pan6467

9/11 was an act of war, why are we allowing our president to let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have a criminal trial? We do this but kill our own citizens at Ruby Ridge, Waco and elsewhere without their day in court?..... Why do people not stand up and say enough and hold our leaders responsible? Why are we allowing this? Something is wrong when we try those in criminal court not military courts who plotted to kill thousands and want to destroy us, by acts of war and we kill our own without giving them those same trials.

Double digit unemployment, homelessness at an all time high, companies able to fire people with no reason except their bottom line and to make those rich richer, companies closing plants and moving overseas, sending jobs overseas, while people lose their homes, our great cities and states bankrupt, our people divided and just trying to make it to ... Read Morethe next day.... and where's our leadership? Where are the people standing up saying enough? Where is the press that is supposed to be the 4th estate and true protectors of freedom? They worry about passing health care bills that if you don't buy into you'll be thrown into jail and fined. They worry about getting the Olympics in Chicago. Our leaders no longer care about the country or the people's freedoms they are put into office to protect.

We are the United States of America, the greatest country ever seen on this planet because of the freedoms, the wealth and the opportunities and we are allowing our very leaders who are supposed to protect this country for future generations to drop us to our knees.... and they laugh at us, they tell us it is our fault, they give rights that our own citizens no longer enjoy to foreign terrorists that want us destroyed. They refuse to help our troops fighting overseas, the President is more worried about giving "Shout outs" then the man and women in our armed services shot wounded or killed on a base in our own country.

When does it stop? When do people see that this is not radical, conspiratorial talk but reality. Those put into office to protect us are the ones destroying us and it starts with our own president.

John Lennon stated, "Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." ... Read More

And it has never been more true. Those of us who speak out because we love our country and choose to do so because of that love are talked about as zealots, conspiracy nuts and we have no idea the truth. I would argue the opposite, those who do not speak out, are either scared of what will happen to them, what label they may receive, what others may think of them, losing what little they have or what the government may do.

Why are we scared of the government in this country???? Why are we scared to exercise our freedoms?

This is what I wore a uniform to protect, these freedoms, these words, this government set forth by our forefathers who sacrificed all they knew to make a better country for their children and grandchildren.... and we are now allowing our own leaders to put their agendas ahead of these words.. they would rather us be on our knees begging than protect and defend this document.

The Declaration of Independence... Read More

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

Stand up if not for yourselves but for your children and grandchildren and say, "I'm as mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. This government is answerable to the people it governs and if you will not govern us under the freedoms and the greatness that our forefathers did... then you need to leave office and give the leadership to those that will."

It's not about parties it's all about keeping this country great and making it a better place for the future. 9/11 woke me up and I have slowly watched this great country be destroyed from within. What is going on now is a conglomeration of many wrongs and instead of trying to make things right they continue to go down the wrong road.... and do so happily knowing that it is in fact destructive to this nation.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

Simple...for the same reason that those behind the first World Trade Center bombing and other terrorists who acted on US soil, were tried in federal court. Enemy combatants who acted in the field and were captured in the field should be tried by military tribunals.

That is how the Constitution works and what keeps us free and what makes this country great.

When we ever reach the point of turning to singers/song writers, actors, or any high profile personality, to determine public policy....that would be insane!

When we let horrific events like 9/11 cloud our judgement and act on emotion...or let our elected leaders play on that emotiion....we lose our freedoms.

The Constitution is not a document of convenience to enable us to look for the easy way or emotionally satisfying way or more politically expedient way out.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ratbastid

I'm glad you got that off your chest. I'm going to respond to the specifics, not the generalities.

Re the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial: We're a nation of laws. That's what the Constitution sets up, and that's what you served to preserve.

Do you really think there's any other outcome likely than the guy getting the death penalty? And when that happens, won't it be so much more satisfying to know it was done legally, in a court of law, by a civilized nation, decided upon by a jury of his peers? Won't that be better than just kneeling him down and shooting him?

It's the difference between vengeance and justice. Vengeance leaves everybody smaller.

I find it very strange that the less-than-100 people killed at Ruby Ridge and Waco combined carry more weight with the "government overreaching" crowd than the hundreds killed, injured, or getting their civil rights trampled every single day by an out of control law enforcement system. I don't get that at all.

loquitur

Unfortunately our legal concepts have two spheres of activity for state-sanctioned violence -- war and law enforcement -- and the legal system requires that violence has to be classified as one or the other. Terrorism by non-state actors is somewhere in the middle, and how you think it should be treated under the current system will reveal probably more about your view of the world than about the nature of the act. Because terrorism doesn't fit neatly into either category, the flat assertion that wer'e a nation of laws and this vindicates the rule of law sort of assumes its conclusion.

We need to rethink this whole area, taking account of the realities of how to deal with, suppress, prevent and punish terrorists. To take one example: it's silly to impose on the military, operating abroad, the broad panoply of, say 4th and 5th amendment rights; it just can't be done. On the other hand, treating terror willy-nilly as equivalent to war means imposing a lot of destruction in pursuit of relatively small targets.

I don't have an answer. I just think some of what gets posted here is way too glib and ultimtely circular.

dlish

your entitled to your rant, and i can see your slant, but somewhere in the islamic world, there's a pan6467 equivelant pouting the same message, with his soldiers being the righteous and yours the evil enemy.

this is how it would probably go..


i could go on and do that to the rest of your post, but its not really fun thinking about how the other side percieves your world. i am privvy to both worlds, and its not pretty from whichever way you look at it.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

filtherton

I would just like to point out that this probably wouldn't be an issue now if not for the time and effort spent branding and marketing "The Global War on Terror."

What Timothy McVeigh did could have been considered an act of war...

dippin

that is something I never thought I would see: someone using John Lennon to argue for military trials, nationalism, protectionism, and more military spending...

dc_dux

I agree it is not that simple and I plead guilty to glibness of the first degree.

The definition of terrorism under US law is muddled.

I worry when some consider the US to be the "battlefield" providing cover to exclude basic Constitutional rights and providing justification for a military legal response rather than responding through the federal judiciary....or, even more disconcerting, to use the "US is the battleground" to take away from the Constitutional balance between individual rights and national security...and not just of the accused, but the rest of us as well.

And, more recently, I worry when some consider a lone gunman with emotional or psychological issues to be a terrorist when there is no compelling evidence to-date that he acted as an "agent" of any group or with a strategy to use the shooting to further any political goals, either personally or those of an organization.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

Pan, I personally agree with you. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the majority of Americans have lost sight of a few things that were supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution.

First and foremost is that the constitution is supposed to be a binding legal contract between we the people and the newly created federal government. Unchanging, unless we the people change it. Most people can't go along with that because 'progressive' change is too difficult to achieve with the prescribed methods of amending that contract. That's why we hear about the 'living document' theory. It gives these people incentive to push for constitutional change through a simple majority position instead of convincing the 'super majority' that is necessary.

Secondly, not enough people want to stand up and hold our elected leaders accountable and it's for several different reasons, the most likely reason being that the offensive action(s) by those leaders have little or no direct affect to those people. It's much easier for these people to ignore the hardships placed on the few because of those actions instead of standing up and doing something about it.

Thirdly, very few people will protest the murder of American Citizens because of incidents like Ruby Ridge or Waco for the sheer simple fact that their government and it's propaganda units paint these people as monsters who have shunned the rule of law and become anti-government. It is these people that the term 'sheeple' was coined for, as much as they dislike the name and do all they can to ridicule those that use it. It's not all their fault really. They were raised by parents and grandparents who were indoctrinated during times to believe that their federal government was a benevolent protector, therefore, those beliefs were passed on to them. Others are more fearful of their fellow Americans than they are of a monopoly of violent force by law enforcement. They have no issue at all with law enforcement using any means necessary to preserve what they see as law and order, believing it to be the means to an end of their safety and freedom. They've persevered in installing people in power with the same belief structures, which is why we have certain judicial doctrines in existence today. Things like 'qualified immunity' were created in order to provide those tasked with controlling their preferred way of life with protection from the same legal system used to prosecute ordinary citizens who commit the very same actions, in essence destroying another founding principle that they don't agree with and that is 'equal protection under the law'. The end result being that the government agents they employ are allowed to use lethal force at their discretion, yet are provided immunity for any crimes they may commit in doing so, and are also immune to any liability for failure to provide that very protection they were tasked with. It's a real cushy job, actually. They commit a crime with an act of violence, get suspended AND paid, a minor routine investigation is performed while gauging how strong public outrage will really be, then decide if they need to sacrifice the life and career of the 'offending' individual or exonerate him/her because not enough people will really care about it enough to do anything substantial.

Appeals for taking back our country are going to go almost completely unheeded and will get you labeled as a radical extremist, anti-government, and possibly even a (gasp) Libertarian or Constitutionalist. These labels are necessary because people on both sides of the aisle are only interested in pursuing their idealistic version of America. Take, for example, my resistance to the current healthcare reform bill. I'm sure there are alot of people here that think i'm either an insane nutjob looking to kill people, or an idiot revolutionary that should be living in a single room shack in the mountains of Colorado while writing a manifesto about the founding fathers. It is necessary for them to frame me in those lights because I don't agree with their philosophies of what America should be. It's also why you see alot of remarks and comments that pretty much defame and denigrate the framers of the constitution as old white men who lived in a different time, slave keepers themselves, or even uglier terms. The political divide in this country, and it's continued growth, is all the reason I need to see that we eventually will have civil war redux.

You are not alone in your views, but you will be ridiculed for them by those that wish to ignore the original intent of the declaration, constitution, and the framers ideas of freedom. THAT is a simple fact of life in this country now.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

GreyWolf

Ummm... much as I'm in disagreement with Pan's OP... have you even LOOKED at what's gone on since 9/11?? They won. It's as simple as that. They exported their paranoid, over-policed, suspicion-filled lifestyle to the West, just as they planned. Americans (and much of the rest of the western world) have freely given up rights and constitutional guarantees in the mistaken assumption they are now safer.

Not a single 9/11 terrorist came across the US-Canada border. Ever. Now, with the North American Travel Initiative, citizens of what was once one of the most open borders in the world have to display passports, are delayed for checks for contraband/weapons, and yet accept this, despite the multi-billion dollar cost in lost productivity (btw, I would actually be for this if the Canadian customs agents were as diligent... Canada is in much greater danger from stuff coming in from the US than vice versa).

You have to take off your shoes to get on a plane. You may be refused passage without explanation. Habeas Corpus is suspended without review. Hell, you can be charged, and the judge may not be allowed to see what evidence they have against you, or you may be charged, but never told what the charge is!!

How can you not think they've already won, precisely because we have allowed our emotions to not just cloud, but blind our judgement?

__________________
The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.

Baraka_Guru

I'm not sure what I take more issue with, the hyperbole or the errors.

Good rant though.

Did you know the Dow is up 30% since Obama took office?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

ratbastid

Boy, the responses in this thread are SO fascinating. It's like pan has posted a perfect political rorschach blot, and everybody who has posted since then has mainly revealed their own view of the world in their response. Including me.

Maybe we need to have a free-form ranting thread?

Willravel

9/11 was an act of terrorism by a criminal organization, not an act of war. I like Justice Gaston's definition of war the best:
Generally speaking, nations may war with one another or against itself in civil war, but terrorism committed by an independent organization that clearly was not acting on behalf of a nation by proxy would be something other than war. In this case, it's murder by terrorism. 9/11 was an act of terrorism which resulted in nearly 3,000 premeditated murders. Since it seems Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was directly involved in this, he should be arrested, put on trial by the facts, and found guilty or innocent based on those facts.

Any other course of action would be unjust as we wouldn't be applying our own rule of law.

Rekna

I'd like to point out that criminal trials have had a much better rate convicting and putting to death terrorists than military tribunals.

Also calling 9/11 an act of war seems odd to me because it seems one has to have a nation to declare war with first.

pan6467

I don't have qualms with how others perceive us. I just believe that they should be allowed to be them and we should be allowed to be us. Unlike some posters who would have you believe that because I speak out against their God Obama, I am some angry white guy who is into military trials, nationalism, protectionism, and more military spending... Because I'm not.

I look at nations like people. Our nation has a right to do whatever it wants within it's borders, as do China, Israel, Iran, North Korea and every other sovereign nation.I believe the best and truly only answer to resolve conflict between countries and cultures is to teach each other those cultures and treat each other with respect. You don't have to like their domestic policies, their trade laws etc. but we have to share the planet with each other and thus we need to understand and respect the others. End of discussion.

However, should one country try to push it's beliefs on another, invade another, train terrorists or support terrorists and so on, then something should be done. I believe this about our own country, as well. I am no fan of things we have done in the past or continue to do with regards to other sovereign nations. It is up to those people in that country to do something to exact change in their country... either through voting, seeking outside help, being able to petition the UN and have something truly done, etc.

If I'm North Korea, Israel, Iran, etc and I threaten to destroy another country or train/support/hide terrorists, I should expect that other country to take arms and defend themselves against me at any cost. Hopefully, that defense can be done diplomatically first.

In short, I believe every country should take pride in their culture and history and if they can't they should change it. That's the great thing about this country, that some on the extreme left (and they are losing massive support from moderates) fail to understand, we have changed, we have gotten better. Are we perfect? No, but change comes slowly and with fights to make sure that in the end the changes made better the country as a whole. Those extremists would rather they have their way NOW and fuck anyone who disagrees with them.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

pan.....this is why for me personally, its hard to see anything beyond an emotional rant.

well...that and the Lennon worship.

There was no disrespect shown to you personally in any post here. Yet you dont give others with differing opinions the same respect.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

silent_jay

I stopped reading at that point dc, the only ones who seem to be calling Obama a god are the ones who disagree with him, I haven't seen one supporter here use the words 'god', 'messiah' or any of the other worship words that get thrown around, so it pretty much makes me stop reading, and as you said consider it a rant.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

dc_dux

The God or messiah references are becoming less frequent. Most reasonable observers know that just wont fly anymore (not that it ever did), particularly with the criticism from many supporters of one policy or another that Obama that has put forward.

Now Obama is just a socialist or communist or fascist

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

I agree there has been no disrespect and I meant none. I'm sorry if you believe I meant you. However, there are those on the far Left who are salivating over what many, including myself, see as blind following of a president who hates this country and wishes to destroy the very foundation of it. To me they worship the man as though he is a "God" because they believe only his policies and no one else's will lead us into some Leftist Nirvana.

Yes, I am very much a Lennonite. I believe in what he taught. I have read/seen/heard every interview of him and those who were around him, biography and what he himself had written and I like what he had to say. He was liberal but today, he would be a moderate and disregarded as some angry has been if he spoke out against Obama and with all I have learned on the man, I would venture to say he would be speaking out against Obama.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

A Lennonite is better than a Palinista

....and perhaps a source of personal inspiration, but to me, not an authority on public policy.

As to extremists, I point you to this:

picture of President Obama wearing a turban, asking, “President or Jihad?” and exhorting, “Wake up America! Remember Fort Hood”

or this:

Psalm 109.8

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places...

Or this:

The sign displaying a pile of dead bodies and reads “National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany – 1945”:

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

But it was ok to refer to Bush and Republicans the same way or worse? I know I did it, look in the archives, so did many others protesting how people negatively talk about Obama now.

Perhaps, that's a major part of the problem.... we start the negative labelling and hate speak instead of trying to find some true rational solution that could be greeted with positive reaction from both sides.

I am no fan of either W or Obama... I liked Reagan and Clinton because both in their own way tried their damnedest to bring some pride back to this nation. Don't agree with all the policies either had or how some of what they did was driven by polls but those 2 are probably the greatest presidents in my lifetime thus far. I would rate Carter, Obama (so far) and W as the very worst none of those 3 even tried to better the nation and gave nothing but negative policies.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

silent_jay

or this

or

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

dc_dux

One can disagree with Obama's policies or be of the opinion that they are not in the country's best interest, w/o this kind of inflammatory description:

"....what many, including myself, see as blind following of a president who hates this country and wishes to destroy the very foundation of it."

IMO, suggesting that Obama "hates this country and wishes to destroy the very foundation.."....does not contribute to a productive discussion or rational solutions and reflects as much or more on you as those you criticize.

Or perhaps you really believe that Obama hates this country.

We can only speak for ourselves.

I was as critical of Bush/Cheney policies as anyone here...but never suggested that they hated this country or thought that Bush was a Nazi or wished his death.

But my point is...one cannot talk about coming together when one's own rhetoric is so divisive as to suggest the President of the United States hates this country.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

Far better than an Obamite also.


And I can show the attacks on W that are very similar. So it was ok for the extremists to attack W that way (and again, I was one)... but not for the extremists on the other side to attack Obama?

I argue, we need to stop with the attacks, myself included and find middle ground.

But with a president that does this, I, having worn a Navy uniform, cannot support him in anyway, especially after pushing his agenda and "shout out" before addressing the attack on Fort Hood.



The inability to decide if he will send help for the troops in Afghan.

Having observed him, my personal opinion is, he truly has no respect for the military or the people who wear the uniform.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Baraka_Guru

Now we've come to the segment of the rant where we split hairs.

Is it really that obvious to you that Obama hates America and wants to eat the children of dead soldiers?

Where is this middle ground you seek? I'd like to help you find your way.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pan6467

To me it is. He wants America to be his vision of what it should be. Every poll shows he is losing support from voters. A healthcare bill that gives 1 (ONE) state, La. how much? Sends people to jail, truly gives them no choice?

Shout outs and talks about political agenda meetings before showing any disdain for military members killed on OUR OWN SOIL?????

Who's being extreme and condescending now?

A true debate on the healthcare bill, a bill that is open for the public in ways the public can understand not legalese. Reps and Senators going to their constituency and holding meetings describing what they are voting for or against and why.

To have discussions where it is civil and a common ground found to better ALL not just one side.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

silent_jay

You can't say this:
then follow it closely with this
Followed closely with yes he does hate America, I mean seriously, it makes no sense to even attempt to find common ground with you, you obviously aren't looking for common ground, just a place to rant and rave, and huff and puff. One makes it much harder to find the other, but you're so I don't know, blinded by emotion I guess it is, that you can't see that.
You think it's easy to decide if he should commit more troops to Afghanistan, he isn't sending more vehicles, or guns pan, he's sending more bloody humans to a war that may or may not even be winnable, where they may or may not die. I don't think it's an inability at all, the man is taking his time to make the right decision, not some reactionary, more troops are going to win this war thing. Remember Vietnam? Yeah sending 'help' as you put it really worked wonders there now didn't it?

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

pan6467

Emotional, yes. What he did at Fort Hood was a slap in the face to every person who ever wore the uniform, IMHO. I cannot EVER respect a president that did that.

I don't have to work with him. IF I had that chance, I could IF we both were working for the betterment of the country and not just trying to push one agenda and name calling the other.
It's very simple, the commander over there says, "we need more troops if we want to win." At that point you do 1 of 3 things... Dismiss him and put someone else in because you have no trust in him.... send troops immediately because you trust the commander's recommendation that it is winnable... or you withdraw and end the war.

I could live with either one of those 3. I cannot respect Obama's decision to politicize and wait months to make a decision.... either send in reinforcements and help those there or withdraw.... he shows no decisiveness as a president and in turn getting people killed, maimed and lowering moral.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

silent_jay

You say one thing like finding common ground then do noting to actually find said ground.

You are doing exactly that, name calling one, yet saying you want to find 'common ground', which I take common ground to mean 'what you want to happen', and you're not willing to listen to anything else.


You seriously think it's that simple? Down to 1-2-3? For someone who was 'in uniform' you truly have no understanding that things aren't that simple when peoples lives are on the line. To commanders more troops is always the answer, look at history, the fact is, it isn't as simple as you see it, if it were everything would end rather quickly and be done with.

And if he makes a reactionary decision he gets more people killed, maimed and lowers moral.

I can't believe you think it's just that easy, as simple as 1-2-3, I sure am glad you don't hold a position of power, who knows how many people would die on your watch. You are still doing nothing to find this 'common ground' you speak of so easily, which doesn't encourage anyone here to even attempt to find it, surely you can see that it isn't helping your cause to say one thing out of one side of your mouth, then contribute to the problem out of the other side.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

dc_dux

The video you posted was NOT from his comments at Fort Hood but from the day of the shooting when he was already at the Dept of Interior to speak at a conference of Native American tribal leaders. Should he have walked out on the tribal leaders?

I have not seen any commentary from anyone, even the most ardent haters, suggesting that his speech at the Fort Hood memorial service was disrespectful. He honored each individual life lost by name and with personal comments. You are the first I've encountered with such a view.


Commanders on the ground nearly always want more troops or believe they can win.

It is the job of the Commander in Chief to be more deliberative....to consult with other military leaders and advisors...to hear a range of options, including exit strategies.

All in the interest of not putting more US troops in harms way unless absolutely necessary.

What could be more in the interest of those troops?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

silent_jay

Apparently sending more troops without the knowledge if it is the right thing to do or not. I still can't believe someone thinks it comes down to a 1-2-3 soloution. I mean really Obama taking the time to gather the relevant information not just following a commanders recommendation blindly and he's the one who disrespects the troops, yet you have pan here, who would throw them out of the plane himself, without knowing anything about the situation, and he thinks he's the champion of respect for the troops, it's mind boggling. I don't know maybe it's just me.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

boink

I watched the vid ans have already herd it several times on the radio, how is this a dis to the military ? sounded respectful to me.

what do you want him to say..."were gonna EVAC and nuke the place from space, it's the only way to be sure" ?

well it's 1-2-3 what are we fighting for ? don't ask me I don't give a damn ! next stop is 'ghanistan ! ain't no time to wonder why whoopee we all gonna die !

__________________
when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

Baraka_Guru

Now you see how hard it is to engage with something like that.

You're splitting hairs.
You're resorting to hyperbole.
You're stating outright falsehoods.

Unfortunately, I have difficulty engaging with that. I appreciate those who are trying, but I personally don't have the patience when it's so overwhelming.

I'd be happy to do it when you reach that middle ground.

In the meantime, I'd just like to say to you that America isn't a failed state yet. It isn't a theocracy yet. It isn't a dictatorship yet. It isn't a Russian/Chinese-style capitalist state yet. Isn't a Third World country yet. It isn't.... It isn't.... It isn't....

From my perspective, you seem to have it better than you think.

Things aren't as messed up as you might think.

Much of the problem isn't even in the locus of control of your nation's leaders.

Freedom isn't always birds and daisies.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Shell

Regarding your first comment...Pan created this thread titled "Political Ranting" so I don't understand why members here are putting him down for ranting about politics. He has every right to rant as anyone else here. The title doesn't say he's looking for "common ground".

Regarding your next comment...you can't compare Vietnam with Afghanistan. We were attacked on our own soil by terrorists who trained in Afghanistan in 2001. Vietnam did not pose a direct national-security threat; even believers in the "domino theory" did not expect to see the Viet Cong fighting in San Francisco. Afghanistan has always been seen as the right and necessary war to fight.

__________________
..."Say what you think. Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" ~ Dr. Seuss

Rekna

It looks to me like pan is the one who hates America. He is the one who can't stand the fact that this country is a melting pot of people and ideas. It is a country that was built on diversity. He thinks Obama hates America because Obama's views are different than his. Pan it is you who hates America not Obama.

silent_jay

Read the whole thread, pan has said this many times that common ground is needed, I'll even do the leg work and find it for you.
Now do you see? Also, so we're jus tsupposed to let pan rant and rave and huff and puff and not respond because he called his thread 'political rantings' when he's as Baraka put it "stating outright falsehoods."? Doesn't work that way, sorry.
Read what I post, I never compared the two, not a single time did I make a direct comparisson between the two wars, all I asked was how did blindly sending troops to Vietnam end, see the difference?

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Shell

Vietnam was not a "winable" war in the end. Afghanistan is possible to win in the end. The Taliban is not as powerful or unified a foe as the Viet Cong. Therefore, the two cannot be compared in that respect either.

__________________
..."Say what you think. Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" ~ Dr. Seuss

silent_jay

Look, troops were blindly sent into Vietnam because the commanders said they needed more troops. Commanders in Afghanistan are saying they need more troops, and pan said it's a 1-2-3 decision a simple decision as he put it, also at the time commanders in Vietnam were asking for more troops no one knew the war wasn't winnable, just as no one can say for sure Afghanistan is winnable. Therefore, the two can be compared in that respect. It isn't like I'm comparing both wars directly, I'm not, I'm merely showing pan troops get killed when stupid and reactionary decision are made.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

dc_dux

Winning in Afghanistan is not really an option.

No foreign power has "won" going back to Alexander the Great more than 2,000 years ago.

The best we can hope for is to restore order and minimize, not eliminate, the power of the Taliban and the Taliban capability to harbor al Queda operatives..

And, IMO, the best way to do that is to win the hearts and minds of the tribal leaders...ie.e bribe the bastards, let them run the poppy trade......More troops is not the answer

And to support Pakistan in eliminating the al Queda presence in the northwest provinces.

But then, Obama didnt ask me.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

first off, i think the whole "hating america" business has already been dispensed with above, so there's not alot of point in going into or through it again.

but underneath it, there's something that i find kinda alarming, this notion that seems to still be abroad in the land of the President. its a kind of bizarre-o television-based royalism which collapses everything that happens back onto projections based on the person of the Leader. The best analysis of this is still j.g. ballard's little story "the secret history of world war 3"---i looked for a copy of the whole thing to post, but only found a snippet. but you get the idea:

the basic story goes: after this kind of television-driven obsession with the minutae of the physical functioning of the Leader is fully in place, people dutifully go along with it such that, in the story, world war 3 occurs and no-one notices through the thick veil of infotainment about bodily functions....television-driven identification with the Leader could not possibly be less democratic. it traffics in a collective inability to distinguish between television image and reality. and there's an entire reactionary politics that keys on imaginary versions of the Leader, which wants to see certain types of actions following immediately and directly from the Person of the Leader and which comes up with a riot of counter-narratives to "explain" why such actions do not happen.
it's delerium, really.
& if this sort of stuff had no traction, i can imagine finding it to be funny, in the way i find it funny that folk who watch sitcoms think they have more friends on average then those who do not watch sitcoms do.

as for afghanistan, i find it entirely insane that attempting to gather information adequate for making an informed choice or choices about which way to proceed is interpreted as a Problem.
whether afghanistan ever represented a rational response to 9/11/2001 is debatable...but this is not the kind of thread that is amenable to having that discussion.
what's sure is that the campaign in afghanistan has had no clear objective since it was started by the bush people.
one of the many things obama has done that i do not support is the continuation of the action in afghanistan as if it was a legitimate centerpiece of a legitimate thing called "the war on terror" or whatever it's called these days.
what's also clear is that alot of people have died and continue to die in a context the primary characteristic of which is incoherence.
but it's been like this from the start.
clearly it's obama's fault. because after all, it was obama who got the united states involved in afghanistan in 2002.


as for the rest of the rant...i don't see how it holds together logically, pan.
but i rarely see how these things do hold together logically.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite