Well, I Knew Today This Would Happen. Low Information Posts About How Any Afghan Action is Murder..

[NYC_SKP]

I am Not surprised.

I was happy, however, for this ONE well-written, High-Information, Analysis:

"The Question on Afghanistan is neither simple nor straightforward."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x6041

I'm sure there are others.

But it's soooo much easier to shoot from the emotional hip without doing a bit of homework.

So, have at it, DU.

Thank goodness that, like any other community of diverse experiences and points of view, there is some number of very thoughtful people.

:thumbsup:

[icee2]

1. Here you go

Saying it's not simple etc. is a hangout/cover-up. O is either hostage to Neocon/Pentagon/unnamed country in ME wishes, chasing independent voters for 2012, or simply rewarding the military/security complex -- to ensure no disruption or defection in campaign contributions.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Didn't read grantcart's OP, did you? Nice slogans ya got there. Maybe we should March on DC???

Oh, and according to one low information post, Obama started the war.

:eyes:

[icee2]

6. Close

"Obama started the war."

[NYC_SKP]

31. That's my favorite!

:rofl:

[peacetalksforall]

2. All one has to say that going to Afghanistan is the ultimate opposite of peace.

If you think you can recognize peace when you see it, this is not it.

Did Obama forget how to negotiate.

War is profit, prairie plain and simple.

Obama is doing this for corporations and a tiny few might see a paycheck.

Our children. The investment of lives

So, are you looking for another discussion about tribes and rebels and guns and bombs? And strategic set-ups and some new equipment? And a lot about training, just like in Iraq?

Please don't demean those of us who don't speak war.

[NYC_SKP]

7. So, if your wooden home has termites, you just look the other way and there's no problem?

A. Obama inherited this conflict.

B. There truly are ridiculous assertions out there, like "Obama started this war".

C. The President hasn't even spoken yet, explained his strategy, so I find many posts to be both premature and demonstrative of a very shallow understanding of the conflict.

:patriot:

[icee2]

10. IOW - Give War a Chance? nt

[peacetalksforall]

13. Call me shallow - I don't like to kill our children, their children, and the childrens parents.

This is all about corporate gain just as it was for Republicans. Our expense. Our debt. Our legacy. No one will be able to tell one war hawk from one peace seeker when we're all dead and phosphorized.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. It's not our country, yet we are there killing people. What is it you don't understand? Oil? You

don't understand oil?

Check out the Caspian Sea basin and then think, "How are we going to get all that oil from there to the rest of the world, to market."

The easiest and cheapest way is by pipeline running through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean.


That's why we are in Afghanistan in the first place. That's the conflict that Obama inherited. My guess is he hasn't yet given up on the pipeline.

[peacetalksforall]

22. Sorry, it appears you don't get it. A person leans towards peace or not. Well thought out

defenses are not needed for some of us when we can see what's coming.

The rest of the right wing mob will start turning now that Cheney has taken the lead - Obama is going to be torn apart for upping the war which makes him a war president, not a peace president.

Fancy war talk is everywhere. Peace talk is only a peep from a few people. The rest are watching reruns of races and sports and cooking and soaps and HBO while checking in on Beck and Limbaugh.

[tekisui]

45. There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.

-Gandhi.

[cliffordu]

25. Anyone who says Obama started this war is a republican troll. plain and simple.

[H2O Man]

46. Afghanistan is not our home,

and the Afghan people are not termites.

[NYC_SKP]

56. That is more than fair, Afhanistan is not our home.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the Afghan people are less human than any other.

During my teaching years I found that analogies were often effective ways of making clear concepts that were otherwise confusing to my at-risk students.

Of course there are apt analogies and there are poor analogies.

Best regards, Sir.

Happy to have your voice in the matter.

:thumbsup:

[optimator]

3. yeah I already read that trash

unrec'd for the condescending assumptions about other people's beliefs

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. I completely agree with the analysis you offer.

People here think reading DailyKOS and watching Meet the Press constitutes expertise in politics and foreign policy. It doesn't.

[hughee99]

8. It made people experts when * was president. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. I was critical of it then too. (nt)

[Echo In Light]

9. Conversely, many her do realize what such "expertise" translates into

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Or that people use the propaganda excuse a crutch for their denial. (nt)

[Echo In Light]

34. "Denial" of what, exactly?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. That they might be occasionally wrong.

Some people pass off anything as propaganda that doesn't fit their world view.

[Echo In Light]

44. Exactly!...as in, "war$" are necessary b/c very powerful people beholden to vested intere$ts say so

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. Or that wars only ever happen because powerful people are allegedly beholden to vested interests.

It cuts both ways. The truth is in between.

[Echo In Light]

52. So, there *aren't* corporations that make huge sums of $ from our phony "war$?"

The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers

The history of American war profiteering is rife with egregious examples of incompetence, fraud, tax evasion, embezzlement, bribery and misconduct. As war historian Stuart Brandes has suggested, each new war is infected with new forms of war profiteering. Iraq is no exception. From criminal mismanagement of Iraq's oil revenues to armed private security contractors operating with virtual impunity, this war has created opportunities for an appalling amount of corruption. What follows is a list of some of the worst Iraq war profiteers who have bilked American taxpayers and undermined the military's mission.

http://www.alternet.org/world/41083/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/War_profiteering

6 Ways Corporations Profit from War:
http://createrealdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/11/6-ways-corporations-profit-from-war.html

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. Did I say that?

Rather, I believe that corporate influence, particularly as it relates to war, is largely overblown and is a convenient yet mostly unproveable argument that many people use. Notice that your list does not coincide with this list whatsoever: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638.

In fact, of the $745 million Obama raised, only $267,000 came from the companies in your top 10 according to opensecrets. Your top 10 combined do not even crack the top 20 corporate contributors to Obama. Do you honestly believe that Obama would go to war over 0.0036% of his campaign contributions?

[Echo In Light]

58. No more than I 'believe' that any US president acts on his own volition re ways of empire

And really ... corporate influence is "largely overblown and is a convenient yet mostly unproveable argument?"

We part ways on that dismal note since there's no common ground to be found

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. So you then believe all presidents to be no more than figureheads for... whom, exactly? (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

62. fo the coalitions of money that put them in power. it's how things work.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

64. You mean the coalitions that didn't even really give Obama money?

As illustrated a few posts up.

[Hannah Bell]

69. i mean his funders, e.g. pritzkers.

http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/2008/02/who-is-penny-pritzker-and-why-is-she.html

[Posteritatis]

37. "This is complicated! It must be bad!" (nt)

[BeFree]

11. It is simple

Should we continue, and even expand upon an action that is supported by very few Americans and will make more enemies?

Or should we just stop and reverse the trend?

Obama has already said we are expanding. What is it about the word expansion that yall don't understand?

[dusmcj]

12. who gives a fuck ? ignore them unless they insist, then drown them out

it's the advantage of democracy at work - barking moonbats (which term does have objective applicability in spite of also being used as a slur by reactionaries) don't get to have the last word if the rest of the public isn't asleep at the wheel. It's as good as it gets, and the principle has been known for about 250 years.

[NYC_SKP]

14. Indeed. Mine is a kneejerk post, but also a chance to link to grantcart's great thread.

A thread I have neither the background nor patience to compose.

lol- "barking moonbats"!

:P

[BeFree]

24. Drown us out?

You must be dreaming. That means you are asleep.
Peace is all we are asking for. You do know that, right?

[dusmcj]

77. unless you propose how to achieve peace, you need to accept if it doesn't come

If you only ask for peace without proposing a method for reaching that goal, i.e. you don't propose a 'how' to go along with the 'what' you want, then you need to be prepared for the possibility that your goal will not be reached because no one else proposed a successful method either, and the resultant consequence that you need to step back and review the situation, and certainly not complain that no one else stepped in come up with a method. Since you didn't. That's part of the social contract you sign by participating in public discourse.

If on the other hand you do propose a method for achieving your end, then you agree to participate in reasoned objective public discourse with others with equal or greater knowledge of the subject area compared to yours, and to stay away from dogmatism and preconceived notions, but instead hew to the one goal: to produce a result which carries positive answers to the questions: what are the effects of the solution on:

• America's security
  
• Afghanistan's security
  
• the region's security
  
• the quality of life of the Afghan people
  
• the American economy
  
• the world's economy
  

This reasoned participation is also part of the social contract - you don't just get to stamp your feet and proclaim "don't confuse me with facts, I want X !!!!!". Not saying you are, just making sure you understand. Because that behavior should be left to the experts, the neocon tribe and their hangers-on.

The Democratic Party has a sorry history in the time after Truman, with Clinton as a rare exception and JFK as an occasional one, of sucking wind when it comes to foreign policy vision, and specifically a practicable realistic vision for how a modern nation state which is enlightened comports itself in a world in which telling other nations you'll be angry with them if they aren't nice doesn't always make them behave. The Party is long on comfortable middle-class American liberals who project their comfort into a delusory world where there's lots of money to spread around, everyone is actually really nice and will agree to work for consensus rather than pursuing their perceived self-interest, and if America only was nicer then everyone would be nicer to us. This sounds like kindergarten and is more or less suited to it. Combine it with the windbag tendency of the broad mass of the Party, particularly many of its lesser functionaries who think that because they are in the right they no longer need to check with their brains before activating their mouths (just saw Maxine Waters display her ignorance following the Obama West Point speech) and you have a situation in which the Party is reasonably accused of not demonstrating that it is capable of conducting foreign policy.

The challenge for any party, and any nation, particularly a powerful one, is to identify how to conduct itself in each situation so that

• it has identified legitimate self-interest and has not pursued illegitimate self-interest. E.g. stealing other people's oil because we're overconsumptive self-satisfied pigs is not legitimate. Preventing people from flying planes into our buildings is. It's very nice to say the two are linked, but they are that in your mind, not necessarily in all instances in the real world.
  
• what the practical immediate interests of the broader human community are in the particular situation. E.g. if AlQaeda acquires a suitcase bomb and is storing it in Kandahar until it is able to arrange transit to NYC, how to we respond ?
  
• is diplomacy practical or is there a need to use force ? In some cases, emulating the Mahatma may win you points in the next life but will get people killed in this one. Rwanda and Bosnia/Kosovo (i.e. Serb attempts at genocide) are good examples.
  
• how to promote cultural values which objectively provide advantage to the whole species and to the environment when compared to other cultural values. E.g. it is a good thing to let women spend their days not wearing bags over their heads, being beaten and/or raped, not being educated, and being kept impregnated while preparing food and cleaning toilets. Complaints that such conditions are traditional in some cultures and so must be respected are lies of weaklings. Human weaklings. Weak human beings. How do we promote better values without simply destroying the weak cultures, but rather making them grow up to match the best the rest of us have come up with ? (And please don't waste my time with pieties about how until we are supremely virtuous we should meekly refrain from any criticism of others. We'd have nothing to talk about.)
  

When you're prepared to fill out your goal with at least these details of the methods of achieving it, you will have taken important steps on the road to achieving peace. Good luck to you.

[Neecy]

15. Blind hero worship is pretty low-info as well

I've read quite a bit of history about Afghanistan.

Did you know that Kabul was essentially destroyed with massive civilian casualties not by the Russians, but by competing warlords after the Russians pulled out? Do you know how the Northern Alliance, our "allies" came to be? Do you know how large this country is, how difficult the terrain is, how each small district is allied with their particular warlord and not the central government and has always been this way?

Strategy, at this stage, doesn't interest me. History does, geography does, and deeply-rooted cultural norms does. One can oppose this escalation because all of the "strategy" from military commanders who don't have a terribly impressive record over the last decade will take a back seat to the realities on the ground.

You consider anyone who doesn't march in lockstep to be low-information. And that's just stupid and insulting. Glad to unrec this silly thread.

[treestar]

19. How can it be blind hero worship when we knew that was what he was

going to do when we voted for him?

We knew we had to live with this.

[bring_em_home_bush]

68. no, s/he doesn't actually know any of those things

but thinks ludicrous termite analogies = deep insight, and then has the laughable audacity to denigrate other, actually well-informed analyses, as shallow.

A deeply silly thread, indeed.

[notesdev]

16. Amazing how the question suddenly becomes more complicated

once one has to post-hoc justify a war escalation.

This is not that complicated. State and achieve an achievable objective that is worth the blood of American soldiers and the wealth of a suffering people or bring them home.

[NYC_SKP]

39. Stabilize, not overtake, a region which, if left alone, will cause more harm in the future.

Now, the historic, theocratic, geographic, and economic context of this matter is incredibly broad.

Specific goals are suggested withing grantcart's post.

One may agree or disagree with whether or not Obama's strategy will meet these goals, or whether the goals are even valid.

But my point is that much of the outrage is hyperbolic and emotional and doesn't offer substantive material for discussion.

Does that make sense, do you know what I mean?

:shrug:

[redqueen]

17. K&R

[treestar]

18. I'm just shocked at the unreasonable nature of it all

when Obama campaigned that he would continue it.

I disagree on it, but I knew I had to accept it or end up with McWar as POTUS and Apocalypse Barbie as Veep.

[SoCalDem]

20. and your thread is being vistited by Uggo

[cliffordu]

26. LOL. NIce!!!!

[NYC_SKP]

29. I LOVE that! Sadly, every time an unrec hits this post, a baby kitteh dies.

Which really tells you the secret agenda of these horrible people!

:P

Edited to add:

"hai"



:P

[Posteritatis]

38. But they come back with recs. Zombie kittens everywhere! (nt)

[Bobbie Jo]

50. ROFL

Uggo Rocks! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I am so stealing that.

[SoCalDem]

79. The Legend of Uggo

Uggo, the UN-Rec-ing Ball,
Just stoppin' by, to say a friendly "F-U"
Why, you say?..Hiss Hiss Boo Boo
Could be many reasons, y'all

Here's a few..choose one, or more
a) you said something slightly mean to me back in aught 4,
...at least I think it was you
b) you supported that "other" candidate in a primary
c) this topic was not especially chosen for ME, approved by me
d) I like anonymous, sneaky drive-bys
e) I disagree with the linked, verified information you posted
....but I am too lazy to offer counter-information
f) I don't like you...at least I think you're the one

[cliffordu]

23. Thanks for reposting the link.

I know how difficult it is to pay this much attention after the image of me naked danced through your mind.

[NYC_SKP]

30. remind me...

...to kick grantcart's ass (a far more palatable ass than yours, I might add) for providing me the ammo to confront some of these ridiculous assertions...

:hi:

[cliffordu]

33. Well......

Hokay, then.....


:rofl:

[Egnever]

32. It's been unending here for months

The signal to noise ratio here these days is maddening.

Keep trying to educate skip. With any luck some people out there are actually paying attention and not just repeating what they heard on the TV.

No surprise from me that grant writes a well reasoned and thought out post. He has been doing it here for quite a while now. What does surprise me is the forum he posted it in :shrug:

[NYC_SKP]

35. THX, Egnever. It did get reposted in GD yesterday...

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7113264

I'm glad that it gave some life to the Obama group forum but glad, too, that it made it to GD.

It's interesting to read the responses in both, as none of the rebuttals bear very much substance.

:hi:

[redqueen]

41. I'm not surprised at all...

due to that signal-to-noise thing you mentioned.

[NYC_SKP]

43. Actually, wasn't that the M.O. for teabaggers at Town Halls this summer.

Make noise?

I'm looking for reasoned arguments from either side, and we knew today would have more noise than substance.

:toast:

[redqueen]

47. Interesting observation...

I find myself increasingly irritated with those substance-free, sloganeering threads... and wishing the mods would limit the number of threads DUers could post in a day... I keep thinking maybe that will help.

Progress, not perfection... that's what I keep reminding myself... :fistbump:

[PVnRT]

40. Yes, anyone who disagrees with Obama is an idiot

Just come out and say it. At least we could respect you for honesty at that point.

[NYC_SKP]

42. No, actually. There are idiots on both sides of the matter. And it's not about Obama.

It's about shit like, "Obama started this war"... :wtf:

My post includes a link to a well-reasoned discussion, one of substance.

The Low Information posts come from both sides.

My point is that today, on the day that we are expecting to hear the president address this matter, we are seeing a high number of reactionary pre-emptive, low substance OPs.

And I think any objective analysis would agree.

:patriot:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. Only if you admit that you think everyone who agrees with him is an idiot. (nt)

[PVnRT]

54. I don't

Nor have I said anything like that. Fail.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. Nor did the OP.

Fail yourself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Not all of them.

But damn near.

[grahamhgreen]

55. The war is to make money for arms merchants is the one thing you side always refuses to address. Who

Who is making money from the war escalation?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Why would Obama abide those people, exactly?

They constitute less than .003% of his campaign contributions. Why in the world would he bend to their will? What influence do they have to exert over him?

[grahamhgreen]

71. Why is he abiding them? Why $$$ for banksters? Lack of moral fiber. 'Profit trumps peace'

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

80. How is it profit for him?

[galileoreloaded]

61. We here at Raytheon appreciate your efforts.....

keep it up, it really helps out.

Thanks,
Raytheon Constituent Engagement Team

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

63. Raytheon employees donated a heaping $65k to Obama in 2008.

Most of which came from engineers and software folks, not executives. So I'm sure Obama really bended to their will for what doesn't even amount to one-one thousandth of his campaign contributions.

[galileoreloaded]

78. Just a defense industry joke......

not specific at all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. An Afghan woman and politician disagrees.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7123464

[goldcanyonaz]

66. I wonder how many actually listened to Obama during the campaign.

He clearly stated that he was going to send more troops to Afghanistan.

"Obama has made Afghanistan a centerpiece of his proposed strategy for dealing with terrorism threats. The Illinois senator has said the war in Afghanistan, where Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants are resurgent, deserves more troops and more attention as opposed to the conflict in Iraq."

Were so many not listening or were they only hearing what they wanted to hear?

[NYC_SKP]

76. Yes, this factor really puts the "faux" in their "outrage".

Of course, if you point that out you're suddenly a cheerleader or a warmonger or a baby killer...

:eyes:

[sad sally]

67. from Abraham Lincoln:

Military glory--that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood, that serpent's eye that charms to destroy.

[TexasObserver]

70. No thread OP is more "low information" than this one.

You have one point, which can best be described as "neener, neener, neener!"

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Well here is the problem

we needed to change the dynamic in Afghanistan, but all occupations have a window, and that window went by pretty fast.

Also we are not there (supposedly) to nation build (which should have happened ten seconds after the Taliban fled Kabul), but to destroy Al Qaida.

Al Qaida is gone, according to General Stanley McChrystal, and yes Afghanistan, for many complex reasons boing back centuries is a tribal society. It is nothing against them. nor does that make them less human.

But you want one fact nobody mentions? This is a civil war, between the urban dwellers, who are looking to modernize and the rural areas that don't. Yes, I am simplifyng the situation, but this could take books. in fact would take books if you want all the shades of gray.

So if you want to think I am shooting from the hip... well here is shooting from the hip. The Grand Central Asia game has nothing to do with Afghanistan and all to do with China and Russia... and this is the way it's been for the Western Powers for the last two hundred years, at least.

[NYC_SKP]

73. I love your posts, Nadin...

...thanks for adding something discussion worthy to this thread.

Did you have a chance to read grantcart's post, linked in this OP?

I think he made several points with which you would agree, toward the end, under "questions I hope Obama answers" (or similar).

:thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. I did, why I hope NOT to hear LBJ

and actually have solid reasons.

Reality is I don't expect any 'splaining of the Central Asian chess game to be honest, that is way too complex to most people.

What bothers me (and the escalation does by the way) is that Obama is not breaking his word. He's doing what he said he was going to do during the campaign. I'm not surprised or shocked that this is happening. Even if at many levels I do not agree with it. So I hope he actually gives a good reason to do this... but I'm expecting parallels to Nam, to be honest. But people are shocked that he is doing what he promised he was going to do.

[Odin2005]

75. K&R