Jim Hightower: Obama’s war

[tekisui]

Source: Illinois Times

Hi-ho, hi-ho, it’s off to war we go! Pound the drums loudly, stand with your country proudly!

Wait, wait, wait — hold it right there. Cut the music, slow the rush and let’s all ponder what Barack Obama, Robert Gates, Stanley McChrystal and Co. are getting us into ... and whether we really want to go there. After all, just because the White House and the Pentagon brass are waving the flag and insisting that a major escalation of America’s military mission in Afghanistan is a “necessity” doesn’t mean it is or that We the People must accept it.

Remember the wisdom of Mark Twain about war-whooping generals and politicians: “Loyalty to the country, always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it.”

How many more dead and mangled American soldiers does the government’s “new” Afghan policy deserve? How many more tens of billions of dollars should we let them siphon from our public treasury to fuel their war policy? How much more of our country’s good name will they squander on what is essentially a civil war?

We’ve been lied to for nearly a decade about “success” in Iraq and Afghanistan — why do the hawks deserve our trust that this time will be different?

Their rationales for escalation are hardly confidence boosters. The goal, we’re told, is to defeat the al-Qaida terrorist network that threatens our national security. Yes, but al-Qaida is not in Afghanistan! Nor is it one network. It has metastasized, with strongholds now in Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Yemen and Somalia, and even has enclaves in England and France.

Well, claims Obama himself, we must protect the democratic process in Afghanistan. Does he think we have sucker wrappers around our heads? America’s chosen leader over there is President Hamid Karzai — a preening incompetent who was “elected” this year only through flagrant fraud and whose government is controlled by warlords, rife with corruption and opposed by the great majority of Afghans.

During the election campaign from July through October, 195 Americans were killed and more than 1,000 wounded to protect this guy’s “democratic process.” Why should even one more American die for Karzai?

Finally, Washington’s war establishment asserts that adding some 30,000 more troops will let us greatly expand and train the Afghan army and police force during the next couple of years so they can secure their own country and we can leave. Mission accomplished!

Nearly every independent military analyst, however, says this assertion is not just fantasy, it’s delusional — it’ll take at least 10 years to raise Afghanistan’s largely illiterate and corrupt security forces to a level of barely adequate, costing us taxpayers more than $4 billion a year to train and support them.

Obama has been taken over by the military industrial hawks and national security theorists who play war games with other people’s lives and money. I had hoped Obama might be a more forceful leader who would reject the same old interventionist mindset of those who profit from permanent war. But his newly announced Afghan policy shows he is not that leader.

So, we must look elsewhere, starting with ourselves. The first job of a citizen is to keep your mouth open. Obama is wrong on his policy — deadly wrong — and those of you who see this have both a moral and patriotic duty to reach out to others to inform, organize and mobilize our grassroots objections, taking common sense to high places.

more: http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-6703-obamarss-war.html

[ixion]

1. kicked and recommended

:applause:

[NJmaverick]

2. Unrec for posting an intellectually dishonest article

that makes dishonest claims like- "the goal, we're told, is to defeat the al-qaida terrorist network..." the TRUTH is the goal is to prevent the Taliban from gaining control of Afghanistan and allowing it to once again become a safe haven for Al-Qaida.


Shame on the author of this article and the person posting this shamelessly dishonest crap here!

[whatchamacallit]

3. Self delete

I don't feel like another boot to the neck.

[NJmaverick]

8. The boot of intellectual honesty can be a real bitch, can't it?

[gratuitous]

25. Apparently so

Bummer, that.

[tekisui]

4. Oh noes, you didn't just shame me did you?

[NJmaverick]

7. Ignoring the dishonesty of your article I see

makes sense, you know your position couldn't hold up to HONEST debate.

[tekisui]

9. Let me ask you a simple question.

Is al-qaeda the threat or not?

[NJmaverick]

11. I am not going to play the dishonest framing game

You need to edit your article to reflect the TRUTH or you can delete it and replace it with an honest one. Once we have an honest and fair accounting of the FACTS, we can debate the issue. I never accepted it when right wingers used this dishonest framing and recounting of the fact tactics, and I am not going to have a double standard that allows so called liberals to do the same thing.

[tekisui]

14. You latched on to that one line like a baby pup at his mama's teat.

Do you seriously, in full intellectual honesty, that our objective is not to disrupt and destroy al-qaeda?

How is the real threat? Al-qaeda or the Taliban?

From you, it sounds like the threat is the Taliban because the Taliban would shelter al-qaeda. Doesn't intellectual honesty require admission that the real concern is al-qaeda?

[NJmaverick]

16. Intellectual honesty is IMPORTANT, it's not a line to be discarded by you

because you find it works against your position.

[tekisui]

18. You can't answer any of my questions, I see.

You will just hide behind you claim of intellectual purity like it is a baby blanket. It really doesn't protect you or strengthen your position to arbitrarily pout about intellectual dishonesty every time someone disagrees with you.

Intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectually dishonest.

Intellect dishonest.

Intell dis.

Disintell.

There I shortened it for you, it should save you some time.

[whatchamacallit]

10. What would you know about that, "maverick"? (nt)

[NJmaverick]

12. I know you are trying to violate rule number 7, with this post

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

[tekisui]

15. Wait, are those DU rules?

Why don't you set up your very own NJMav's Intellectually Honest Underground?

You can play big enforcer over there all you want.

[NJmaverick]

17. Tekisui you may find Intellectual Honesty a bad concept because it works against your position

but that's what is suppose to do. Adherence to intellectual honesty causes the good ideas and positions to rise and the bad ones to sink.

PS- I am not going to kick your lies anymore. Get someone else to do that dirty work.

[tekisui]

19. They aren't lies. Do you think Obama isn't trying to defeat al-qaeda?

Seriously?

[gratuitous]

27. I guess I'll do a little more dirty work

Intellectual honesty seems to be a very fungible commodity, despite the vehemence that is demanded for it. Odd.

[Mithreal]

29. If it sounds like a hypocrite it might be a hypocrite

pm me so I know where to send the award.

[gratuitous]

20. From the text of the speech

"I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. . . . We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda . . .

* * *

"We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer {al Qaeda} from once again spreading through that country {Afghanistan}. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan."

From President Obama's own words, it sure looks like one of the goals is to defeat al Qaeda. But that can't be so, because some maverick has declared that that is dishonest. So his words must mean something else entirely. I wonder what it could be?

[eomer]

23. More text from the speech

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obama-afghanistan-speech-text-excerpts_n_376088.html

[gratuitous]

21. Hello? Intellectual Honesty Patrol?

Any response to the actual words of President Obama's address to the cadets at West Point on December 2? Or was he peddling "shamelessly dishonest crap" in his speech, and only you know the real meaning of his words?

[JonLP24]

22. Rule #5 seems to be an issue (not for you)

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time.

[tekisui]

24. Only he is the arbiter of what is intellectual honesty.

:spray:

[Mithreal]

28. Your posts are getting tiresome

Whatever happened to the guy that wrote this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7170545

I can understand falling short and failing to practice those principles all the time, but come on. It seems like you are not even trying.

Should I believe that these "rules" are only for others and not yourself?

[TexasObserver]

5. Recommend

[xiamiam]

6. k and r and fu unpatriotic aholes for unrec'ing..nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. My thought is:

[gratuitous]

26. "And it won't have any of the problems of Windows Vista"

"Trust me."

Even when you like the person making a colossal mistake, it's still a mistake.