First Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and then Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this week that Taliban militants in Afghanistan are using Iranian weapons to fight U.S. forces. Though there is some question about how much the Iranian government is involved in the supply line, it’s another reason the United States needs to get a handle on Iran, which also has been a provocateur in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza in addition to pursuing nuclear weapons.
But isn’t there something to be done short of the military strike suggested Sunday by Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.? Like diplomacy? Or do we just need to make Iran fear our bombs so it will stop fueling violence?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
93 Comments
A general in Afghanistan says Iran is helping the Afghanistan government by supplying arms, and a guy in France says Iran in supplying arms to the Taliban (who Iran joined with America to combat during the invasion). Is this more conflicting military intelligence like what was provided before the illegal Iraqi occupation? The Bush regime is not to be trust, Iran is merely Bush’s Cambodia.
Did the Soviet Union threaten to bomb the US when we helped the Mujahideen in Afghanistan?
You’re confusing a country under attack trying to defend itself. The Iranians have had everybody threatening to kill the lot of them including that G_D Joe {Big Mouth } Lieberman with his Israel first and to hell with the United States, so expect the Iranian to do something besides roll-over to the most troublemaking greedy bunch in history: The Zionist bloodthirsty goons of Israel.
Joe Lieberman goes on American TV and begs the United States to bomb Iran and Iran says that if they are attacked that they will strike back.
Now somehow you interpret that as a threat from Iran?
How does Iran become a threat while Lieberman takes a walk? Cheeeeese!
If anything Iran is the country under threat. It was not until the USA and Bush issued threats to them (”axis of evil”) that they began a massive defense buildup and a nuclear program. They are determined to make sure the Bush has no designs on doing to them what it has done to Iraq and who can blame them? As for giving weapons to fighters in Iraq and Afganistan- of course they are! After all, the more they can tie up US forces in those countries, the less likely it is that they will be attacked by Bush. Right now Bush will not attack because he CAN’T attack. We have no soldiers to do an invasion which is what would be required to stop Iran’s nuclear programme. We are just going to have to deal with the fact that Iran is going to be the regional power in that part of the world. And that is our fault for taking away the counter weight which was Saddam- as bad as he was. Like the old saying- sometimes the Devil you know is better than the Devil you might get!
Well Said Kev, as the little twits on this blog complain about informative posts such as yours, they fail to realize that this posts are read worldwide, far beyond their little realm.
Good job.
I see the “blame America first” crowd is out early this morning.
The so-called “Axis of Evil” is made-up of the Zionists of Israel and the Neocons/Zionists of America.
The countries those two mention are their victims.
I see the Israel Zionists defenders are out early this morning.
Hows everything at AIPAC?
Republican, We’re not blaming America, just pointing the invaders and traders and those involved in treason.
It’s time to route-out the traders and set them up with their J-Dates { Russian women tricked into marriage proposals from Israel, then upon arrival are chained to a bed in an Israeli whorehouse }.
Not blaming America Ed? Is that why you blast them at every opportunity?
I’ve never read one nice thing you have said about the U.S.
Republican { in name only }
Then you either don’t know how to read or you’re just another lying bastard. I have written reams about saving our own US constitution from the people you support, who deface it at every turn.
Try telling the truth for a change…
LMAO ED!
You’re such a card. Blasting other people is your idea of making a positive post about America.
Yeah okay Ed, uh huh.
You’re so twisted Ed, you can’t even see that your twisted. Now that is very sad.
Republican, you twisted piece of shit, what the hell do you Zionists know about Ammerica other than to try to bleed it dry of freedopm and money.
Look in the mirror and see how sick you really are… and go back to the promised land, where you can make yourself feel good killing Palestinian children……
“Not blaming America Ed? Is that why you blast them at every opportunity?”
Ed merely points out America has meddled in the internal affairs of other countries.What we are now enjoying is policy blowback. Not being good party members like yourself we disagree with the actions of “our” leaders. Sorry if this offends you comrade republican.
morg,
Ed Friedemann doesn’t “merely” do anything. His posts are full of a terrorist state supporting Pro-Palestinian diatribe.
Heck even the Saudis wouldn’t offer the Palestinians land when they were a wandering bunch of hoodlums.
But say Ed, if you think the homicide bombers that kill Israeli children is justified, go ahead and make your posts of hate.
We all know what you are.
“And that is our fault for taking away the counter weight which was Saddam- as bad as he was.”
I see the America Haters and the Saddam Lovers are out early today.
Great topic to point out how vulnerable the Bush administration has really made us. We could not rally enough support world wide to do anything to Iran. Any military strike would have to be another preemptive attack. You reap what your sow! If you lose all credibility with a war that was not justified, then you get to live with the consequences. Iran was not a threat until ole “Axis of Evil” George gave them credibility. Then they took that credibility and used it to their best advantage. With the US military bogged down in Iraq it is a prime time for the Iranians to do whatever they please. Joe Lieberman has lost his mind. I don’t know what is wrong with that guy but I think he drank some GWB Kool Aid.
But enough with the “we must attack them before they attack us” mentality. Its an extremely paranoid way of thinking.
“But enough with the “we must attack them before they attack us” mentality.”
I agree. Let them attack first.That should work out well.
Your right fleetwood we can’t protect our own borders why worry about the Middle East.
Yes Mike, let’s be like FDR and wait until millions of people are incarcerated in concentration camps or executed on the spot.
No sense in getting involved when non-American blood is being spilled by the kilo liter.
Yeah, let’s just lay back in our comfy arm chairs, watch a little ESPN and American Idol.
Think I need a nap now.
You mean like this Republican:
http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=10522
More than a million Palestinians live in conditions of absolute misery in refugee camps.It is one of the principal destabilizing elements in the Middle East.We talked about it with Robert L. Stern, who presides over the Pontifical Mission for Palestine
“Yes Mike, let’s be like FDR and wait until millions of people are incarcerated in concentration camps or executed on the spot.”
Like the USA would have let the Jewish refugees from Europe in anyway at that time. Nope, they’re not quite welcome. Besides, why join the war right away and waste precious resources when you can just let the Axis and the Reds weaken each other first.
What is Diplomacy or more specifically what Diplomacy is it that you think we should try on Iran?
Liberals use the word Diplomacy as if it defines it’s self.
“Lets try Diplomacy!”
Well, ok, but what does that mean? Exactly?
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005139http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007094
Nathan,
Imagine my absolute, total lack of surprise that you don’t know what “diplomacy” means.
di•plo•ma•cy1. the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.2. the art or science of conducting such negotiations.3. skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact
““We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid of somebody,” he said. “But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war”
“We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights,”
Ron Paul 2008
Nathan,Check the following link, to educate yourself on the finer aspects of diplomacy, other than your usual blow-them-to-smithereens approach.
PS:”it’s self”? Man, go back take English 101. :)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070613/us_nm/security_usa_extremism_dc;_ylt=AqYTPoPB2D50pb5vRmyht.Gs0NUE
Oh Republican…..you are showing your liberal side by wanting to go to Darfur.
But I was talking about Iran. Go back and reread the post.
morg,
Answer me this question. Why do the Palestinians still live in refugee camps?
Is it because their leadership is constantly involved in terrorist activity against Israel? You bet that is the reason.
Instead of building their economy and making infrastructure, they put all their monies into corrupt terrorists machines and political turmoil.
The Palestinians are a product of the corrupt practices of Arafat. While he lived in luxury surrounded by body guards, his people suffered. He has convinced the Mullahs to tell the Palestinian to go out and blow themselves up because of Allah.
B.S., it’s about keeping the Palestinian corrupt leadership in power.
But I’m glad you love supporting a non-productive terrorist state morg, who has no agenda other than to kill people.
When the Palestinians actually start doing something productive, building their economy and stop their terrorists way, then I’ll give them a second look. Until then, they deserve to be cannon fodder.
Chavez lives in extreme comfort while his people are impoverished. Let’s nuke them as well.
Wait a minute, Bush lives in comfort while some Americans are impoverished. Who do we nuke???
“When the Palestinians actually start doing something productive, building their economy and stop their terrorists way, then I’ll give them a second look. Until then, they deserve to be cannon fodder.”
Great idea lets start a hedge fund and help out the refuges. Maybe a quicktrip on every corner a few starbucks soon it will look just like downtown Bagdad. Oh wait it already does.
So Joe the Jew wants to start a war with Iran, now. Hell, Joe you haven’t finished the last war you helped start.
?????
In response:
“WE WILL BURY YOU”
Kruschev, while pounding the UN podium with his shoe.
“Joe the Jew”
“you Zionists”
“set them up with their J-Dates” (”them” would be the “traders” [sic])
Na – no anti-Semitism here . . . .
“And that is our fault for taking away the counter weight which was Saddam- as bad as he was.”
I see the America Haters and the Saddam Lovers are out early today.
Posted by: fleettwood | June 14, 2007 at 08:04 AM
Fleet – It’s not about loving Saddam, and you know it. It’s about a political vacuum. Do you know what that is? Take any poli-sci courses. If you did, this exact situation was covered.
When did we become a nation of preemptive war?
You Jew-hating nut cakes just can’t learn from history.
Hell, you can’t even see, with your own eyes, what is happening NOW!
The most common form of death in Gaza is “honor killing” or the brutal murder of women for the slightest “dishonor” of the family. (adultery, refusing an arranged marriage, or even lesser “crimes”) Honor Killing has killed more Moslems than the Israeli Military and the US Military combined!
Israel and the U.S. have NOTHING to do with these Moslem deaths.
RIGHT NOW, Hamas and Fatah are at war with one another, in Gaza. Hamas is executing Fatah members in front of their families.
Israel and the U.S. have NOTHING to do with these Moslem deaths.
Diplomacy?
First of all, how do you negotiate with barbarians?
Secondly, name a successful “diplomat” in all of human history, that did not have a powerful military standing behind him to back up his words, would you please?
Neville Chamberlin lives in the hearts of anti war liberals: “peace in our time, peace in our time” —-
While the Nazi ovens burned the bodies of the Jews and Gypsies and Christians in Europe who opposed Hitler.
Peace in our time!
Yah, right.
While I don’t often agree with Republican, he’s got one thing exactly right. Terrorism isn’t about Israel, or us as the “Great Satan.” It’s a tool of power.
Those in power, the leaders of Hamas, the oil shieks, etc. need to keep their people distracted while they roll in cash. So Israel and the US provide the distraction. The creation of Israel was the best thing to happen for those in power – an instant external enemy. It such an enemy didn’t exist, it would have to be created.
A two state solution could be crafted tomorrow. The majority of real people, mothers and fathers on both sides who want real peace, would favor same. But the terrorist leadership, and those who fund them, don’t want a solution. They want a continued distraction from the fact that their people live in crap while they skim off billions.
so the killing goes on . . . .
Sol Dev
FDR gave assistance to Brittain and the French Resistance long before any war was declared against Japan or Germany.
Study history, would you please!
ECON,
Study English. Where is preemptive and war in assistance?
“It’s not about loving Saddam, and you know it. It’s about a political vacuum.”
You people take this “walk on by” thing a bit too far.BTW- I’ve got that song stuck in my head, again. Thanks for nothing.
Sol Dev
Preemptive war?
3 US Presidents had been at war with Saddam, including Clinton!
While I do support the concept of preemptive war, I do not think Iraq qualifies in that category.
We were already “at war” with Iraq, before W was even elected!
When Bush 1st threatened military action for Kuwait, exactly how long after the deadline did Bush wait before starting the action?
How long did Bush 2nd wait?
We are at war with drugs, high fuel costs, fat… Many many things. I think we can drop the semantics of ‘war’ and realize we are talking about military action.
Who was the last US president to attack (military action) a nation that had not already been engaged in military action with either the US or a US ally?
Sol,
As Econ101 pointed out, we were already in a military action with Iraq. I suppose you are pretending to ignore how Iraq fired frequently at out fighter aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. Which, by the way was a UN sanctioned zone and policy.
Is the truth too inconvenient Sol?
OK Repub. Let’s get down to your scale. You equate taking pot shots at air craft and firing the occasional Cruise Missile to over throwing a government?
Are you freaking kidding me Repub?
How many air craft were shot down during what repub defines as war with Iraq vs. how many aircraft shot down during Bush 2nd’s war with Iraq. You know the one repub, where we sent in troops and all.
And here’s another one for you to choke on Repub. It isn’t I nor Ron Paul, nor the GOP, nor the Dems that started using the phrase preemptive when talking about the start of the current conflict. It was Bush. Bush declared the preemptive strike to be just that, preemptive.
So you can try to work on words all day long Repub and Econ, Bush himself declared this a preemptive action.
Cough cough cough.
The violation of the UN no-fly zone resolution alone authorized military incursion into Iraq.
Sorry Sol, I have misread you. I thought you actually studied facts before posting.
Sol
Preemptive action and preemptive war are not the same thing.
Every war includes strategy. We were already at war with Iraq.
War strategy usually involves, at least in part, preemptive action. Destroying the enemy’s ability to wage war is “preemption.”
That we wanted to preempt Iraq’s ability to harm us, after the war already started, does not, in and of itself, make the current conflict a “preemptive war.”
Bush declared the preemptive strike to be just that, preemptive.
Cough cough cough
The question still stands unanswered. When did we become a nation of preemptive war?
Undeterred by an erosion of public support for the war in Iraq, President Bush on Thursday reaffirmed his first-strike policyusatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-16-bush-national-security_x.htm
Perils of Bush’s pre-emptive war doctrinenewsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicId=3956
The Best Defense: The Problem with Bush’s ‘Preemptive’ War Doctrinewatsoninstitute.org/pub_detail.cfm?id=207
Iraq should teach Bush preemptive war’s limitsfindarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmtpi/is_200401/ai_kepm355678
Karl Rove has started his campaign to help elect Bush with a $100,000campaign ad that touts the Bush policy of “pre-emptive war”usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.politics.usa/msg00287.html
The more he gets into it, the more that Sol is turning Lefty.
Pretty soon Sol will be lap dancing on the GORACLE and wearing sandwich boards for Michael Moore’s movies.
Can’t stay on topic Repub? Personal attacks? I’m not liberal Repub. If you were a republican you would remember that the Republican Party is the party of peace. We have been elected time and time again to END wars, not start them willey nilley, try to explain them as fighting terrorism, and look for new places to invade.
Get with your party Repub. Not the current GOP, but the Republican Party. Quit being led by your nose.
Tom,
I know what the definition of Diplomacy is.
The question was obviously meant to ask what is meant by Diplomacy?
What exactly is it that we should do through Diplomacy to solve this?
All the left does is say the word Diplomacy. That doesn’t mean anything.
What actions do you specifically suggest?
So far, the UN and many other countries have been using “Diplomacy” to try to stop Iran from making Nuclear material for their weapons program.
What do you liberals propose?
Do we get on our hands and knees and beg them while offering up our balls on a golden dish?
Sorry Sol, but you are licking on the Democratic cone flavor of the day.
You’ve never been a true Republican, if you hold those views.
I call them like I see them.
What do you liberals propose?
A Manhattan Project for New Energy. We are spending over $100 billion a year on Iraq. If we spent over $100 billion a year on solar and wind energy, we could dry up the main funding source for terrorism — namely Bush’s “allies” in Saudi Arabia.
Now tell me what you conservatives propose? Because your war solution isn’t working.
Actually liberal left, we could easily find $100 billion dollars from all the pork and earmarks that the Democratic Congress have attached to spending bills.
“sssssss”
I think I heard the sound of pointing fingers being burned.
“We have been elected time and time again to END wars, not start them”
If you don’t see this and understand its truth Repub, then neither are you republican, just a bushite.
Bush declared his intent to attack Iran even before he invaded Iraq with his stupid “axis of evil” propaganda. The Bush regime has supported terrorists to kill Iranians and has massed troops by the Iranian border. When Iran agreed to Bush’s diplomatic measures Cheney rejected all of them saying that they don’t negotiate with their enemies. All the Bush regime wants is to expand the war, how many of you Bush supporters are going to enlist for your invasion of Iran?
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Why we have a problem with Iran –
“Our policy toward Iran for the past 50 years is every bit as disconcerting. It makes no sense unless one concedes that our government is manipulated by those who seek physical control over the vast oil riches of the Middle East and egged on by Israel’s desiresWe have attacked the sovereignty of Iran on two occasions, and are in the process of threatening her for the third time.In 1953, the U.S. and British overthrew the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh and installed the Shah.His brutal regime lasted over 25 years, and ended with the Ayatollah taking power in 1979. Our support for the Shah incited the radicalization of the Shiite Clerics in Iran, resulting in the hostage takeover.In the 1980s we provided weapons– including poisonous gas– to Saddam Hussein as we supported his invasion of Iran. These events are not forgotten by the Iranians, who see us once again looking for another confrontation with them. We insist that the UN ignore the guarantees under the NPT that grant countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium. The pressure on the UN and the threats we cast toward Iran are quite harmful to the cause of peace. They are entirely unnecessary and serve no useful purpose. Our policy toward Iran is much more likely to result in her getting a nuclear weapon than prevent itOur own effort at democratizing Iran has resulted instead in radicalizing a population whose instincts are to like Americans and our economic system. Our meddling these past 50 years has only served to alienate and unify the entire country against us.”
I don’t refute that most Americans supported the war. I’ve already posted that Repub.
The STILL unanswered question is “When did we become a preemptive war nation?”
Afghanistan and Iraq should teach us that preemptive war and over throwing governments does not work?
Can you understand that Repub?
Our foreign policy is what has gotten us into this mess. It is time to take our hands out of foreign governments and get our own back yard straightened out.
Sol,
I would disagree. The Taliban were in control of Afghanistan and refused to comply in handing over Bin Laden or Al Quaeda.
There was little debate on our decision to remove from power the Taliban who openly allowed terrorists to train against us and harbor those who did attack us.
I will give you that Iraq was more questionable, but you shouldn’t lump them together.
“While the Nazi ovens burned the bodies of the Jews and Gypsies and Christians in Europe who opposed Hitler.”
How convenient for paulie the shillie to leave out gay people. Doesnt fit in with his world view, ya know.
Nathan,I lump them together because the outcome is so similar. Aren’t the Taliban pretty much back in power? We STILL don’t have Osama, and to tell you the truth, I’m not real sure we’re still trying.
Iraq is a mess and I doubt it will get cleaned up anytime soon. We lost a lot of troops in those two countries and what did we really gain. The cost of human lives and an enormous amount of money have paid for what?
I fully agree with going after Osama. Get the bastard. But by leveling two governments, we have our hands too full to really pursue the man responsible for 9/11.
Bush promised us no nation building, yet that is what we are entrenched in in two Arab nations. Iran is looking like the next target. When are we going to realize this preemptive governmental overthrow policy JUST DOESN’T WORK?
Sol,
If your standard of success ONLY involves the capture of Osama then you are limiting yourself to failure or less than wonderful outcomes.
We have captured or killed a great deal of Al Qaeda leadership since the invasion of Afghanistan.
The Taliban is most definately not in control.
Afghanistan is a complicated region and of course we don’t completely control every square inch of it, that doesn’t nearly qualify you to say that the Taliban is pretty much back in power.
Only if you narrow your view of success to only the capture of Bin Laden could you not see the many different monumental successes in Afghanistan.
The Taliban is most definately not in control.Posted by: Nathan | June 14, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Really…..well here is some reading for you Nathan.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9833660
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI08Df02.html
http://in.news.yahoo.com/060906/139/67bd1.html
Nathan,
Please understand I am not detracting from what you and the Military have done. As per the scope of the military’s mission, we have been 100% effective. But the work expected of the troops now is outlying of the scope of the military’s mission – nation building.
The purpose of entering Afghanistan should have been capturing Osama. He is the one responsible for 9/11. Bully to the troops for eliminating other high value targets, but our goal was to get Osama.
Why are we there to destroy a nation’s government? Do you know how many countries support Muslim extremists? Should we invade and overthrow all those governments as well?
Regime change by force, in Arab/Muslim nations by ‘The West’ is a fool’s errand.
Farmgirl
Many top Nazi officials WERE gay.
The military is once again contradicting the claims of the Bush regime (and I’ll throw in Bush kisser Lieberman).
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/12/1832/
If the military in Afghanistan says Iran is helping the U.S. then only Bush logic says we should attack them. Working with Iran would only help us and could possibly help bring an end to the conflict. How will Halliburton get more contracts if their indentured servants, um, soldiers get sent home?
Instead of being conned by Repuke’s out-of-context Gore quotes upthread, I suggest carefully reading his ENTIRE speech.
Al Gore – September 23, 2002′IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM’http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.htmlThe Course of Action: The War on Terrorism, FirstDangers of Abandoning IraqWhat Congress Should DoDangers of Abandoning IraqPreemption DoctrineAmerica’s Mission in the World
“The Roehm Affair and Persecution of HomosexualsThe leadership of the Nazi Party included at least one avowed homosexual, Ernst Roehm. He was a member of Hirschfeld’s League for Human Rights and openly attended homosexual meeting places. Between 1933 and 1934, Roehm was the leader of the SA (Stormtroopers) and, before the death of Hindenberg in 1934, he was a potential challenger to Hitler’s supremacy. With the Nazis’ rise to power came an attack from Germany’s political left. Attempts were made to discredit Hitler and the Nazis. One of their arguments was the charge of homosexuality in the Nazi ranks. Hitler’s old friend Roehm was one of their main targets.Interestingly, one of Roehm’s principal defenders was Heinrich Himmler. He articulated the belief that accusations against Roehm were the work of Jews who feared the SS and were trying to discredit the movement. The mood of the party, and of Himmler, changed, however, when Hitler decided in 1934 that Roehm was a threat to his authority. Specifically, Hitler feared that Roehm was attempting to turn the SA (at this time, over 2 million strong) into a militia and was planning a military challenge to Hitler. While there is no evidence that such a plan existed, Hitler ordered a purge. On June 30, 1934, Roehm, many of his supporters, and over 1,000 of Hitler’s political and personal enemies, were murdered in the famous “Night of the Long Knives.” While the purge was politically motivated, the justification given for it was the homosexuality of Roehm and several of his associates in the SS command.
Himmler, who had once defended Roehm, assumed leadership of the SS and, in the process, also assumed the role of ridding the movement and Germany of homosexuals. In the wake of the Roehm execution, Hitler ordered the registration of homosexuals and the Gestapo was charged with the responsibility of creating dossiers on homosexuals and other “asocials” in the Third Reich.
The following year, in 1935, the Reichstag amended Paragraph 175 of the Criminal Code to close what were seen as loopholes in the current law. The new law had three parts:
http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html
The real art of diplomacy is not only to say the right thing at the right time, but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. BushCo seems incapable of either.
you shouldn’t lump them [Iraq and Afghanistan] together.Posted by: Nathan | June 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Tell that to your Commander in Chief.
So what paulie? Gay people come in every stripe. The Nazis were also german and jewish and they persecuted them as well. ONE nazi does not equate to SOME nazis.
You are so transparant paul rossell.
You would rather equate gay people WITH nazis than to admit that gays were targeted and interned not for what they did, but rather for what they were.
So when you list that group of nazi victims, dont forget the gays. I know it doesnt fit in your neocon world view, but that is the truth.
Not that the truth matters to rossell….
“When the Palestinians actually start doing something productive, building their economy and stop their terrorists way, then I’ll give them a second look. Until then, they deserve to be cannon fodder.”
Fu**ing Jew attitude, when It’s hard to do anything while being slaughtered by land, sea, and air.
Firing artillery shells into refugee camps has to be an all time low, which deserves no quarter.
Sol,
What is the point in capturing or killing Bin Laden in a country which would continue to support Al Qaeda training facilaties openly and a government which would continue to support those who would easily replace Osama.
To truely eliminate the threat you son’t simply kill the leader.
You kill the leader.
You kill the entire terrorist organization/disrupt them/continue to prevent them from training further killers and/or planning attacks.
You say our mission was to get Osama.
I say the mission was to not only get him, but prevent the entire terrorist organization from continuing to openly plot and carry out attacks on America.
Once again, you focus on one individual as success for what reason?
Do you see Osama out actively training or giving interviews?
He has been effectively neutralized even if we have not killed or captured him.
“Yes Mike, let’s be like FDR and wait until millions of people are incarcerated in concentration camps or executed on the spot.
No sense in getting involved when non-American blood is being spilled by the kilo liter.
Yeah, let’s just lay back in our comfy arm chairs, watch a little ESPN and American Idol.
Think I need a nap now.
Posted by: Republican | June 14, 2007 at 08:36 AM”
So what course of action should we take in Darfur Republican?
Nathan, Why don’t you wake-up “Terrorism” is an “advertising slogan” not an actual event. Just like “al-Qaida” is a term to hide Israeli aggression.
I want the Repubicans to take a step back and explain what they expect out of our ‘war on terror’.
After 9/11, the goal was to capture those responsible for it. That was quickly identified as Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden so we went into Afghanistan.
Then, we went into Iraq to topple Saddam because of his alleged support for Al Qaeda and desire to obtain nukes. So we next went into Iraq and toppled Saddam.
Now we are still in both places. We have not found Osama, and that does not appear to be a focus now. Saddam is out, but we are stuck trying to fix the instabilities that removing him created.
And now we are threatening Iran. WTF? Can anybody explain this?
BrianI asked RepubliKKKan the same question about Darfur. He won’t answer. He is all rhetoric
Mike, that figures
FARMGIRL
YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
YOU WENT AFTER ME FOR NOT POINTING OUT THAT HITLER KILLED GAYS, ALONG WITH JEWS AND GYPSIES AND CHRISTIANS.
NOW, YOU ARE MAD AT ME BECAUSE I POINT OUT THAT HITLER CAME TO POWER, IN PART, DUE TO THE GAY LEADERSHIP OF THE NAZI STORMTROOPERS!
YOU BROUGHT UP THE GAY ISSUE, YOU MORON, NOT ME!
To the rest of you, I apologize, I realize the Gay issue is off topic, but Farmgirl makes a GAY issue of damn near everything, doesnt she?
Farmgirl
Could you please NAME a “Jewish Nazi” for us?
— You claim, upthread, that such people existed. I now demand proof from YOU!
“HITLER CAME TO POWER, IN PART, DUE TO THE GAY LEADERSHIP OF THE NAZI STORMTROOPERS!”
Damn, I just KNEW that is was the gay agenda behind World War II! Those pesky gays, always starting wars and infiltrating respectable organizations like the storm troopers and the Nazis.
Next, I bet we will find out that it was the gays that convinced Bush to invade Iraq.
Now we know the true gay agenda – world domination!
Whoa, Nelly!!!!!
Farmgirl:
“So what paulie? Gay people come in every stripe. The Nazis were also german and jewish —”
The above is what you said.
— Yes, I realize it was probably a typo, but you are rather unforgiving and critical tonight.
Why should you be given any slack? lol
Clark
Farmgirl basically called me a homophobe for NOT bringing up the fact that Hitler, AFTER he came to power, did begin gassing Gays.
I only attempted to remind Farmie that Hitler’s CHIEF SA Stormtrooper was GAY and was a large reason WHY Hitler rose to power in the first place!
Hitler made friends with the Communists, then turned on them.
Hitler came to power with support of powerful gay leaders, then Hitler turned on them.
Dont trust a tyrant, no matter what your stripe!
That, I guess, is my point.
Illegal immigrants have raped over one million and killed more than 45 thousand Americans over the past few years, but our rotten government wants to reward them and fight Iran? I don’t understand!
zionists??????????????????
The Iranians are a REAL threat, we mean it this time!!!!!!!
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)Addressing the US SenateOctober 10, 2002http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_10100...
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)Addressing the US SenateOctober 10, 2002http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_10100...
“He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…”
The Pentagon recently released a report indicating that there was NO connection between Hussein and al Qaeda.
Who should we believe?
And, just for the record, my candidate is Obama, not Hillary Clinton.
Unlike Republicans, I do not believe everything from my Party.
DO NOT LET THE MEDIA SEX UP IRAN LIKE THEY DID IRAQ
WE DO NOT NEED TO FIGHT IRAN
WE NEED TO BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME