Obama is full of it

Fair point, RR. And I don't disagree that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are a horrible group that must be shut down.But sadly, they are this way (and were this way) before, during and after US support. The weapons that they are using to hurt the people of Afghanistan were sold to them by the US. They exist due to our support.And the US knew what type of group they were but at the time they were beneficial.Well you can't have it both ways. You can't support a monster, supply it weapons and then question why they are commit horrific acts on their own people.While the US backed them and supplied them weapons, they were doing the same thing to the citizens of Afghanistan. The US turned a blind eye to them torturing citizens because we were using the Taliban and Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets.Now it's a human rights issue? It was ALWAYS a human rights issue but no one cared. I supplied you with the link to the actual numbers several times.From Message 73

quote:

---

Despite all this, a solid 64% of Afghans thought 'the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they agree to stop fighting'. However, Afghans favoured preconditions to such talks: 71% said the government should 'negotiate only if the Taliban stop fighting'.

---

64% of Afghans thought "the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices." I can't either. But the US has much to do for the people's change of opinion toward the Taliban. The prolonged fighting and occupation of that land by US and British forces has made these poor people break, and give in to the Taliban, if only to have the fighting stop and some peace back in their lives.Can you blame them?- Oni

This IS very good and it is a good example of what people who really do care about change should do and often.Also, we should not limit it to Obama. Write to your Senators and Representatives, and other Senators or Representatives for which you feel you might have an affect. Don't limit it to people who you want to pursuade. Send also words to people who agree with you in encouragement. It really does matter HOW we participate in Democracy and it is becoming more and more evident as time passes that simple small actions can have big consequences.A note on the Palestinian issue. I have long given up the popular notion that the US is the lynchpin to peace in the situation there. Certainly we are not helping but if you talk to some Palestinians, they are just about as pissed off at other Arab countries as they are the US. This isn't an excuse, but it should be important to realize that the problem there is global or else people who care about the situation there may be to naievly focused on the US as the answer.I don't mean this to say that we should cut Obama or whoever is president any slack on this issue. I just hope that my contributions to this thread have been toward furthering a reality based progressivism rather than an ideological based progressivism. It is not up to one man to solve all of the worlds problems but we DO need to pressure that man to do all that he can do while we continue to fight to elect "pressureable" people to represent us. We too often take the willingness to change ones mind as a sign of weakness for our leaders when it should be quite the opposite.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Well, yes and no. The US definitely gave weaponry to the Afghan resitance, like US made Stinger missiles. The US was so eager for retribution for they fought with Russia by proxy in Vietnam that they jumped at the chance. It worked then, but now we see the consequences of that decision. The Afghans destroyed the Russians. When they did, they basically jacked the Russians weapons and have been using them ever since against coalition forces. No, not really. After the Russians left, there were civil wars because of competing ideologies. The most prominent were the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. That logic fails because things change, and no one had the luxury of foresight back then since hindsight is 20/20. That would be like never forgiving the Germans or Japanese because they were a monster then. Things change. There is plenty of suffering the US and all nations turn a blind eye to because intervention is tricky business. You have to prioritize because if either way you play it, you call it a humanitarian mission and they'll accuse you of interventionism, you do nothing they'll accuse of isolationism.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Hi Hyro,If you refer back to Message 92 I give supporting evidence for what you are disagreeing with.I provide the source in that message. From the link:

quote:

---

...some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war." FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed the United States was on intimate terms with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia.

---

So, according to the above statement. "By 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war" - that seems like a shit-load of weapons, and not just some Stinger missles. Yes, the US did know who the ISI was recruiting (radical soldiers lead by Bin Laden) but they didn't care. When they recruit radical soldiers, and allow the ISI freedom to choose such soldiers, that's not "lacking foresight." I agree.But RiverRat was claiming we needed to stay in Afghan now for humanitarian reasons. But we've been there going on 9 years. We have caused much of the problems that are currently harming that country (to include bringing the Taliban and Bin Laden into that country), so IMO the "humanitarian" excuse is bogus.- Oni

In all reality, this is what I waited to see, and I am still waiting to see. I had always felt that Bush turned into a babbling idiot, as far as his ability to speak in public forums, but I did tend to think that he was acting on the best interest of our country, and not some silly selfish self serving biased opinion of his.The only way we could find this out really, was to wait and see what Obama does. I had a feeling that once Obama got into office, and learned all the military secrets, and thinks about the economy, and other stuff really got put into perspective for him, he would have no choice but to follow suit. Any rational minded person with his best interest in the country would.Keep in mind that this doesn't mean everything thing they do as President, but most things. so far it's status quo, so that leads me to believe that Bush was doing the right thing, according to our best intelligence, the good of the common people, and principals of our nation.The war is necessary, and Obama would have a hard time coming out and admitting it, cause he would have to explain too many things, that the government feels the common people should just not know.comic relief:
Welcome to the real world asshole! (quote from digital shorts)
I threw it on the ground.

We cared, your right it was always a human rights issue. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he crossed a line and we could step in, the whole entire world should step in and not tolerate such behavior. Isn't that what the UN is supposed to be about? When the Russians violated the Afghans human rights we stepped in again, it was the right thing to do. MAybe once they found out they had to be friends with us, they went against us. They hate us for who we are, period. All for religious principals.But they are not using our weapons against us, and we are always one step ahead of the game. That is the business of war. They are using Iranian weapons, and Russian weapons, and what ever they can get their hands on now, as there stock dwindles, and weapons become harder and harder to get. I am sure we are not supplying them anymore. I know they still get American weapons, and had them, but we don't willfully supply them. AK-47 is not an American weapon, the most common weapon over there.
The Times & The Sunday Times
Page Not Found - Inter Press Service | Inter Press ServiceEither way, it was completely their way of life that lead them to war with us, regardless of where they get their weapons from. If we were truly trying to help them in a human rights violations issue from the Russians, then I do not have a problem with that. If they turn against us for whatever reason, then the problem starts.Every time I have these conversations, and think about it in my head, I always think of the prime directive from star trek. And these third world countries that use any excuses to make war are less advanced than us, maybe we should have a prime directive, and not give them technology. But that thought in itself causes war. Yea, but I have 2 problems with that. One the Taliban not only has to stop fighting with them, they have to stop fighting with us. #2 is they cannot harbor terrorists, and if the Afghan people are for that, then they are harboring terrorists as well. Problem is not solved. I am sure this violates some UN treaty.Regardless, there is still a great number of Afghan people who are having their basic human rights violated by the Taliban. Majority does not rule in this case. That would be an asinine view. Not really, they are caught completely in the middle. As I pointed out, these are people that do not stick to sides, but change sides as the battle front moves. They don't retreat, they just switch sides. I highly doubt that the rational thinkers of Afghanistan are the ones so willing to break. Again, the prime directive comes to mind. It's a touchy situation, but one that cannot continue, no matter how small the group of people who are getting violated. If a group of people cry out for help, then it is up to the UN to do something about it. Unfortunately, it is always us and Britain mostly stepping up to the plate. I don't have a problem with that either. I believe in basic human rights, and in freedom to choose. Whether it is here or abroad. There is no such thing as hiding our eyes anymore. These people hate us, and if we let them grow, then they will attack again, and they will hurt innocent people, people that tend to think like us.The liberals preach about science and technology, and logic, and "the right thing to do" Except when a conservative starts it. Hypocrites. It's a necessary evil IMO. One that I even considered fighting for, but my time is over, I am too old.I mean you don't think that people who think like the terrorists of 9/11 need to be eradicated? People who slaughter innocent women and children? People who put innocent children to war, as soldiers?With awesome power comes awesome responsibility. People like that are not ready to be in power. Reality sets in.

I do not exclusively think we should be their for humanitarian reasons. We are there to destroy Al-Queda, our enemy. IMO any country that harbors terrorists, should be attacked. We don't allow it here, and other countries should not tolerate or allow it there. I mean for-real, what do you think would happen if we harbored people who were terrorizing Russia, or North Korea? We'd be at war instantly.#2, what do you think would happen if we pull out of Afghanistan?
Really, would the human rights issues stop? Would harboring of terrorists stop? I think not. Even Obama said we need to focus there more in his campaign. Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

And ergo this is an issue that Obama is being attacked by both conservatives and liberals alike.Liberals want us to pull out of Afghanistan because of liberal reasons. Conservatives have been screaming about this just to be anti-Obama.

You'd be hard-pressed to argue for any President not acting in the best interests of the country because every President believes that they are even if others do not agree. It's the better Presidents that realize that their beliefs should never stand in the way of what is best for the country. Jefferson is a good example of this. Jefferson believed in limited powers of Government. He believed that to prevent tyranny of Government, the Government should not be accorded more powers than those enumerated in the Constitution. Essentially, Jefferson was a Constitutional literalist. However, an opportunity to purchase land from France came before Jefferson and he knew that the best interests of the United States was to purchase the land even though the Constitution contained no provisions for it. So Jefferson put his pride and ego aside and did what was best for the country - he made the Louisiana Purchase. How many Presidents could do that? That Obama seems to be following the status quo is not vindication that Bush was doing the right thing - Obama could just be continuing to do the wrong things. What it may mean is that changing policy may not be as simple as a stroke of a pen. Like people have said, it took eight years to get where we are, don't think things will change overnight. Any sort of change will take time and for the moment Obama does have a full plate. The fact that he has been facing some stiff opposition on several issues also does not serve to make changes any easier. I believe it has been mentioned often enough that Obama also believes the continuation of the war in Afghanistan is necessary. The question is how does Obama proceed from here. Remember, history has proven that Afghanistan has been a difficult area to subdue. After all, a country full of hidey-holes for the enemy isn't an easy area to be in. Still, any way you put it, Obama did say that he wanted to refocus our efforts in Afghanistan as Bush should have done in the first place.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

Whose way of life?Saying that ignores recent world history and imperialism. Remember, imperialism only ended after World War II.That was roughly 60 years ago. There are people still alive who remember the when the sun never set on the British Empire.For many of those places that suffered under imperialism, it was because the imperialists countries went into those regions for the "good of the people" or "humanitarian reasons." What ended happening is the imperialist powers took control and dictating to the people how things should and should not be done. So it makes sense that many states around the world view any incursion into the sovereignty of another state under the same tired excuse with wary distrust.Also, many of the conflicts in states around the world are because of the arbitrary borders drawn up after World War II. The boundaries that the imperialist powers drew mimicked the borders of territories that those powers controlled and ignored differences in culture and ideologies between the various people within those borders. You eventually end up with a tribal kingdom spread out across multiple states and several tribes under one national government. This isn't a problem unless some tribes are unfriendly with any others, which you will find in many areas.That's why Obama made no comments with regards to the recent elections in Iran. Given what happened in the 70s, Obama very well knew that if he were to make any statements, Ahmadenijad would have jumped all over it as more American manipulation in Iranian affairs. It isn't simply that they hate our way of life - there is a natural distrust because of the sordid history of imperialism. That's why engagement is so important and that's why Obama represents a departure from previous American policy.When you look at the world today, any state with a vibrant middle class is less likely to support a radical government than one without a middle class. I will guarantee you that if the middle class continues to grow in Iran, Iranian foreign policy will be much more moderate.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

{insert the sound of my head exploding}

I agree with everything you said except this one. It took way longer than eight years, and it was the fault of just about everyone, including people outside this nation.Things are bad in many ways. I don't expect any President to get us out of where we are. It's entirely possible that it is not up to the government to save us from ourselves.That's pretty tough to happen in dictatorships, and in countries where extremeist take control and murder innocent women and children.Reminds me what the KGB used do my Russian friend back when he lived there, and his photography business go to successful. As he approached middle class, the KGB would just walk in and take half.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Statistically speaking that is.WHERE ARE THE OBAMA SCANDALS? – Sabato's Crystal Ball

quote:

---

Where Are the Obama Scandals?

​

Brendan Nyhan, Guest Columnist May 26th, 2011

​

One of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals. Since Watergate, presidential and executive branch scandal has been an inescapable feature of the American presidency, but the current administration has not yet suffered a major scandal, which I define as a widespread elite perception of wrongdoing. What happened, and what are the odds that the administration’s streak will continue?

​

Obama has been extremely fortunate: My research (PDF) on presidential scandals shows that few presidents avoid scandal for as long as he has. In the 1977-2008 period, the longest that a president has gone without having a scandal featured in a front-page Washington Post article is 34 months — the period between when President Bush took office in January 2001 and the Valerie Plame scandal in October 2003. Obama has already made it almost as long despite the lack of a comparable event to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Why?

​

Obama should be highly vulnerable to scandal given his standing with Republicans. My research identifies presidential approval among opposition party identifiers as a key risk factor. The reason is that discontent among the opposition’s base creates demand for negative news about the president, encouraging opposition legislators and members of the news media to promote allegations of misconduct. As Figure 1 illustrates, Obama has quickly become unpopular among members of the public who identify as Republicans, following a similar trajectory to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (who both suffered significant first-term scandals). By contrast, the September 11 attacks provided George W. Bush (who is omitted from Figure 1) with a massive approval boost that helped protect him from scandal for more than two years afterward.

---

Read the rest at the site.

Hey, Oni. I looked at the wiki link you cited, but could only trace the root of this statement to the wiki link itself. The sentence prior to this statement cited an article on stinger missiles from the International Herald Tribune, but I could not find it there either.Any help?