Fucking up Pakistan

[4obama2008]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused here, perhaps I haven't been keeping up - so, the choice is between the candidate who supports counterproductive arbitrary US military action, and the candidate who supports counterproductive arbitrary US military action? (Anything else being a bit "radical left".)

You're less confused than overwrought. The choice is among candidates all of whom hold out military action as a last-resort possibility. You may not like it but that's how it will be on Election Day in November 2008.

 

[4obama2008]

Whoever you vote, core state policy stays the same. Unfortunately voting for ideological change is not an option.

As I said before, if I saw no essential difference between Obama and Hillary, or between Obama/Hillary and whoever the Republicans might come up with, then I would simply stop paying attention. Why waste time?

 

[TAE]

I'm very new to this forum but it seems many here are not really interested in the political process as it currently exists.

Yes, I think that is true, not because people don't care but because the system is becoming more and more obviously corrupt.

By the way, considering your user name, do you plan to be here post 2008?

 

[TAE]

I think it is insufficient to vaguely wail about "hearts and minds" while people are organizing to destroy you.

Surely one aspect of diplomacy is to take away the reason why people are organizing to destroy you.

That's not vaguely wailing but a long term necessity. We have to live with each other on this planet.

 

[nino_savatte]

Almost no American elected officials put forward the pacifist line. Almost all hold to some variation of "Military response is the last option and I would only use it most reluctantly, but..." The only exception to this I can think of is Kucinich (sort of) and he's a novelty act.

I'm very new to this forum but it seems many here are not really interested in the political process as it currently exists. I am interested. Starting in January of 2009, some person is going to be the next President of the United States. I think it matters quite a lot who that someone is. If I did not think it mattered I would simply ignore politics.

I don't think the issue here is necessarily "pacifism". No one is asking that presidential candidates be "pacifists". We do ask that they behave in a less macho fashion but I realise that I am asking for the impossible: the US is a macho nation and macho culture is deeply ingrained in the political psyche.

But it is this machismo that invites such things as blowback.

 

[CyberRose]

You think Obama is bad for threatening strikes against Pakistan, this guy wants to bomb Mecca and Medina!!!

 

[nino_savatte]

No, I think Obama is engaging in macho posturing - American style. Hillary Clinton has made some macho noises, he's just trying to outdo her. US politics is obsessed with an image of machismo and all political leaders must be able to prove their credentials by issuing bellicose statements. It plays well with certain sections of the public too.

Tancredo is another loon. Machismo is the currency of US politics.

 

[nino_savatte]

Here is some stuff that I found on Tancredo

Tancredo's position on illegal immigration (and on other issues) has brought him some criticism. On September 11, 2006, in Columbia, South Carolina, Tancredo spoke to a gathering of the "Americans Have Had Enough Coalition", which he had helped found.[41] The League of the South also invited its own members to attend the event, describing Tancredo as their "guest".[41]

According to reports, the room in which Tancredo spoke had a prominent picture of Robert E. Lee and was draped with Confederate battle flags. At the closing of the event, men dressed in Confederate military uniforms reportedly began to sing "Dixie".[42] Several days later, Tancredo came under heavy criticism from a group of Denver ministers for attending the function, which followers of the League of the South also attended.[43] In his defense, Tancredo said, "I gave it [the same speech] in probably five or six different venues, this was just one, all of them were open to the public. I don't check people at the door for their private thoughts."[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tancredo

 

[newharper]

Tancredo Watch

Tancredo is another loon. Machismo is the currency of US politics.

This guy's got his number.

I'm a constituent of Tom Tancredo's, sickened by his lack of integrity in violating his term limits pledge and his shameless attempts to stay in office and feather his nest through pandering and demagoguery.

Latest news;

The Washington Post has reported that Tom Tancredo has offered supporters who bring 25 people to the August 11 Iowa Straw Poll an all-expenses-paid trip to Washington, D.C., including a tour of the U.S. Capitol. (See AP story at bottom of page 1 of online article.)

Not only is this desperate and distasteful, but, if the part about the U.S. Capitol is true, this would violate House ethics rules which prohibit use of the building for campaign purposes.

Tancredo's campaign spokesperson, Bay Buchanan, went into full-fledged backtrack mode, hastily explaining that they meant "Capital city," not "Capitol," and that the offer was a spelling error.

http://
tancredowatch.blogspot.com/

Ho, ho, ho.

 

[Detroit City]

But what I don't get is, how come I can predict what all the US govt analysts on a hundred grand a year can't? I mean, I know they're somewhat blinded by the current imperialist ideology of this administration, but even so, have they not *read* any history? Are they utterly incapable of learning from their mistakes? It's fucking mind-boggling.

one thing you forget is that even since Pakistan's creation it has been aligned with the US.

 

[nino_savatte]

This guy's got his number.



Latest news;



http://
tancredowatch.blogspot.com/

Ho, ho, ho.

Love it.

 

[4obama2008]

Yes, I think that is true, not because people don't care but because the system is becoming more and more obviously corrupt.

I agree that the system is becoming more corrupt in some ways, but there are also new opportunities and new tools to counter this. It's a competition as always. Some will participate, some will abstain, some will merely watch and complain.

By the way, considering your user name, do you plan to be here post 2008?

We'll see. I came here because I'm interested in what's going on in the U.K., because of the recent change in the U.K. leadership, and to see how our Presidential election, and American politics more generally, are being viewed abroad. My intent is mostly just to read the ongoing discussions, but I thought I'd make at least occasional posts to test the waters. If people here really don't want to engage the current political realities in a constructive way then I don't think this will be a long-term home for me.

 

[4obama2008]

Surely one aspect of diplomacy is to take away the reason why people are organizing to destroy you.

This is what Pres. Bush says he is doing. His strategy and tactics are debatable to say the least, but it is a plain fact that the U.S., under Bush's leadership, has not simply destroyed enemy governments and then withdrawn to let the Afghans and Iraqis slaughter one another. If America was offering Iraq nothing but a beatdown our KIA would stand at around 300 rather than 3500 and our cash outlay would be many hundreds of billions less.

That's not vaguely wailing but a long term necessity. We have to live with each other on this planet.

It is vaguely wailing absent a specific plan for action.

 

[4obama2008]

But it is this machismo that invites such things as blowback.

Some folks think it significant that the major Islamist terrorist strikes that have occurred since 9/11 have all taken place outside of the United States.

 

[4obama2008]

Here is some stuff that I found on Tancredo

Winston Churchill was a great admirer of Robert E. Lee as well.

 

[Aldebaran]

Let's leave out the religious aspect for a second and recapitulate some obvious facts:

In the past the president of Iran, endlessly repeatedly wrongly quoted ( since obviously deliberately wrongly translated with added wrong interpretation at that) as having expressed teh wish to "wipe Israel of the Map" caused and causes the typical hypocritical Western "outrage" up to inside the gatherings of the UN.

The USA invaded and occupies a sovereing naiton, murdering hundreds of thousands and causing the greatest ongoing and worsening nightmare possible for a nation and its population to face.

In addition a US politician now declares he wants to see two entire cities off the map. With WMD, hence in fact he wants to depopulate an entire part of the world (if you don't die instantly, the aftermath of nuclear impact is known well enough by now, isn't it?)

The West scarcely takes notice but no Western media - let alone the bulk of Western populations - seems to consider all that worth to repeatedly comment on in news coverage etc... etc...

Do you mind if my only comment is limited to:
Ha.
Ha.

Miror time.

salaam.

 

[newharper]

Pakistani Official Urges NATO to Quit Afghanistan.

Originally posted by The Sydney Morning Herald.

Nice bit of stirring here.

The remarks, by a senior Foreign Ministry official, reflect the growing belief in Islamabad that NATO is as much to blame for the endurance of the Taliban as Pakistan, which the US has accused of failing to destroy Taliban training camps on its border.

The remarks, by a senior Foreign Ministry official, reflect the growing belief in Islamabad that NATO is as much to blame for the endurance of the Taliban as Pakistan, which the US has accused of failing to destroy Taliban training camps on its border.

A twist of the stiletto,

Mr Kasuri said that Britain in particular should know the limitations of a purely military approach in Afghanistan. “Britain has a good experience of the country, after all they fought three Afghan wars,” he said. “Surely they have learnt from that.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/04/2974/

 

[TAE]

This is what Pres. Bush says he is doing.

Is it? I recall him saying 'bring it on'. That sounds more like 'I can destroy you' than 'let's sort out our differences like grown-ups'.

His strategy and tactics are debatable to say the least, but it is a plain fact that the U.S., under Bush's leadership, has not simply destroyed enemy governments and then withdrawn to let the Afghans and Iraqis slaughter one another.

Isn't that mainly because 'the enemy' is not a state?

It is vaguely wailing absent a specific plan for action.

It's no more vague than someone saying 'bomb the fuckers'.

 

[TAE]

I agree that the system is becoming more corrupt in some ways, but there are also new opportunities and new tools to counter this. It's a competition as always. Some will participate, some will abstain, some will merely watch and complain.

Some will decide they can achieve more by other means.

 

[laptop]

Thinking some more, it seems to me that Tancredo's gibberings demonstrate why US foreign policy so often goes badly for all concerned.

Living in that country encourages an inability to conceive of the possibility that not everyone is Just Like Us.

Salafist terrororists wouldn't be the least bit deterred by his threats.

The don't, for example, hold buildings to be in any way sacred or heritage to be important.

(In fact, their theologically-not-dissimilar brethren in Saudi have been busily destroying ancient sites, lest they foster idolatry.)

I think a US attack on Mecca and/or Medina would positively delight them.

Their only problem is working out what symbol to attack that is even more the "American Mecca" than was the World Trade Center - to bring it on. Disneyland?

 

[TAE]

I could list a few but we wouldn't want to give anyone ideas now would we.

 

[laptop]

Of course not Disneyland

 

[4obama2008]

The USA invaded and occupies a sovereing naiton, murdering hundreds of thousands and causing the greatest ongoing and worsening nightmare possible for a nation and its population to face.

Not a fact but an opinion, and a rather foolish one to my estimation.

The West scarcely takes notice but no Western media - let alone the bulk of Western populations - seems to consider all that worth to repeatedly comment on in news coverage etc... etc...

Not a fact but a falsehood, plain and simple.

 

[4obama2008]

Is it? I recall him saying 'bring it on'. That sounds more like 'I can destroy you' than 'let's sort out our differences like grown-ups'.


Isn't that mainly because 'the enemy' is not a state?


It's no more vague than someone saying 'bomb the fuckers'.

This response is logically incoherent to me.

 

[4obama2008]

Some will decide they can achieve more by other means.

Virtually all in the West who claim to be doing so are merely pretending. The rest are criminals, mainly Islamist ones.

 

[laptop]

Not a fact but an opinion, and a rather foolish one to my estimation.

Let's

• The USA invaded
  • fact
• and occupies
  • fact
• a sovereign nation
  • fact
• murdering hundreds of thousands; and
  • Iraq Body Count is up to 70,000 central estimate of deaths reported in the media; I have looked in detail at the controversy surrounding the Lancet figure of 100,000 excess deaths to mid-2004 - based, as you will recall, on a cluster survey - and the methodology is sound.
• causing the greatest ongoing and worsening nightmare possible for a nation and its population to face.
  • you have a greater ongoing nightmare to suggest, maybe?

I call you.

You're a Bush-voting troll. If not stupider to the right of that.

 

[4obama2008]

I think a US attack on Mecca and/or Medina would positively delight them.

Preposterous.

Their only problem is working out what symbol to attack that is even more the "American Mecca" than was the World Trade Center - to bring it on. Disneyland?

Their problem is getting it done. Choosing targets is the easy part.

This is a very childish forum. Is no one here at all educated?

 

[laptop]

Education does rather tend to increase one's propensity to disagree with the likes of "4obama", don't we find?

 

[4obama2008]

murdering hundreds of thousands;

causing the greatest ongoing and worsening nightmare possible for a nation and its population to face.

you have a greater ongoing nightmare to suggest, maybe?

Excess deaths are not the same as murder.

100,000 is not "hundreds of thousands".

The Lancet figure is bunk.

Cambodia under Pol Pot.

If every American who is rational and doesn't hate America voted for Bush he would have gotten a lot more than 51% last time.

 

[laptop]

Excess deaths are not the same as murder.

Correct.

100,000 is not "hundreds of thousands".

You forgot to read "to mid-2004"

The Lancet figure is bunk.

And who taught you epidemiology?

Cambodia under Pol Pot.

Ah, yes, another great triumph of US policy. So your defence of the US invasion, occupation and resultant slaughter is based on worse things having happened in Cambodia, first under US tolerance then with active support against the Vietnamese?



I think my point, above, about the tendency for residence in the USA to cause atrophy of the capability to see the world through others' eyes is clearly made.