Obama Will Also Lose the Afghani Olympics

[IndianaGreen]

Obama Will Also Lose the Afghani Olympics

by Harvey Wasserman

The stunning rejection of Barack Obama's play for the Chicago Olympics had better teach him a good lesson about escalating in Afghanistan.

Ignoring fierce grassroots resistance in Chicago itself, the Obamas flew to Copenhagen to "persuade" the International Olympic Committee to give the games to the Windy City.

Imagine yourself a member of the Olympic Committee as the almighty President of the United States and his entourage, with the world media in tow, swoops down from Olympus to tell you how to make your decision.

Are we surprised Chicago was summarily bounced?

Imagine yourself an Afghani villager as the almighty President of the United States shoots down from Olympus those murderous drones that kill your family and your neighbors, to be followed by heavily armed troops who---after eight years of brutal slaughter---now want to "help."

Obama's decision on Afghanistan will define the rest of his presidency---and the fate of our nation.

He can mimic Lyndon Johnson and senselessly squander American lives and treasure. He will then finish as a slumped, tragic failure (along with the rest of us).

Or he can stop, as few fallen empires have done, and seek a sane, sustainable path away from the madness that is conquest.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/10/03

[cali]

1. loll. that article is real swill. have fun slopping it up.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Our troops are suffering and dying in Afghanistan while the rest of you are playing unrec games

The DU version of the birthers!

Here is the choice we face in Afghanistan; a choice that must be made quickly: reinforce our hard pressed troops in the field, or pull all the troops out.

Obama announced his Afghan strategy just a few months ago, and send a small number of troops to boost our combat presence. The issue now is that we don't have the number of troops and resources to carry out the strategy that Obama announced. Obama either give the troops what they need, or he needs to pull them all out of harm's way. To delay action is unfair to our troops.

May I remind all of you that our Vietnam veterans have not forgotten how many of their comrades were killed and wounded on account of a President that micro-managed the war.

[cali]

4. that you can't see the irony in your posting that, is disturbing.

first of all, I didn't unrec your op, dear. But the irony is that the piece you posted really did equate Afghanistan with games. I'm not playing them, but the author sure as shit is.

As for your your silly, silly bither/unreccer equation. That's just beyond lame.

[ShortnFiery]

8. +1

They'll sing a different tune when we can no longer hire any over-priced mercenaries and make a PLEA for us to send our children to kill and die in the Oil Wars.

By then we'll be threatening Venezuela from bases in Columbia on their border. :wtf: :wow:

Many here seem willfully ignorant of the neo-liberal's version of utopia: Endless War.

Perhaps they're millionaires, but I think they are deluded.

[PurityOfEssence]

29. You're dealing with aggressive, fragile egos who feel imperiled by any dissent over Obama

Right out of the gate, you've drawn serious, repeated fire from a couple of the most vindictive Gunga Dins for this Presidency. The problem is exacerbated by a personal need to quash ANY dissent; their self-worth is SO wrapped up with the need for our President to be seen as virtually perfect, that seemingly no pile of bodies or ocean of tears from the bereaved can alter their parade.

The war is ludicrous, ugly and hopeless on any level: there is NO SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF VICTORY, no known way short of mass extermination to quell insurgencies of this sort, no reason to even try except for "proving" oneself "tough" and not muslim. Even in the most blinkered and greedy capitalistic sense, the pipeline isn't worth it.

The Republicans won't "like" him for standing fast; he should learn something from Bill Clinton: suck up to and accommodate the Republicans as much as you want, but they'll still thirst for your demise and stop at nothing to bring it about. Both of these Presidents have an Achilles' Heel most often found in actors: an aching need to be loved by everyone; ironically, our one professional actor (and horrible president and human being) Ronald Reagan had no such concerns.

The problem here is the crushing, un-recommending, scorched-earth tautology of the acolytes, and it's not going away overnight. People who hold their need to be correct above any sensible view of reality are inherently anti-cosmopolitan and doing a disservice to us all.

Keep on drawing their fire; people need to see the self-indulgent foaming-at-the-mouth that it causes.

You've been a consistent voice against this folly from the beginning, and you're absolutely correct.

[cali]

33. utterly ridiculous. But it is amusing to be slammed one minute

for bashing Obama and another for being intolerant of criticism of him. I criticize him sharply on issues from Afghanistan to healthcare reform. I thought it was a lousy pos of an article. I said so. And I think that some here are sick little people. I mean I'm not including you in that designation every bit as much as you don't mean to refer to me in your post. Every bit as much, dear.

[PurityOfEssence]

69. The stench of insecurity reaches out through cyberspace

with the very instantaneousness of the dudgeon. The casual tone simply betrays the true pique, and the condescension of using "dear" reeks of Frenchie Cat's mercifully abandoned fad habit of zzzing "shoo fly" at those who dissented. Feigning calmness and gentility when shrieking victimhood is high art best only attempted by the truly deft.

Indiana Green is a long-time poster, having been here since I first ventured in in the summer of '01, and although our politics are often skew, there is a stalwart opposition to war-making that is both admirable and consistent. Dropping the proverbial pallet of bricks to shout down and humiliate dissenters into submission is...well, let's just say tacky, and even more so when done by acolytes claiming to be impartial on the grounds of new and very rare questioning of the champion.

Certain things in politics should be allowed gracious airing in polite society, but certain issues transcend such toleration, and those should include war and global warming. War waged with a political component of seeking approval at home is a despicable thing, and war waged without clear aims is both reckless and ruinous. This is both. Increasingly, this war smacks of blockheaded inability to admit mistakes and the blatant willingness to kill human beings for personal gain. "Understanding" this kind of behavior is not "fair play"; actions of this sort are to be held to strict scrutiny by anyone who claims a shred of humanity, and flailing about with intimations of disloyalty when one's champion is called to account is holding oneself above others, which is a kind of boorish expectation of privilege.

It's funny how those who attack so freely are so defensive when they think they've been wronged, and funnier still how those who repeatedly attack with ruthless impunity think that they're the injured party when meeting any resistance to their aggression. Bummer.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Well put: "The war is ludicrous, ugly and hopeless on any level"

I admire your, IMO, insightful posts. :-) :hi:

[invictus]

71. +1

[MarjorieG]

2. Typical Harvey, never aware of how grandiose he actually views himself.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Tell that to our troops now serving in Afghanistan

They want their commander-in-chief to send them reinforcements, or pull them out of harm's way.

[MarjorieG]

63. Not dismissing message on Afghanistan, just reflexively superior Harvey.

I know he's a leader on election reform, the stolen election tour (which I agree were stolen), but it's in that context I'm referring. And in some journalists' love of self.

[jenmito]

6. Commondreams=the freepers of the left n/t

[IndianaGreen]

7. DLC = DINO

[jenmito]

10. That's why I don't like either.

[ShortnFiery]

11. CENTER gets us nothing: All that's in "the center of the road" are ...

"road kill" and "yellow lines."

[jenmito]

12. Commondreams is too far left. The DLC is too far right for ME, but it's not as far right as common-

dreams is far left.

[IndianaGreen]

19. CommonDreams is old fashion liberalism

something that those Democrats that have embraced Reaganism cannot stomach.

[jenmito]

24. I disagree. And they always disagree with Obama who is not DLC. n/t

[anonymous171]

35. How old fashioned? FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and LBJ were old fashioned liberals.

I think you mean "New Left." Old fashioned liberals were not anti-war at all. In fact, the New Left would consider most of them to be war mongers.

[ShortnFiery]

38. No, they were NEO-liberals. War is grand as long as it's good for BUSINESS.

:eyes:

[anonymous171]

41. No, they were old fashioned liberals. Neoliberals don't like social welfare programs.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Yes, I corrected myself above. Thank-you eom.

[ShortnFiery]

43. Here's some background re: Neo-liberalsim: FDR - economic liberal; OBAMA - Neo-Liberal.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, a Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called The Wealth of Nations. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.

Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.

But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.

[IndianaGreen]

47. Woodrow Wilson was no liberal and he held racist views

Palmer raids? Jailing of Eugene Debs?

[ShortnFiery]

49. True, but he was an "economic" liberal. There are many facets involved.

Yes Wilson was an ass and Truman dropped the Nuclear bomb on innocents.

[IndianaGreen]

50. You meant to say Truman, in regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Truman also began the phony Cold War, and started the national security apparatus that exists to this very day.

Wilson launched our misguided entrance into the Great War. He also suppressed civil liberties at home, jailing and deporting antiwar activists, including the great Emma Goldman.

[ShortnFiery]

51. Yes, I caught my mistake.

:blush: Need to better bone up on my American History.

Thank you. :hi:

[davidpdx]

91. Imperial Japan was hardly a nation of innocents

Yes, most of the people in those two cities were civilians. Keep in mind that Japan was brutally colonizing several other countries including Korea. The two cities that were hit both were heavily involved in creating weapons for the war which is one many reasons why they were hit.

[anonymous171]

68. So did a lot of presidents. FDR made racial concentration camps.

Does that make his New Deal and his other policies any less great? I actually hate Woodrow Wilson. He was an elitist (created the Federal Reserve) and liberal internationalist.

[ShortnFiery]

20. No, Common Dreams is merely left of center. It's NOT far left.

Far left are member of the "Communist Party" that serve in legislative roles in Europe.

Our country has moved so far to the RIGHT, that we define LIBERALS as "far left" - that's a delusion.

[jenmito]

25. Again-didn't you support John Edwards who co-sponsored the IWR?

[ShortnFiery]

26. No way! I did not. I'm a liberal but a realist: I voted for Obama but wanted Kucinich. eom

[jenmito]

28. OK. I guess I confused you with someone else. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

22. Besides, it's not about left vs. right, but *individuals vs. corporations.*

The LEFT values individual Americans over corporate Power, the right does NOT.

p.s. If you haven't connected the dots, these WARS are for our large corporations to swoop in and devour all the natural resources. Recall that the first secured building in Baghdad was "The Oil Ministry." :wow:

Our children are killing and dying for the upper 1% and their corporate greed for other nation's natural resources. If Pakistan had Oil, our asses would be occupying it now too.

[jenmito]

27. Funny...

Obama was against the Iraq war. Was he a corporatist THEN? Just MAYBE he's doing what he thinks is best for our country!

[ShortnFiery]

30. I voted for Obama as "the least worst" ... I'm saddened by him, but not surprised.

Obama is, and will always, if his recent track record holds, do BEST for both Wall Street and The Pentagon.

I have not seen any ACTION on his part that would suggest that he cares for the welfare of the average American Wage Slave.

If doing what's right for THIS COUNTRY means serving Wall Street above all else, then Obama is spot on target. :grr:

[jenmito]

59. If you're right, why would he NOT automatically send the 40,000 troops requested

rather than think about alternate ways to go in Afghanistan? And you are ignoring the things Obama has ALREADY done for the middle and lower class people.

[dionysus]

73. you make a naive mistake or are doing a real cop-out by labeling all who disagree with you as DLC.

[ShortnFiery]

9. It's willfully ignorant of the Average American to not realize that MOST everything our government

acts on, to include MILITARY POWER, is for the benefit of the upper 1%. So they can rape the Middle East's and Latin America's resources. So what, our children will be maimed and killed in the Oil Wars, there's money to be made by the multi-national power elites.

No, I won't send my children to kill and die for the benefit of the upper 1%. Tell your legislators that you are AGAINST any escalations before it's too late.

THINK about all the legislation over the past 20 years? Who does it benefit?

New World Order? We're there. The USA serves as "the muscle" for the ruling multinational elites.


All I can fathom is that the DINOs believe that they'll be a part of the small "Merchant Class" while the rest of us will be working poor?

[jenmito]

13. Obama isn't DLC. Didn't you like John Edwards who co-sponsored the IWR? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

15. The issue is Obama's waffling on Afghanistan

but you people are trying to go off on a tangent.

[jenmito]

17. He's not waffling. He's re-assessing the situation after the Afghan election like he SAID

he was going to do. Or would you rather he just send in 40,000 more troops like McChrystal wants?

[IndianaGreen]

18. really? How come the US has recognized Karzai despite the rampant electoral fraud?

This is akin to our embrace of South Vietnam's Diem.

[jenmito]

21. They're obviously factoring that into the equation.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Then we need to factor-out our troops from that sovereign nation?

:shrug:

[anonymous171]

37. Does Afghanistan even count as a nation?

Just saying :shrug:

I don't support our occupation btw.

[ShortnFiery]

46. Yes, it does. If you recall the results of our democratic elections in 2000 and 2004

were in dispute. We have no right to judge another sovereign nation's politics. Hell no, we are buddies with China, ya know? ;)

[anonymous171]

66. Of course. They would never allow actual democracy to flourish in other countries

Because then the people might vote against America's (and by "America" I mean "American Business Interests") politicians, which would be bad (for them.)

[IndianaGreen]

31. Here is Obama's strategy, announced this spring as a 'war of necessity'

Mar 26 2009, 4:00 pm by Marc Ambinder

A First Look At Obama's New Afghan Policy

A few weeks ago, Obama announced that an additional 17,000 U.S. troops would be sent to Afghanistan. Tomorrow, he plans to spell out their mission. 4,000 additional troops will be tasked with training Afghan soldiers and the national police; the administration hopes to have more than 130,000 soldiers and 82,000 police officers trained by 2011. The rest of the troops will be given expanded counter-terrorism assignments and charged with defeating Al Qaeda, not just killing them in isolation.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/obamas_afpak_policy_a_detailed_preview.php

Obama sent more troops to Afghanistan, a token force insufficient to accomplish the mission they were tasked with. The troops need relief, or they need to be brought home.

[jenmito]

40. He still thinks of it as a war of necessity. That doesn't mean he has to keep

sending more and more troops in. Here's his thoughts on it:

"Obama has pledged no imminent decision on sending in more troops and says he wants to see updated reviews on all aspects of his war strategy. His road map to winning the war in Afghanistan relies heavily on clearing al-Qaeda terrorists from Pakistan, according to the list of benchmarks given to Congress last week.

“Let me describe the describe the process from start to where we are now,” Obama said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “When we came in, I think everybody understood that our Afghanistan strategy was somewhat adrift, despite the extraordinary valor of the young men and women who are fighting there. So what we said was, let’s do a soup-to-nuts re-evaluation, focusing on what our original goal was, which was to get Al Qaeda, the people who killed 3,000 Americans.”

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003206318

[ShortnFiery]

48. What war? Osama is long dead or in Pakistan and 15 of the 19 hijackers hail from ...

Saudi Arabia.

It's INSANE on the surface to continue to tout Afghanistan as "a war of necessity."

[jenmito]

57. Osama is not long dead. He has made videos mentioning recent events.

You shouldn't have voted for Obama because he's just acting on what he said he would.

[IndianaGreen]

58. You said '(Obama) he's just acting on what he said he would.'

Obama supported and spoke about universal health for all Americans. He surely did not act on that!

[jenmito]

60. And I stand by it...

he's doing the best he can with the congress he has.

[IndianaGreen]

61. We gave him a Democratic Congress. There are no excuses!

Obama calls Rockefeller to tell him to vote for Baucus bill, without a public option, while not calling any of the Blue Dogs to pressure them to support the public option.

[jenmito]

65. He has a congress with a range of Dems., from liberal to conservative.

You don't know whom he called. You know what you read from someone who wasn't in the room.

[ShortnFiery]

75. The only video was that "Osama-Tron" monstrosity that was out days before the 2004 Presidential

election. This latest so called "video" is a still picture of Osama with an audio track ... who, IMO, has long been buried.

He's a very convenient boogie man, in that he seems to make statements at the most opportune time for the NEEDS of those within our Pentagon and other players within the Military Industrial Complex.

I was hoping that Obama "had a pair" and could stand up to some within the Pentagon.

I guess they are too powerful for him. :shrug:

[jenmito]

78. Yeah, I meant audio of him talking about current events.

So you believe Obama is playing along with the Pentagon? Puleeeze.

[ShortnFiery]

79. How do you KNOW that it's Osama on those audio tapes?!?

Because certain AUTHORITIES told us so? The SAME authorities who fired-up ONLY the USA populace into the Iraqi invasion? :shrug:

[jenmito]

81. Because NO experts said they doubt it and I'm sure there are MANY

liberal experts who can verify people's voices.

[ShortnFiery]

83. What experts? We are told by the M$M that they are valid. Do you believe everything

that is fed to you by the M$M? Didn't these same "experts" help twist the weapons of mass destruction to be in Iraq?

p.s. President Obama may be new but we have the same CORRUPT leadership within our intelligence agencies. Some 70 y.o. guy that they now flopped in as figurehead of the CIA, IMO, ain't running the show. :(

[jenmito]

84. ANY experts. Do you think there aren't any liberal voice detection experts in this country?

I'm not talking about any in the govt. I'm talking about ANY in the COUNTRY. I think if someone figured out it's NOT his voice, they could/would get on a show like Rachel Maddow's or Air America or someplace and spread their message.

[ShortnFiery]

87. Tell me ONE liberal voice? We are hearing this from the government. eom

[jenmito]

88. You obviously don't get it. The REASON we don't hear any liberal voice is because

none of them think that the Osama audio tape isn't authentic. Do you not believe that there are independent, non-governmental experts on voice recognition who would try to disprove what the govt. concludes about the tapes?

[ShortnFiery]

90. No, it is NOT authentic. It's not been deemed him "in the open" ... just authorities say ...

You don't get it ... because you don't want to. :shrug:

[anonymous171]

67. The USA serves as "the muscle" for the ruling multinational elites.

So true.

[tekisui]

77. Ridiculous comparison.

[jenmito]

82. Nope.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Inside Afghanistan 'Black Hawk Down'

Inside Afghanistan 'Black Hawk Down', that's what the HuffPost calls this story from NYT, a story that is quite relevant to OP:

Report Cites Firefight as Lesson on Afghan War

By THOM SHANKER
Published: October 2, 2009

WASHINGTON — The paratroopers of Chosen Company had plenty to worry about as they began digging in at their new outpost on the fringe of a hostile frontier village in eastern Afghanistan.

Intelligence reports were warning of militants massing in the area. As the paratroopers looked around, the only villagers they could see were men of fighting age idling in the bazaar. There were no women and children, and some houses looked abandoned. Through their night scopes they could see furtive figures on the surrounding mountainsides.

A few days later, they were almost overrun by 200 insurgents.

That firefight, a debacle that cost nine American lives in July 2008, has become the new template for how not to win in Afghanistan. The calamity and its roots have been described in bitter, painstaking detail in an unreleased Army history, a devastating narrative that has begun to circulate in an initial form even as the military opened a formal review this week of decisions made up and down the chain of command.

The 248-page draft history, obtained by The New York Times, helps explain why the new commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, is pressing so hard for a full-fledged commitment to a style of counterinsurgency that rests on winning over the people of Afghanistan even more than killing militants. The military has already incorporated lessons from the battle in the new doctrine for war in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/asia/03battle.html?hp

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Wow

:wow:

[anonymous171]

32. As long as these far left wingers support full withdrawal (including cessation of all aid)

Then I agree.



(repost)

[ShortnFiery]

36. "far left wingers" ?!?

:rofl:

[treestar]

39. What is "stunning" about it?

You mean if any US city wants the Olympics, they should get it, and if they don't, it's "stunning?"

:wtf:

[TheKentuckian]

42. Damn! I see that the recruiting and division plans from certain quarters are still going

Not getting much real traction despite the constant and shrill bleating, huh? I guess you guys do have to at least try to peel off some newer to the national debate before they have time to see the pattern but it seems so pointless to act as Republican tools to help divide the Democratic party.

Surely, you understand by now that you'd have zero platform if that wasn't their design for you along with using you're out of touch, ignorant of context, judgemental, unpatriotic, fanciful, self important, anti-sematic, conviniently grand standing with no skin in the game, nanny state loving asses as the picture of the left in America.

[ShortnFiery]

45. "unpatriotic"

:crazy: I was paying attention until you thew out that gutless shit. :thumbsdown:



I will speak out against our Neo-liberalism.
That's my PATRIOTIC duty as an American Citizen.

In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutting back social programs. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.

[TheKentuckian]

52. You actively despise the United States of America and therefore it's citizens

do you you think I or most of the country really gives a wet squirt what you think with your ridiculous cards lamely copied from the worst of Reich Wing hatemongers?

[ShortnFiery]

55. Being against our present Neo-liberal policies does NOT equate to being unpatriotic.

:thumbsdown:

p.s. Here's YOUR card. :evilgrin:

[TheKentuckian]

53. You and your ilk could give a crap about what happens to the people of our country

or even of its ideals. The reason for being is to hobble the US and if our people are living in the stone age to do that then so be it.

[ShortnFiery]

54. "My ilk" you mean "My PATRIOTIC family" including ...

1) my dad, battlefield commissioned WWII?; 2) My brother, 101st Airborne Infantry Vietnam? 3) myself, serving four years AD in US Army?; 4) Or my ancestors going back to the Civil War, fighting for the WINNING SIDE - The North?

My ancestors and I have served honorably in the US Military. Perhaps that's why we're passionate that our beloved military NOT be misused.

"My Ilk" are taxpaying Americans who don't deserve your censure. :thumbsdown:

[TheKentuckian]

64. I'm not talking about your family and you damn well know it. I'm talking about your

heart maybe in the right place with brain of mush ideological compatriots.

Well, that is unless your family is also is also rooting for the collapse of America.

[ShortnFiery]

72. I'm working for a CHANGE in our foreign policy - staying on this disastrous course

will, most likely result in the collapse of America as a Leader as well as possibly the end of the Human Race.

Our military dominance and aggression is making the world less safe. Everyone wants to have nukes who has natural resources in order to stop the USA from invading their countries.

It's OUR foreign policy that will be the destruction of all the GOOD things that America stands for ...


I LOVE MY COUNTRY. Only a person who cares wants to have it's policies change.

[IndianaGreen]

56. An unwhining, real reality check: Afghan policeman fires on U.S. troops, killing 2

This is what is happening in Afghanistan while the White House struggles with a PowerPoint presentation on war strategy:

Afghan policeman fires on U.S. troops, killing 2

Another U.S. service member dies of wounds from a bomb attack

updated 10:38 a.m. ET, Sat., Oct . 3, 2009

KABUL - An Afghan policeman conducting a joint operation with U.S. soldiers opened fire on the Americans, killing two of them before fleeing, an Afghan official said Saturday.

The U.S. military earlier said two American troops died in a firefight in Wardak on Friday, but declined to confirm any new details.

Shahidullah Shahid, a spokesman for the Wardak provincial governor, said the policeman fired on the Americans while they were patrolling together Friday night, killing two and injuring two. Shahid said two of the officer's relatives were in custody for questioning.

A third U.S. service member died Friday of wounds from a bomb attack in Wardak the day before.

Afghan forces have periodically turned their guns on international troops, most recently in August when two policemen opened fire on a joint patrol in the northeast. In that case, the policemen were shot to death and no coalition forces were reported killed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33152044/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

[Jennicut]

62. Can we stop comparing things to the freakin Olympics already?

The Olympics of all things. And it was not a "stunning rejection". South America never had an Olympics before and the USA has had plenty. Hence, this article is crappy.
The arguments on Afghanistan are legitimate but could the author not have framed them better?

[ProSense]

70. Moronic, isn't it? n/t

[dionysus]

74. you undercut this foolish thread with one short paragraph. i like that

:thumbsup:

[ShortnFiery]

76. No, there are cogent arguments contained within. eom

[Clear Blue Sky]

80. How many soldiers died in Afghanistan yesterday? How many more in days ahead?

[Beacool]

85. Eight................

8 US Soldiers Killed in Afghan Gunbattle

KABUL (Oct. 4) - Hundreds of insurgents armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistan border, killing eight U.S. soldiers and capturing more than 20 Afghan security troops in the deadliest assault against U.S. forces in more than a year, military officials said Sunday.
The fierce gunbattle, which erupted at dawn Saturday in the Kamdesh district of mountainous Nuristan province and raged throughout the day, is likely to fuel the debate in Washington over the direction of the troubled eight-year war.

It was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American soldiers were killed in a raid on an outpost in Wanat in the same province.

http://news.aol.com/article/8-us-soldiers-killed-in-afghanistan/701987

:-(

[laugle]

86. And it's

only going to get worse! Stop the insanity now!

[Donerushin]

89. Using our Military in support of human rights in Afghanistan

Kimberly and Frederick Kagan are the advisers behind General McCrystal advocating to build up our forces and go heavily to war in Afghanistan. Frederick is one of the minds behind the Iraq surge.
Kimberly Kagan disparages projects, which benefit the Afghan people.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/10/
why_the_taliban_are_winning_for_now

These two folks like war.

Yes, lets “replicate widely and rapidly” projects which empower Afghans, women, men and children. Our military can be used to secure and protect communities to allow time for projects to mature, projects which build trust and community. Empowering women is the key to a stable and democratic Afghanistan.

[ShortnFiery]

92. The military is trained to KILL and DESTROY not to nation build - for that you need the U.N. eom

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

93. Analogy is a little backwards

"the almighty President ... swoops down from Olympus ..."

No, I think the IOC is arrogant enough to view these politicians as supplicants, hat-in-hand, begging their IOC highnesses to accept their offerings in exchange for favor.

I always liked Juan Antonio Samaranch Torelló, Marquess of Samaranch, who insisted on being called "Excellency". A defining figure for the IOC. A true ambassador for the Olympic ideal.

:hi: