Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'm not for Obama (or anyone else, yet) and don't want to invade Pakistan...BUT...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:44 PM
Original message
I'm not for Obama (or anyone else, yet) and don't want to invade Pakistan...BUT...
This isn't meant to be an Obama defense (and I'm noting that because I have chosen no candidate yet), but the issues he raised regarding Pakistan are legitimately dangerous, and we'd be sub-smart to lump it in with Bush's Terra War gibberish. For reference, his entire statement is here:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_t...

The situation in Pakistan and that region isn't just more fear-noise, but is actually and seriously perilous on many levels and on a global scale.

Basically, Musharraf is holding on to his coup-snatched power by the skin of his teeth. There is a strong contingent of Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan who enjoy ideological ties to the Taliban across the border, they're a big reason why the region is again a safety zone for that crew. Oh, yeah, and also Bush took all our bombs and planes and guns and stuff out of there and sent them to Iraq, which helped to reform that safety thing, you could sorta say.

The fundamentalists in Pakistan do not like Musharraf at all, and it is basically a miracle he held on this long after making nice with Bush about attacking Afghanistan. His enemies don't hold much separation between themselves and their like-minded friends in Afghanistan, so Musharraf's cuddle with Bush as the bombs flew was a Musharraf atack on them all. About two weeks ago, some guys fired missiles at Musharraf's plane and barely missed; there have been riots and near-revolts all over, because they want him out and a Tali-sorta fundamentalist government in.

Pakistan has several nukes.

How nervous does this make our military guys?

Just after the Afghanistan attack, we stationed a special-ops team in Pakistan who had only one mission. It was a great big mission, though. If Musharraf's regime falls, their mission is to grab up all those nukes and fly them the whole entire Hell out of there, and do so before anyone else can.

If Musharraf falls, and our guys lose that nuclear footrace, things get bleak in a hurry. We won't even get a chance to deal with the idea of Taliban-allied fundamentalists possessing nukes, because three seconds after Musharraf goes down and nine seconds after "They have the nukes," the whole world will hear India throw down a roof-raising moon-cracking supernova freakout, and they also have nukes, and don't like Pakistan at all, and what is merely a very dangerous flashpoint today will become An Unmanageably Terrifying And Deadly Thing...oh, and psssst, China's right up there, too, so factor them in.

We have to factor this into any comprehensive analysis of the Terra War, because this is the stuff that isn't baloney. Any serious mayhem in Pakistan could set off a chain of events that may quickly bloom into multiple no-bullshit horrorshows and a lot of un-fun consequences for pretty much everyone on the planet. That entire region - Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Kashmir, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, China, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan - is a great big cask of old TNT, and old TNT weeps nitroglycerine, which is so unstable that even small vibrations can cause detonation...

...and, yeah, the vibrations in that region might be considered a point of concern, maybe, seeing as how insurgent Islamic radicalism, prickly Indian nationalism, Tamil Tiger terrorists, Bangladeshi poverty, Uzbeki proto-Stalinism, Afghani opium gluts, bi-annual Pak-India warfare for Kashmir, the sediment of resentment from the Pak-India split, still thickly layered over the bedrock of post-colonial havoc, that whole China deal, Black Sea pipe dreams, mineral rights, natural gas, Unocal and friends, buried riches to beggar avarice, positioning for possible resource war between China, Russia and us, three tiers of combat on Zbignew's Grand Chessboard, all this is a ball of immesurable tensions only scantly described here, and of course, mustn't forget those oh-so-spicy nuclear arsenals and very large armies. If Pakistan goes postal, we will be presented with the potential for Worst Case Scenario Nos. 1-7 to unspool themselves into some no-bullshit sniffs of catastrophe.

NOTE WELL that I'm not talking about, or buying into, any of those Feith-Cheney fantasy scenarios involving cardboard Iraqi gliders flying off fishing boats to gas Nantucket, or that "No one could have anticipated" our commercial airplanes getting menaced by block cheese. That's what they use to make people afraid, to make people stop thinking, to make them fall in line and go shopping and obey.

The stuff I'm talking about, the stuff Obama mentioned, is the stuff those Bush guys don't talk about, not ever, maybe not even among themselves, because it is the Real Stuff. If they tell us about it, and we start to understand how fragile the deal is, it'll dawn on everyone that these galactically inept dunderheads are the ones laying hands on the dynamite, and we'll flip all the way out, so they don't talk about it, because they're terrified of it, too.

Tease it out, just a sketch.

Musharraf falls, the radicals beat us to the nukes, India hits whatever the threat level is beyond Defcon 1, China bristles, armies roll, the possibility of an exchange of nukes rises exponentially with every bullet fired, but the whole world is under the bed because no one can say where the Pak nukes are, and every city trembles, Israel considers glassing every neighbor within reach of the fuel tanks on their bombers, Bush starts flexing his Executive Order muscles in a push towards martial law here, because these people don't like us, and the borders are porous...

...And a day comes when some Osama-like person gains posession of a Pak bomb and orders the Saudi government to dissolve and flee or face the nuke, and the Wahabbist hard-core in Saudi Arabia swarms into power, and now it's their oil, the global economic nutsack is in a vice, we stagger towards invasion, someone else invades, everyone invades, and you can see the fires from space, our economy falls apart as oil prices surpass madness and produce doesn't ship and restaurants shutter and supermarkets are barren and China gets wobbly with war in their sphere which means China's massive stores of our debt go wobbly, the constitution is over and there are troops in the street...

...and that's one of the good-news versions where no American city gets nuked, but nothing needs to get nuked for this to become a nightmare.

Lots of "if" and "maybe" and "could" in there, no doubt, but only when the worst potentials are rolled out. This isn't plastic sheeting and duct tape stuff. This is what they don't talk about, for while they do deliberately instigate chaos and violence, they know any chaos in that region is chaos beyond their skill set.

Should we invade Pakistan? Jesus, no...but I'm not exactly comfortable with putting a "Never" stamp on that, and respect that Obama didn't do so, because some of this stuff is fully real and deadly dangerous, and the lesson of Poland still has some merit.

Hoo. Went long. Thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. perhaps they should have thought of this before they invaded Iraq?
:sarcasm: got no money left now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Mmmm...
Ya think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Excellent round-up on a scary situation. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. That has been my fear as well.
But then it all seems to dovetail to some behind the scenes arms sales and playing the global game. A watchful and prudent eye is always what we should engage in. After all, this is the home of the Khan network and the "Muslim" bomb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. Gold star.
You might have missed the thread that would have labeled your ideas as chickenshit. Gratefully, that thread is now closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. I disagree with Obama. And your post is one of the reasons why.
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 02:59 PM by jsamuel
Pakistan is in a very dangerous state right now. So what is Musharraf dealing with right now?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11...

Musharraf, speaking on nationwide television Thursday night, vowed to eradicate extremism in Pakistan focusing on the northwest along the Afghan border, which the U.S. says is increasingly a haven for al-Qaida and other terrorists.

"Extremism and terrorism will be defeated in every corner of the country," Musharraf said. He said that madrassas, or religious schools, will not be tolerated if they encouraged violence by students, like some under the Red Mosque's umbrella did.

Army commandos overran the Red Mosque on Wednesday after a 35-hour battle with well-armed Islamic militants that ended an eight-day siege at the sprawling complex. The mosque's radical clerics had led an increasingly violent vigilante anti-vice campaign in the capital.


Musharraf is holding on to power by the skin of his teeth. Obama takes the opportunity to attack him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. I see it more as
a recognition of the potential for real danger within Musharaff's instability. I don't give much credence to his polemics on the eradication of extremism; he cut a deal with them and handed over territory to them, and cannot antagonize them or threaten them, because they will come for his head if provoked enough. It is an untenable situation.

Obama is showing a lot more foreign policy grit than I thought he posessed, and isn't afraid to address such a deeply unstable situation. If those nukes come near going rogue, whoever is commander in chief needs to cork that bottle but good. Obama let it be known that such an option exists. I'll take that over the candidate who says "Never" and then has to backpedal in the face of the worst case scenario.

As for threatening Musharraf, it isn't much of a concern, I think. The man has missiles coming at his plane and shooting in the streets, and also has to deal with Bush and India and Kashmir and Afghanistan...so a little bombast from one candidate won't rattle his cage.

If this makes me a war-fiend in your view, so be it. Pre-emptive war is almost always wrong, but "Never" doesn't cut it. A Pakistan gone rogue with loose nukes is one instance when the Poland lesson applies. If Poland had the means to disrupt the Nazi invasion before it began, would it have been immoral to do so? I'd say no, and say an attack on Pakistan to destroy an imminent threat of rogue nukes is justifiable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Boy, you sure read way too far into my post.
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 03:29 PM by jsamuel
"If this makes me a war-fiend in your view..."

I didn't say that. Forget the "preemptive war" debate, that is not what I am talking about. Forget presidential politics.

I am not talking about what is "moral" or what is "right", but what the consequences will be.

How is invading and/or military action in Pakistan going to calm things down? It seems what your suggesting is that we take over the country like we did in Afghanistan. But you must realize this would be another Iraq, even worse since the real terrorists are already there.

If you mean we should just send in forces against Musharaff's (and his country's) will without the intent to take over his government, that will leave Musharraff completely vulnerable if he doesn't defend his country from foreign invaders and would likely be overthrown in days. This would lead to a war between us and them and again, another Iraq.

Thirdly, they have nukes. So, what I say above assumes they don't use them on us.

I guess what you are saying is that if we invaded, they would just let us do it to them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. OK, sorry.
To be completely clear, I hold any attack upon or invasion of Pakistan to be an option of just-about-last-resort. An attack now is madness, invasion even more so...

"How is invading and/or military action in Pakistan going to calm things down?"

It won't, but if the option becomes necessary, it means things are all the way from calm there, and there could maybe be nukes walking around the prom looking to fill their dance cards. In that case, an attack is warranted. Not before, and not unless...though putting troops on that border isn't completely loony. TNT, nitro, handle with care, "Never" need not apply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I might agree with you, but...
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 03:44 PM by jsamuel
That's ok.

You said that it would only be done "if the option becomes necessary" and "things are all the way from calm there". That makes some sense. But we would have to be careful about that for sure.

However, that is NOT what Obama advocated. He said if we have credible intelligence about terrorists we would go in and strike with or without the president's approval. That is not predicated upon the statement you made, rather is predicated upon wanting to get some terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. Which is why I wasn't writing to support his premise
This is tangenital at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
43. wrong, he said IF musharef would not act
Obama is giving musharef every chance to act, IF there is actionable intel musharef will not act on, he will... i have no problem with that... that is what we sould have done 6 years ago... Just as I supported Clinton sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan in '98 to try to take our bin Laden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
34.  I don't thing you are a war -fiend , however , one question
If I read your OP correctly , then I am to assume we don't know where these nukes Pakistan has are located . Perhaps I miss read thois part .

So if we were to be proactive and premptively attack Pakistan and there is old Dynomite becoming nitro and these nukes , it sounds as if we may trigger something without any help from insurgents /terrorists .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. OK, say you're a typical radical islamist Pakistani. Are you going to
look more favorably upon a president who is best buds with the US, or who is seen as standing between the US and you?

Oops. Just got a little MORE complicated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well this is what we get for allowing the Bush capos to think outside
of Pandora's Box. I am surprised that Musharaf has held on as long as he has. Obama wasn't wrong. This whole type of campaigning by "gotcha" is not only damaging to the public polity, but is damned juvenile, as well. We need a national discussion of these issues and without the fear-mongering. Evaluating the reality of the various situations that make up our post-Bush-binge world is not fear-mongering, even if it is godawful scary...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. screw campaigns, I disagree with Obama on policy grounds
My candidate hasn't even made a statement yet, but I know Obama is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
8. I couldn't help thinking while reading how all of that would seem to argue against Obama's posturing
the worst thing for the Musharraf regime would be the perception that they were weak in the face of the U.S. advance. What Musharraf did when Bush sent drones over was to insist that he had approved of the 'limited' strike. Apparently he thought it was better for him to appear complicit than impotent. I really can't see the benefit in an Obama presidency which is perceived as having the same disregard for the borders and sovereignty of these Muslim-populated nations as the previous administration. I hope he'll temper these remarks with a nod to Pakistan's president when questioned directly on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
9. I'm kinda surprised Obama had the balls to bring it up
I wonder what's gonna happen to Saudi, seems to me they could very well fall even if the Wahhabi fucks don't get a nuke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. I'm not sure I follow your thinking.
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 03:14 PM by Jim__
I agree with what you say about the very real dangers from a nuclear armed Pakistan and the volatility of the region. Given that, I can't think of a single reason why we would want one of our political leaders saying,"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

That type of statement can only stoke up the support fot the Pakistani militants. The last thing we want to do.

Yes, we have to be prepared to make an attack on Pakistan. But, that plan better be, that if it ever becomes necessary, we attack stealthily and control the nuclear weapons before the Pakistanis are even aware what is going on. These type of statements are clearly against our national interest.

That statement is a major blunder by Obama, and as far as I'm concerned, one that eliminates him from the running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. Obama is telling us what the current administration and Party won't do
They all know where bin Laden's boys are. They've known for years, since they watched them leave Afghanistan. Rummy called off a decapitating strike. Obama is saying--They still won't take care of the problem. Obama is saying he would do now what still has not been done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
31. "Stoke up support for the Pakistani militants"?
These folks stayed stoked at the idea of inflicting harm on those they hate. For 4+ years now, we have been wasting our time on a stupid, illegal war, while allowing the "militants" to "stoke" more and more. It's time for someone to use a wiser, more intelligent approach--one that at least yields action against the REAL (who is that now :freak:)enemy--for our ME catastrophe.

In this statement by Obama:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.


Basically, what I hear him saying is this: This shit has to stop!

I think Obama is looking at it through rose colored glasses, that have a slight tint of hope. It's an optimistic view--tough to do--but got to hand it to him for at least coming up with a new, more intelligible plan. Beats the hell out of the one we have now.

Time will tell, I guess.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
32. What you say......You don't throw gasoline on a fire. Threatening Pakistan
just makes the situtation there worse. Obama was doing what Bush does by announcing "what we should do"
when we all know how that has worked with the Bushies and Iran and anyone else that the Screaming Chimp declares is his axis of evil.

I wondered if Obama wasn't trying to counter his statement about meeting in his first year of Presidency with all the leaders of the "axis of evil" that got some thinking he was very inexperienced. Some here agreed with what he said...but I thought Madeline Albright was correct when she said you send your diplomats first and do some negotiating with their counterparts before giving away "your coin," i.e. your "hand of cards."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. He is not threatening Pakistan
He is threatening a limited military action against Al Qaida and/or the Taliban (air strike or limited special forces op) IF there is actionable intel AND if musharef refuses to act....

In NO way is it an invasion or occupation of pakistan... The operations are solely against the bad guys, not the Pakistani government
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
12. Thoughtful post, William. I agree.
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 03:25 PM by David Zephyr
What Senator Obama has said is exactly what should be said to the American people about real threats to America...and instability in Afghanistan and a nuclear Pakistan is a real threat to the world now. Unfortunately, the corporate "news" crowd has once again taken a tidbit of his entire text and manipulated it into something it never was. And that's sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JANdad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Allow me to translate what Obama said in the minds
of a Radical Muslim:

"Since president Mushariff can not get you out of his mountains, I will if elected president and I will will further enrage the Muslim world, thereby giving you all the amunition you need to continue your holy war...and thereby furthering the contempt felt the world over towards the USA"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
42. Did you get your "Obama" quote from Fox News or did you just make it all by yourself.
You don't do John Edwards any favor by placing quotations marks around words that Obama never said and then attributing it to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. I have many Pakistani friends
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 03:29 PM by Madspirit
My girlfriend works in the graduate department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at The University of Texas. 49% of those grad. students are international students. Some of our closest friends are Pakistani Muslims. Their families are still there and they will go back after they graduate. Sorry, I don't want my friends to be collateral damage.

So what if Pakistan has nuclear capabilities. The biggest terrorist country in the world also does. That would be us. A lot of countries are really questioning and GETTING SICK TO THE GILLS WITH...the ol'...The US is The Decider for Everyone Else.

It is amusing how you can play with these people's lives like they are pieces on a checkerboard. IDEA!! Let's don't invade anywhere! Let's stop playing God to the World. OK? The vanity of Americans is just stunning. The world is not our little gameboard. The people of the world are not our little pawns.

Lee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I know, I'm sorry. I don't know where the Democratic Party is going if they support this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Maybe I misunderstood the whole point, here. This isn't a question
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 03:47 PM by Dhalgren
of whether or not you agree with Obama regarding his ideas vis a vis Pakistan and all that scary shit, but whether he was right to talk about it. The idea that no politician can broach the subject of any of the really volatile and dangerous aspects of the world and engage in a discussion is what I thought was the point. I am for no aggression at all, period. So I disagree with Obama's ideas, but he wasn't wrong in speaking his mind on the subject - all of the candidates should be encouraged to. I disagree with almost everything Senator Clinton's says (not all, really), but I don't think that there is anything she would be "wrong" in discussing. I disagree less with Edwards, but still he should be applauded for being frank and honest, not castigated for talking about things that should not be discussed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. no, that was simply a very small concern when compared to what I posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

My main concerns are the consequences of such an action in such a troubled state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. I could not agree more.
But the fact of the matter is that all of us on Earth are living in the aftermath and aftershocks of the Cold War.

I didn't make those decisions or vote for those presidents, hell, I only saw the second act and had to read up on the rest. But those decisions did happen, and were made by people who actually were trying to play God and chess combined, who were vain like to split the mirror, and we're buried in the blowback of their time in power.

I don't want to play chess with people. But someone overthrew Mossadeq and put in the Shah, and someone buddied up with Saddam Hussein once the Sha fell apart, and someone taught bin Laden's army how to take down a superpower, and someone sold WMD to Hussein and provided intel for its maximum use, and someone sold missiles to Iran, and someone decided Saudi oil was more important than Saudi terror funding, and someone did all this thinking it was the right thing to do.

Now there are a whole whole whole lot of people who suffered the truths of being pawns in our game, and they are galactically pissed. Someone did those things to those people, it wasn't me, but the aftermath of those decisions defines my world. Undoing the damage is my sworn cause and mortal obligation. I don't want to play chess with people, but someone else did just that, and I can't just ignore it out of fear that I might seem vain. It will take a permanent effort over my whole life to try and undo this disaster, and I will surely die before I come close to doing it, but I can do nothing else.

And it does sound awful, of course it does, and I do sincerely apologize. Being American was once a festival of hubris and well-intentioned folly, and playing God was a birthright, and vanity was something to strive for, and the ones in charge today show those same vices. The rest of us are left to walk through the rubble left by men who tried to be giants. All I can do is my best, and all I will do is fail, but if that is vanity, so be it. Someone else did these things, and I mean to undo them or die in the attempt.

Again, I am sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. William
You're a very thoughtful man. You want the truth about how all this makes me feel? I want to get a blankie and hide under my bed. I just have so many friends over there it makes me crazy to think of something happening to them or their families.
Lee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Absolutely. They have mothers and fathers, sons, daughers, children, too.
Just like we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
40. Thank you. I agree. Stop the warmongering.
What is Obama's position on NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT? Oh, he doesn't have one becuase ... he wouldn't get elected if he was in favor of it. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
20. I just don't know what to think...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
21. Just a K&R, WP. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
28. The AP headline is about Obama hunting Osama down, which Bush has not done.
And we have a Greatest thread here about Bush's failure to hunt him down.

I'll be interested to see how this plays outside DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JacquesMolay Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
29. This was a serious blunder by Obama ....
... postulating military action before he's even taken office. It looks reckless, especially when he doesn't have the intelligence now that he would have as President.

I think this one's going to haunt him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
30. Great post, Will. Thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
33. Nobody on an army base wants to hear about another preemptive attack
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 04:25 PM by lebkuchen
Apparently Obama is more concerned about the evangelical crusader vote than the military whose been deployed on one Bushie crusade after the next.

Obama lost me today, but Kucinich was stupendous against Rumbo, who nobody misses over the pond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
35. Mr. Pitt! How DARE you inject an argument based on facts on DU! Why I never!
I've just come from the "Obama is just like Bush and wants endless war thread".

We have become them.

(BTW, I loved his speech, especially this line: "To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for...")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
36. I don't really believe in the War on Terror myth. I do see how precarious a situation
Pakistan is in. And they do have nukes. It would not be in the worlds best interest to cause Musharraf's downfall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salinen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
38. Radical Islamists?
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 05:04 PM by salinen
Taking over Pakistan? Heaven help us. What's could be scarier than that? Oh, wait. How about an evangelical conservative dry drunk ex coke sniffin fratboy illiterate election stealer with a severe case of underacheivement and a colossal ego who listens carefully to Dr. Dobson.

Somewhere down my list of scary, is Musharraf getting the boot.

P.S. Gagne is going to insure another ring, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. LOL.... has to be a DUZY nominee
Owe me a new keyboard
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
39. Can we put all the fundies of every religion somewhere far, far away...
and let them duke it out?

Musharraf and Saddam have alot in common. I don't see anything but a dictatorship that would successfully contain the jihadists, i'm afraid. and if the US of A were overrun by gun-toting foaming-at-the-mouth christian fundies, would we need a dictator, too? of the secular variety?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 25th 2014, 05:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC