obama has done. I'd surround myself with the opposite mindsets. That is what I am "for".
Edited by dronester, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Perdition, posted 03-19-2012 4:47 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 1:00 PM dronestar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024