Sat, Nov 16
-
2000—Bill Clinton goes to Vietnam — finally, when it’s safe, as President.
1989—U.S.-backed pro-government “freedom fighters” in El Salvador murder
six Jes...
5 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704638504575318850772872776.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
ReplyDeleteJust think if W had finished the job properly in 2002 and not had dropped the ball with his illegal Iraq War. Had those billions and billions been spent on cancer or AIDS research, there would have been much less suffering in the world and we wouldn't be going broke...
ReplyDeleteWatched Meet the Press yesterday and though I fast forwarded through Sen. McCain's inexplicable appearance I was impressed with the war panel. I found two points compelling; that we've substantially decreased the killings that the Taliban did (16,000 on our watch, 400,000 on theirs) and that if we leave, the Taliban will take over and Al Queada will move back from Pakistan--the country that actually makes it harder for them to attack us. A liberal pointed out that we are not occupiers because 90% of Afghans prefer us to the Taliban. These are two reasons I did not understand for being there before yesterday. What do you think about that?
ReplyDeleteDemocratic Presidents led our Nation through two world wars Urban Pink. We're not pussies. At least this one doesn't think he is.
ReplyDeleteBoth Iraq and Afghanistan are failures as wars and a big reason is they neither of them are wars. if they were treated as wars taxes should have been raised to fight them as such. These are manhunts and occupations as peace keepers. Either way, to do them correctly we need far more Troops than there are now. All that is being done is a bide for time in hopes that things will get better.
Either do what's necessary to win, and that includes raising revenue and institutiing a draft so we have enough personel to actually achieve the goals of self sustaining, democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, or admit that more Americans don't want to pay for it and leave. Securing our borders and ports is far less expensive than doing a half ass job of nation building half a world away.
Truth 101: A Freshman Course, maybe, but you can't graduate until you have passed it!
ReplyDeleteWhat Truth said is the gospel but what bothers me greatly now is that damn report about all that mineral wealth in Afghanistan. At least in Iraq the fallback lie after the WMD's were found to be AWOL was that we would bring the blessings of democracy to a people yearning to replace a single insane dictator for a multitude of banal assholes running for office.
ReplyDeleteSeems like now they are skipping the "white man's burden" phase and going straight to colonial exploitation.
Those are fair questions, Urban Pink. I would respond by saying that it isn't at all clear that Al Qaeda WOULD go back. The relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda was tenuous, at best. Yes, the former refused to give up the latter. But that was probably more the result of not wanting to be dictated to by the great Satan than it was an allegience to Mr. bin Laden. And now that the Taliban knows of our willingness to turn their society into rubble, I'm not entirely sure that they really want to be going down that road anymore. Add to that, the fact that the people of Afghanistan will eventually coalesce against us (believe me, it won't be 90% forever) and, yeah, this whole "let's declare victory and leave" strategy is starting to sound extremely solid.
ReplyDelete