The war, the clash of cultures, WWIII, the Arab Israeli conflict, 911, energy security, Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Ahmadinejad,Israel, Palestine. The focus of the country and the world today is on the Middle East for many reasons.
Primarily there is oil, since if it were to stop, then so would almost all of our lives, about as quick as if our hearts were to stop pumping blood. No gas, no cars, no getting to work, no buying things are the mall, no getting to the mall, no one working at the mall, no economy.
Then there is the repugnant cultures made more repugnant by tyranny and enough wealth to really build 21st century totalitarian regimes using a crushing combination of a an extreme intolerant church, state, and the arbitrary hierarchical power to terror and torture.
There is the way women are treated as well. Divorced with a few words and put out int he street. Raped, and convicted and punished for being raped. Caught unaware in a fire and prevented from leaving the burning building by the morality police who lock the doors and let them burn.
The expansionism of poor economic refugees to all parts of the globe followed by money funnelled to build mosques and social support networks that also sometimes function as centers for radicalization and terrorism, see Greenlane Mosque in London and others.
Into this tinderbox add 911 and it is easy to lose sight of this big picture when action was finally provoked and taken. We had to decide what to do when terrorism is the culprit, and terrorism is hiding inside and behind these kind of states, full of "innocent" people. Of course, consider, they are also innocent of what their governments do them as well.
Certainly the two actions we settled on are not perfect. Neither were actions taken in WWII, and many more people on all sides were lost in that war. Most big battles of WWII has more casualties in a week than the badly sloganed "War On Terror" had in almost 5 years. It is a nasty, guerilla, terrorist, long-term, low-intensity struggle.
Into this picture we have Barack Obama in 2001 who was in the Illinois State Legislature, and making grandstand comments about how this war was "stupid." Since this was not his job one wonders the reason for his commentary on the war, also considering his lack of access to classified information.
Obama says he is not against war, but that this war is stupid. What little he has said about wars that are not stupid are that he would be willing to invade Pakistan to get at terrorists that the govenrnment there either can not or will not go after. The time to test that statement is now. Pakistan's internal political situation is such that we can no longer fool ourselves that they are going after Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda.
What Obama says on this critical and timely issue bears on the credibililty of his whole political existence. He either says we go into Pakistan, or we withdraw from everywhere.
Obama's attack on the war looked at from the point of view of an ambitious politician, and that is what Obama is, a poltician - not a religious figure, was easy to understand. Attack the war, attack the leader, George W. Bush made an easy target. The problem is most Americans still do not know if retreat from Iraq makes sense given the long term interests in this area. There are things that point that way, like the huge cost of this effort, and the loss of life, and the meager results obtained by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell. Tragically these mistakes are already made - the words are really inadequate to express. The complex question is, that is still not illuminated to the people of the country, what do things look like right now, and what is it going to mean whatever course of action we take. Strangely the whole country and the media is silent on that.
In the middle of this morass we have Senator Obama taking advantage of this bad situation, to what end? Educate us on what our options are? He has not been at the national level long enough to have any idea? Tell us what his strategies are for the future? No, he cannot do that either, or will not. What Barack Obama tells us is that he is new, different, the "change" candidate based on how much we American are frustrated, take a gamble and vote for him. Based on his character .... based on his leadership ... based on saying Iraq was a dumb war.
What right does a less than one-term Senator with no previous exposure or responsiblity for military or national strategic actions have to make a decision like this? Based on the election power of people who think he is anti-war, and pro-war both at the same time.
The absolute arrogance and rapidity of this man's rise is the perfect storm of mindless voter frustration with many issues, but has nothing to do with thinking, or educating, or talking with the American people or leadership, it has to do with demagoging and trying to be all things to all people, or as the real Abe Lincoln would have said, fooling all of the people some of the time.
Obama's campaign is based on trying to fool all of the people all of the time, and doing it fast enough so there is no time for thought and questions, particularly given our media and our pathetic debate format.
That is why I have to go with the people who I feel I know who stand for something, and have shown that for a long time, either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Even when what they stand for is not exactly what I want, gambling on the future of the country based on "hope" is truly mindless.
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 86
Precisely, you would do well to try it yourself.
Are you even remotely aware that Al Qeada is the product of US intelligence services? Do you know that at least two of the hijackers were living with an FBI informant in the months before 9/11, that some of them were receiving financial assistance from the Saudi royal family, and Pakistani intelligence?
You go on like you know a thing or two about terrorism but I will bet you dollars to donuts you have never read a single word from anyone who has studied the phenomenon of terrorism as their life's work. It is much more obvious your information comes right out of Faux News "fair and balanced fearmongering for the masses." Get informed, bruce.
The Iraq war was based on trumped up lies. The documentation for this is not in dispute. What was it, 900+ false statements made the administration in the run up to invasion? Ever heard of the Downing Street memos? Did you know the aluminum tubes Rice said were without a doubt for centrifuges to enrich uranium were known by the State Dept. to not be of the correct alloy, and could not have been for centrifuges. How do you deal with such insubordination? Make Rice head of the State Dept.
I have not made any decision on who to vote for, so I am not stumping here for Obama. I am countering foolishness. This war was "stupid" though that is not how I would put it. It was ill conceived. It was dishonest. It was based on a different agenda than the "war on terror" deception. It was about oil. Always was, and always will be. Good men and women, US and Iraqi are dying for oil oligarchs. Creating a "terrorist" threat is all part and parcel of the game. The stupidity of the voting public is to not recognize that they have been thoroughly duped into giving up nearly everything that makes this country great. For what? For the oil oligarchs. For record profits to the oil companies (and military contractors), year after year after year after year after year.... to the tune of at least $3 Trillion....
Bush falsified intelligence to justify invading a soverign nation with a leader that while horrible to his people was never a thread the US...and I am so sure the people of Iraq are so glad we invaded and brought them democracy.
Under Saddam they had schools and running water...under democracy they have no running water schools are being bombed and their cities are in ruin.
I think the Iraqis would probably help the American troops pack their bags if we were to pull out.
I think its funny that people critisize those that say the war is stupid but support a lying president.
BTW the war is stupid and IF Bushs intention was to gain control of their oil he again failed miserably.
Actually, just in the interest of full disclosure, while most of Iraq had running water and electricity pre-war, there were still large areas that did not.
I tend to agree with a likely disaster if we were to leave. But after reading the following you might agree that even if we stay, we are likely to face a disaster. You, and many others, talk about having a present policy for Iraq, but offer no solutions yourselves. Why is that? Because we have created a very dangerous situation in Iraq, for which there is no easy answers that doesn't involve a whole lot of blood whether we stay or leave. It is really not something you should throw in anybodies face, saying they are incompetent or infantile. That will blow back at you as the infantile one.
Read this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge
I have to agree with Kay and Patti above as well on Iraq. I just can't agree with using how we got there with Bush, or how poorly it was run under Rumsfeld after, as the reason to immediately withdraw today. I think it would be a mistake in the long run, and leave it at that for now.
Thanks for your thoughts, and you make some valid points. Take care.
Stephen, if you need me to explain to you what I meant by our country sacrificing and fighting tyranny, just ask a WWII veteran, or go to a library.
"Win this conflict..." you really believe this bushism? I hope you will read the Nir Rosen piece.
Tell me Stephen, what choices do we have other than stabilizing the country? By the way, thanks for the compliment on my cat, Snowy, shows you have some good judgement! :)
"To the Americans, the Awakening represents a grand process of reconciliation, a way to draw more Sunnis into the fold. But whatever reconciliation the ISVs [Iraqi Security Volunteers] offer lies between the Americans and the Iraqis, not among Iraqis themselves. Most Shiites I speak with believe that the same Sunnis who have been slaughtering Shiites throughout Iraq are now being empowered and legitimized by the Americans as members of the ISVs. On one raid with U.S. troops, I see children chasing after the soldiers, asking them for candy. But when they learn I speak Arabic, they tell me how much they like the Mahdi Army and Muqtada al-Sadr. "The Americans are donkeys," one boy says. "When they are here we say, 'I love you,' but when they leave we say, 'F*ck you.'"
And:
"Away from the Americans, Karim and his men make no secret of their hatred for the Awakening. One of the most frequent visitors to Karim's headquarters is a stern and thuggish man named Abu Jaafar. A Shiite known to the Americans as Sheik Ali, Abu Jaafar has his own ISV unit of 100 men in the Saha neighborhood of Dora. "He may not be JAM," an American major tells me, using the common shorthand for the Mahdi Army, "but he has a lot of JAM friends."
The Awakening, Abu Jaafar tells me, is full of men who once belonged not just to the 1920 Revolution Brigades and the Army of the Mujahedeen but also to Al Qaeda. He pulls out a list of forty-six people from the neighborhood. "Criminals in Sahwa," he says. He points to two names. "The Americans told me, 'If you see these two men, you can kill them or bring them to us.' Now they are wearing the Sahwa uniform. They say they have reconciled."
Abu Jaafar looks at me and smiles. Shiites, he says, do not need the Awakening. "We are already awake," he says. "Our eyes are open. We know everything. We're just waiting."
Stability is not in the offing anytime soon, and this whole hypothetical thing Russert put out there is from a postion of ignorance.
And for the record, I haven't picked anyone to vote for. I am an independent, and I am not stumping for Obama.
What right does a less than one-term Senator with no previous exposure or responsiblity for military or national strategic actions have to make a decision like this? Based on the election power of people who think he is anti-war, and pro-war both at the same time.
"The absolute arrogance and rapidity of this man's rise is the perfect storm of mindless voter frustration with many issues, but has nothing to do with thinking, or educating, or talking with the American people or leadership, it has to do with demagoging and trying to be all things to all people, or as the real Abe Lincoln would have said, fooling all of the people some of the time. "
I feel your frustration and your confusion at this time yet I will not call those (me included) who are reaching for him as non thinking or lacking in intelligence. We share similar fears as to how our future will open up to us yet when I look at those with the quote "real experience" I see tremendous failures already in their past. I see them as part of the reason we find ourselves in this quagmire with little oppology for the condition. I see them, who are politicians just as Obama is now, who are forced to hedge their words and activities to keep their butts covered from some of the responsibilties which they carry yet still attempt to appear as ones with fresh new approaches. I don't see it. To me its similar to the fox guarding the hen house and giving glorious reports that the status is just fine even tho I can see feathers falling from every place the fox speaks.
That to me is what gives Obama the right and yes, the arrogance to speak about any issue at this time. Who amoung those who have been experiencing the real issues as is so often spoken be it the military complex or international relations is without sin. Let them throw the first stone. Let them explain to the electorate how they fudged on so many issues involving the very situations they were charged in monitoring or working to improve while holding whatever office yet far too many rulings were favorably against the needs of the public. One doesn't need to peep far beyond the office of the vice president to find issues which stink to high heavens in what experience gave us. If one takes a cursory view into who heads or at least makes many policy decisions in the miltary industrial complex one easily finds many of our previous policy makers.
Arrogance? Right to speak on issues? Hell yes. Give me a fresh face even without the experience so many others "suffer" with who are burdoned down with needing to respond to those dollars dangling in their face which might force them to vote against the American people far too often. Give one who has not as yet been smothered by the rampant greed of power as yet. Not saying he will not attain that polictical norm but at this point it is not dripping from his body. Give me one who at least can express knowlege of the needs of the American people and not the lopsided ignoring or downplaying of our condition. You and I do agree GWB was a mistake made by the voters but we take different routes in our feelings as to where to go from here. I can't deal with the idea of joinng with simply an extention of his adminitration. An extention of his policies and what I have always called a willingness to go to any length to make his actions seem palatable. And yes, I do relate much of his actions to our nemesis, Hitler.
Obama may be the politician you say but he is yet to be as tainted as any of those who came before him who I cannot trust either. His arrogance, his judgements, his willingness to be a lot more transparent to the people than any other is another of the attractions people fnd in him. No, I must disagree with those supporting him being non intelligent and simply responding to their frustrations and certainly beyond the "stupidity" of this war. We are all tired of the same old song and dance act and the same old worn out, as you put it, trying to fool all the people some of the time.
Be blessed sir.
I so agree with the choices but I still ask what would be a condition in which we call it a "WIN". It doesn't exist. As long as we are present there we will continue inspiring more terrorist. Even if we some how could simply divide the country into the main beliefs giving Sunnies, Shiites and Kurds ( sp) a portion of the country when we leave we could be sure one of those groups would want more and cause more bloodshed. What is the condition any of us can call a "win". I don't see even if we remained for decades (which I hope we won't). What is a win there?
As soon as we removed Hussein from power the factions that his military and secret police controlled through violence and terror were free to leap at each others' throats and take on US troops as well.
The war has done nothing to serve the national interest in the Middle East. Hussein was a problem for us because of the oil he controlled. We removed him from power and gained no friends. We went from a stable anti-American government to an unstable non-government with armed factions running rampant. We still don't have any better access to the oil.
It's about judgment and doing what is politically convenient. Many democrats who voted for the war did it to look patriotic, take the politically safe stance, and the polls. Bush's approval rating was sky high after 9/11, the country wanted revenge, and they rolled. A leader should not decide like that. That's why the decision to go to war is relevant today and it will always be relevant for the entire generation that voted for it.
WRONG WRONG WRONG. He did not have to speak against the war. He was a state senator. Nobody asked for his opinion. The politically safe option is to keep your mouth shut if you do not have to take a position. POLITICIANs never volunteer their opinion on controversies. An ambitious politician would stay quiet especially when the leaders of your party were getting ready to vote Yes.
You can't spin his stance on the war. Let that go and let's talk about his ability to be an effective president.
Let that war go, Hillary and many people blew it. It's the past. How do we get out? Do you think we should occupy them and build a base there. I am glad to report that both Clinton and Obama agree WE SHOULD GET OUT!
We pack and go.
There is no mission, no objective. What, democracy? No forget it. The most stable Arab countries are ruled by dictators who jail all the radical extremists and we love them. Case in point: Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. If we put democracy in Iraq Al Sadr or someone like that will win the elections outright (See Algeria in the 90s, ask France!). Is that what we want? Who are we to want anything? Are we the one who are going to solve thousand of years fight between Shia and Sunni?
What it did was cause oil prices to soar in retaliation against the western world.
We need a negotiator, someone who is willing to listen and try to put an end to war. We need to crush Al Qaeda, which should have been our focus in Afganistan. Instead we depended on Pakistan.
I don't know if we can just march out of Iraq right now, but we certainly should not be making long term plans to stay indefinitely, which was the Bush/Cheney objective from the start. It back fired.
comments. I was up all night and have some things to do
before I can reply to some of this, but I did want to check in
on this article. There are some good comments here much
less over the top than I thought, but I just skimmed.
I am curious to hear more from the 911 conspiracy people
like Stephen Demitrou and how in their minds Obama fits
into their pictures. It's great to think you have the world
wrapped up in a simple image, I haven't heard Obama say
anything like this though.
Have a good weekend all, hopefully away from politics.
boldness or daring, esp. with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.
> "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler
> Precisely, you would do well to try it yourself.
> Are you even remotely aware that Al Qeada is the product of US intelligence services?
I guess you believe that thinking for yourself is making
things up. Obama bin Laden was not created by the
US Intelligence service, Stephen. OSL went to Afghanistan
to fight Russians, but not as a member of the Mujahadeen.
quotes about Hitler, Nazis, and the evil from WWII, but in on the
subject of swaying the masses Hitler does have quotes that speak
to us today being led by emotions. I too am disappointed in the
conception and execution of the Iraq invasion by the Bush team.
They have been more concerned with pushing a corporation
vision of the world that winning the war and affecting permanent
change in the Middle East.
> The war was a huge mistake founded on a pack of lies
> but saying it over and over does not solve a problem
Nicely put. It is a problem and one that merely reversing
current action does not get us out of or fix.
I disagree with. Another one is about not paying too much attention
to hypotheticals. On the contrary, Obama chose the answering of
hypotheticals strongly as a way to differentiate his brand from the
other's in this election.
Obama has made a point of, even though he may be saying nothing,
saying he would talk int he first your unconditionally with all the
leaders of rogue nations to seem different.
This is one cut that a rational decision can be based on. He was
arrogant to make those comments if he did not mean them, and he
was stupid to make them if he did. He did it for the effect it has on
frustrated people who are not thinking and who have had it with
business as usual. Business as usual has spread to being defined
now as anything that goes on in the country while Bush is in office.
The idea that a President is going to have time to sit down and
seriously meet and listen to and let his time be wasted by a guy
like Ahmadinejad and how many others is bad management.
You know any job someone takes on has a ramp up time for
someone to get his bearings and determine how things work.
Obama in particular will have a long time with this because he
has little experience at the national level, and none as any
kind of executive. Wasting precious time, or not understanding
why Presidents do not waste time getting jerked around by
petty tyrants either shows that Obama is naive, or that he is
pandering to those who are even more naive and ignorant,
his supporters.
> In looking at all of the candidates including Obama even those
> with what we can call traditional experience "I" see no more
> answers coming from them than I see from Obama.
I agree to a large extent with your perception, but I think that if
you look Clinton and McCain, McCain has been candid that he
sees a threat to assess and manage in the Middle East.
Clinton and Obama are probably not willing to stick their necks
out still on this issue, though Obama has, but he balances it
with tough talking rhetoric from both sides to try to be all things
to all people.
The Democrat who did, Joe Biden, was the first candidate on
either side to offer a good plan to resolve problems in Iraq
and we see where that got him with Democrats. This was
a shame.
I see differences, but to me this is not about the differences
in each candidates speil about Iraq. I think Iraq is mostly
going to drive itself whoever is elected. What I think is telling
is the more the person. McCain and Clinton are both older,
less slick, less pandering (my opinion).
Clinton appears really uncomfortable and bad at trying to
get elected. It is not her forte obviously. But I feel like I have
known about her and know her for a long time. She and McCain
are both known quantities to me. Not perfect, but they both
have character and sincerity from both sides on what they want
for this country, and I think both will work hard.
I have no such feeling with Obama. Much of what does it for
others is his way with words, which is good. I use the concept
of thinking on his feet. I think Ralph Nader thinks on his feet.
I think Joe Biden though on his feet. You can see both of these
guy talk and you know they are being themselves.
When I hear Obama talk, I hear cagey, cautious, censoring,
I hear him analyze and parse his words and ideas very carefully.
I distrust this. Especially in someone I have not followed for
as long as the others.
I do not think this acting ability to sway the masses is going
to be particularly useful long nights in the White House dealing
with national or international crises. I do not yet see anything
else in Obama. I am hearing people tell me they see it but
not why or how really.
I voted for Hillary Clinton in the CA primary. For President I
would support her, and sadly have to say I have to be
conservative in voting for the man/woman in the hot seat
and McCain with get my vote if Clinton does not make it
to the election.
If Obama gets elected, it will be interesting, in the Chinese
Curse sense of the word, to see what he does, I would
hope for the best. If he came through I would consider us
very lucky, and eat my hat and would vote another term,
if not, Gather is going to hear a lot of I told you sos!
Whoever gets elected I am very glad to see George Bush
gone, and I sincerely hope he is investigated and we are
told all we can find out about the last 8 years.
> It fits no definition of war I have ever known.
How did 911 look up in your dictionary?
anyway, I'll be happy to keep any eye on him to see what he does, and
re-relect him if he does a good job, but I do not think he is qualified, but
even if I did, I don't know what they hell he would do. I do know that most
of his supporter's thinking makes me extremely nervous.
Obama and 9/11... that is, like so many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, a very good question. I honestly don't know how he would treat it. I do know Biden has said there is more to be learned about Able Danger, the military program that identified some of the hijackers well before 9/11. That is left to be investigated further. There were FBI documents just released by a FOIA request that say the supposed cell phone calls from flight 77 never took place. Kucinich is intent on investigating the put options on American and United airlines before the event. The European Parliament, an Australian lawyer in a terrorism court case, a well respected international observer Dr. Hans Koechler (Kofi Annan's observer to the Lockerbei Trials at the Hague), German financial experts, a member of Japan's parliament, a well respected Canadian official have all said either 9/11 was an inside job, or needs a thorough investigation as their countries' cooperation with the US is predicated on the official interpretation of this event. Whoever is elected will have to deal in some way with this rising tide of suspicion. The glaring omissions in the official investigations are seen as gaping cracks in the gov's stony edifice of the "war on terror." The non-existent cell phone calls from flight 77 directly contradicts the 9/11 commission report, as do many other less well documented claims.
There were the anthrax letters sent to high democrat officials, the anthrax strain itself confirmed to match the same strain that is kept at the army lab in Ames, Iowa. This has never been resolved, and is apparently attempted murder.
All things a new government not constrained by GOP stonewalling, impediments, and obstacles might want to look at more carefully. The question is, and might be your question too, bruce, how deep do the democrats want to go? Would revelations that 9/11 was an inside job, IF it was, being so traumatic for the country, cause such deep, maybe violent divisions, would they be willing to go there? I don't know.
Regarding Obama's pledge to sit with rogue leaders... I am assuming he is not talking about he personally sitting down with Ahmadinejad, or anyone like him. He is advocating a policy, which I support, that was seen in the negotiations with North Korea. It is better to get in the room with people like this, you have more of a chance of influencing the outcome more favorably if you are in the room with your opponent than if you are excluding yourself from any talk at all. Talks have been going on, in limited respects with Iran, and should be expanded. It is incredibly shortsighted to not pursue this line, as there is much more to gain from negotiations than from destabilizing brinkmanship. Flynnt Leverett, once a part of Bush's foreign policy team, has argued for this for years, so it is not simply a "democrat's" idea. It is common sense, to a lot of us.
It should be very carefully noted that the peripheral instability that is occurring in the middle east, in Pakistan, in northern Iraq between the Turks and the PKK, in Syria, in Lebanon all have a cloud of ambiguity about what the real irritant is. Pakistanis openly say, there was not prevalent extremism in Pakistan before 9/11, and that Osama Bin Laden was a product of CIA and ISI. Lebanon was a stable, growing economy, with a weak but well functioning democratic government before being blown into instability by Israel's war with Hezbollah (with US blessings). It is now on the brink of another civil war. Syria has made many overtures to the West, and Israel in particular, even holding talks, yet unknown "terrorist" entities are claimed to be destabilizing the relative calm that exists there. Seymour Hersch writing for the New Yorker made very credible claims, based on his many, and long connections with military and intelligence sources, that the US and Israel is exploiting al Qeada connected groups in Lebanon and Syria for this very purpose. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated under highly suspicious circumstances, which many look at with gov complicity in mind, just before it was a given that she would have won elections for her party. All of this instability have very suspicious fingerprints, is being blamed on faceless Al Qeada related terrorists, with all of the "proof" being held very closely.
Many things in the middle east are hanging by a thread. And I see many plausible reasons to suspect they have more to do with the Project for a New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defenses report than with extremists living in caves and rural tribal lands of Pakistan and Afghanistan. As patsies, they provide a very convenient target, but the real threat comes from those using them as patsies.
I could say if 911 is an inside job then we either do not really have
a country, or we are just property of our country.
Further, if 911 was an "inside job" whatever that means, how
inside was it. So inside that it was outside. What if just for the
hell of it say, the Saudi's through their massive economic
influence had basically hired the Bush family and as many
contacts as they could round up to set this whole thing up
to weaken Iraq and kill Shiites in preparation for some kind
of move on their part, while putting the US in the poor
house with a critically weakened military able to do
nothing.
There are all kinds of senarios, and the problem for me,
since I have thought about this stuff a little, how would
you ever know if what you were reading was anywhere
near the truth? And, what do you do with it once you
might know it?
All these questions rely on their being "an American
People" and when you listen to people talk on Gather,
I don't think there is anymore. I think our country is
rapidly going out of style for lots of reasons good and
bad.
So, there are things that even if true we have no hope
of ever being able to handle as a country. We need a
new global society, and still them I think that radical
Islam, as well as Communist China, and Corrupt Russia,
as well as feudal Africa and even parts of the US
Corporate structure are not in line with that.
The world cannot continue these national games
of war, we have lots of important things to do. And
alot of these ideas were right in line with the
Project For A New American Century. For all I know
the conspiracy was to disable and discredit the US
so that it would not be able to get his job done
and petty feudalism could continue by enslaving
local people like serfs to the royal capital controllers.
This is the prologue to a great essay by Scott Horton:
"In France, innumerable summary executions occur, even as I sit here writing. Each day certainly more than a thousand people are killed, and thousands of German men experience murder as a matter of routine. And yet all of that is child's play compared to what's going on in Poland and Russia. Can I learn about this and just sit at the table in my heated apartment and drink tea? Don't I establish my complicity simply by doing nothing? What will I say in the future, when someone asks me: and what did you do during this time?"
- Helmuth von Moltke, in a letter to his wife, Oct. 19, 1941
I guess if it comes that you cannot live with yourself having attained a certain knowledge, you act according to your conscience.
Not specifically, bruce, though I guess it could be looked at that way. I hold this guy up more as a good example. He was a lawyer working in the German High Command, and through his efforts probably saved not a few lives. He was disturbed by the legal twists and turns, some that closely follow a few of our own, and as he was able worked to deflect the damage they were doing. He was eventually killed by the Nazis.
I don't fully understand what you said above about PNAC. I can't tell from your comment if the important things we need to be doing, are in line with PNAC, or not. I think not. Weaponization of space (which we just witnessed to a certain extent with the satellite shoot-down), a large expansion in military spending (which has happened, post 9/11), permanent bases in strategic, geopolitical regions, (Iraq, Afghanistan, the other Gulf region bases), manned with constabulary forces, nuclear supremacy, which if the long range radar systems in Czech Republic, Poland, and Japan are installed against the objections of Russia and China, we will have first strike capability... and nuclear supremacy. None of this military buildup is beneficial to the world in general. It is beneficial to those financing, and profiting from it. I don't see much altruism in any of it.
Where does Obama or Clinton stand on this? Clinton is, in my opinion, much more of a hawk. Obama's advisors I would hope are more pragmatic, and encourage a well orchestrated, international stand down, starting with the abolition of nuclear weapons. Obama has said he would work toward that end. Clinton has hedged.
Since you mentioned them, though, I would love for you to provide some specific examples for "legal twists and turns" that so closely correlate. You must certainly have them on hand if you're willing to mention it.
> whoever is the first to mention Nazi Germany in a debate automatically loses.
>>"What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler
Hmmm, guess that would be me then. Does it count that I actually had a point?
But, Stephen, the weaponization of space, does not really refer to the shooting down of satellites. At least, originally, it meant placing weapons themselves in space, as in nuclear bombs, or lasers.
On PNAC I think in theory is it sound thinking. Dreadul as the practice has been, and doubly dreadful under George W. Bush, the idea that Western values are in a conflict for survival in the world and should prevail is one I subscribe to. I think the world would be even worse off without someone doing something.
If I had my druthers I would have the US standing down a little bit and Europe and Australia taking a larger role, but when the brunt of the work falls on the US with lackluster support from Eurabia, that's a problem.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
I support Hillary. Obama is a lightweight in my view.
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
An excellent discussion of the comparisons of our extra-judicial rendition policies, our own "Night and Fog Decree" (Nacht und Neberlerlass) and while not a perfect match certainly compare, can be found here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/when-lawyers-are-war-criminals.html
One significant point made in this essay is that nearly 7000 partisans disappeared under Night and Fog, while our rendition program has rounded up an unknown number, some estimate thousands, only around 90 deaths have been documented of detainees under US control.
The comparison of Field Marshall Keitel's distain for the Geneva Conventions, and Alberto Gonzales' is found here as well. Both called them, "quaint," "obsolete..." The difference between then and now, at least one difference, is prosecutors at Nuremberg held the Conventions in very high esteem, and took Keitel's writing about the Conventions in such terms as supportive of a death penalty.
It is a hot topic among arms control wonks, such as Dr. Jeffrey Lewis at www.armscontrolwonk.com. I have been finding that site the one of the most objective in terms of nuclear issues with Iran, No. Korea.
Stephen, first, I have no problem with US hegemony. What do you think hegemony is. Maybe you think we would be better off without Alaska or Hawaii as states?
I would prefer it if the hegemony was more Western. I would prefer it if the US and the European Union were closer. I think both do things that are good.
But mostly, consider, would you maybe prefer a Russian Empire, Communist Chinese empire, or maybe you're partial to a Islamic hegemony?
Look at what is happening with Pakistan, and it is even more critical that Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal not become a new Afghanistan. I think bases in Iraq play a part in facilitating projection of power into the area.
It is funny how Obama if he was being honest would probably have to tell people he is not going to be withdrawing US forces from Iraq. Basically Obama is implicitly saying that he is a better military commander than Bush, even though he has no experience.
Obama is playing on what has been unsaid about the war. By calling it stupid he appeals emotionally to people who maybe do not realize what he is really saying would be smart.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Lots of dangers in absolute power. To the original point of Obama not being up to the task of confronting a dangerous world, his team is at least as important as he is. Bush proves that. Without the team behind Bush, the failed oil man who was repeatedly helped out by his father's connections, would likely not have accomplished much without the strength of Cheney and Rumsfeld, and the other old guard people that followed him into power. For many of them it was getting back into power, taking up where the shenanigans of Iran-Contra left off. Only this time, on steroids.
Europe seems not ready to stand up for themselves, and they have to if you read about Islamic inroads into European culture, and the violent tantrums they have if they do not get what they want.
We may fail and be mathematically overcome by the numbers, because that is what Islam has that wins, they reproduce and do not melt into the American population. They maintain their boundaries. Please realize I am talking about the radicals, but even the non-radicals allow the radical space to do what they want for the most part.
One must separate out Bush, his failues, his supporters and what is going on in the world and PNAC. Since there is not a good explanation of this it is natural for minds to put things together and link them, that is how the mind works, we must guard against conspiracy theories, unless there is real proof.
Stop changing the facts. What you said about invading Pakistan from him is flat out wrong.
What Obama tapped, and I am still not sure what this is, seems to be to be a reservoir of emotion on this subject. I am afraid of a politician who does that no matter how smart or good they say their judgement is.
If being a good politician is someone who can taps social forces like that and ride them in an election, I want a nice boring candidate.
That's how we got George W. Bush. TWICE. Some people don't learn from the first mistake.
All these senators who did not read the intelligence report had more specifics? From who Dick Cheney?
We were told we went there for WMD. Where are they? Stop the Al Qaeda crap. They went there when we went there. If we invade Iran for whatever reason (just or not) Al Qaeda will go there too. They will follow us wherever we go.
Just answer the question. What did they tell us - WMD or Not? Where are the WMD?
Colin Powell left the government because they fed him with lies and he went to the UN and presented to the entire world. Now, you have the nerves to defend Bush in order to explain Clinton vote.
Give me a break. Bill Clinton said he would have never invaded Iraq.
Alan D., Mar 4, 2008, 10:17am EST
Are you telling me that the Congress did not read the intelligence reports, but Powell did and went the UN because of it?
It does not matter what Bill Clinton would have done. What matters now is not the past that we cannot do anything about, what matters is where we are now.
> don't learn from the first mistake.
Debra W.,
The far left seems intent on making the same mistake as the
far right. At least the Bushies were original in being duped.
We are where we are and let's elect the same people that get us where we are - Brilliant!