*promote the truth

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, July 5th, 2010 3:00pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter griefer_queafer.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'zakaria, fareed, afghanistan, war, taliban' to 'zakaria, fareed, afghanistan, war, taliban, al qaeda' - edited by kronosposeidon

I think the U.S. government (not just Obama, but Congress as well) has locked us into this war for two major reasons:

1. If we reduce troop levels in Afghanistan and then another Al-Qaeda attack occurs on U.S. soil, we will blame the administration for it, saying that they were "weak" against terror. However, if another Al-Qaeda attack takes place without troop reductions, then the administration will use that to justify increased troop levels in Afghanistan anyway. And if no Al-Qaeda attack takes place, they will attribute that to our increased troop levels in Afghanistan. So basically, no one has the balls to take the chance to reduce troop levels because of these reasons.

2. Also, we now know that Afghanistan is rich in mineral deposits. Just like in Iraq, our leadership is willing to shed blood for oil, gas, and mineral riches. I don't see how anyone can deny that this is one of our reasons for war there, though no one in power will ever admit to it.

We are a declining empire, with military bases scattered all across the globe, perpetually at war somewhere in the world, fighting for riches that go to corporations, while our country sinks further and further into debt.

But we've got books!

@kronosposeidon, I also don't think it helps when we have a solid bloc of Congress that demands the resignation of anyone who says, even fleetingly, that the war is a bad idea.

If you deleted all the Republicans from Congress, the wars would end.

Hell, if you eliminated the organized manipulation of the press by conservatives, it wouldn't just be a moderate majority opposed to the war, it'd be at least 80%.

^I'm not so sure about that, buddy. I mean I'd like to believe that, but Obama did push for the "surge" in Afghanistan. He didn't have to, but he did. Yet he voted against Bush's troop surge in Iraq in 2007. It begs the question, WTF?

I know, I know: Two different countries. But in both countries most of the people want us out. Not unlike Vietnam. Eventually we'll have to pull out of both countries. We'll see how stable they'll be after we're gone. Don't get me wrong: I hope to God they both have stability, with democracies that establish equality and respect human rights. But I'm not optimistic.

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, July 5th, 2010 6:00pm PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

It's all pretty simple, The Defense Industry owns our Political Leaders.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Good question to ask. Unfortunately few answers that make any sense.

well might have something to do with the fact that , all those men in the us army running around would probably be unemployed if back in usa.

All the ammo rockets fule and matireals used on a daily bassis are employing litraly hundreds of thousends of people back in usa.

a huge part of amercans econimy is bassed enterly on blowing this shit out of things , might as well blow the shit out of a desert and an enimy that vertualy no nation likes.

@NetRunner - You're quoted comment went haywire, so I removed it.

Who has extended the predator strikes into Pakistan? Don't lie to yourself. Democrats are not as clean as you imagine them to be, they are politicians; with a healthy taxpayer income. Not to mention the proceeds they incur from your plutocratic partners.

I have a hard time respecting your arguments when they come from absurdity, eliminating republicans would stop the wars? I've got a hard time believing that especially when there is no empirical evidence to prove it; just speculation. Given that defense contractors can contribute as much as they like now, to anyone's campaign.

Although I would like a literate third, fourth, fifth party to come in and marginalize the republicans.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

^I'm not so sure about that, buddy. I mean I'd like to believe that, but Obama did push for the "surge" in Afghanistan. He didn't have to, but he did. Yet he voted against Bush's troop surge in Iraq in 2007. It begs the question, WTF?
I know, I know: Two different countries. But in both countries most of the people want us out. Not unlike Vietnam. Eventually we'll have to pull out of both countries. We'll see how stable they'll be after we're gone. Don't get me wrong: I hope to God they both have stability, with democracies that establish equality and respect human rights. But I'm not optimistic.


Well, when Obama was really talking up the war, the Afghanistan war was still popular. A lot of people felt (and do still feel) that to the degree that we needed to go to war against anyone for the attacks of 9/11, it was one against the Al Qaeda in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, and the people who harbored and supported them.

Afghanistan being unpopular was something that happened when Obama de-emphasized Iraq, and made Afghanistan America's central front against terrorism (which it probably always should have been). All of a sudden people started noticing that the war was, as Zakaria says, totally out of proportion.

The question is, in a world where there were no Republicans in the media or government, would Obama have ever supported the Afghanistan war? I guess it depends on when we are pretending the Republicans disappeared. If there weren't Republicans around anymore starting tomorrow, do you think Obama would stand up to an electorate made up of liberals and moderates who spoke out in nearly unanimous opposition to the war?

I don't.

I think if you removed the political pressure of the right on Obama to stay and fight no matter what, he'd stop trying to split the difference, and just get us out, or at least make the whole thing proportional to the size of the threat (i.e. just something aimed at finding 50-100 people).

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Who has extended the predator strikes into Pakistan? Don't lie to yourself. Democrats are not as clean as you imagine them to be, they are politicians; with a healthy taxpayer income. Not to mention the proceeds they incur from your plutocratic partners.

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I have a hard time respecting your arguments when they come from absurdity, eliminating republicans would stop the wars? I've got a hard time believing that especially when there is no empirical evidence to prove it; just speculation.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Given that defense contractors can contribute as much as they like now, to anyone's campaign. Although I would like a literate third, fourth, fifth party to come in and marginalize the republicans.


You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.
-@NetRunner

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war? I also have a hard time believing that Ron Paul is the saint that he's made out to be.
-@NetRunner

You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.
-@NetRunner

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.
-@NetRunner

@NordlichReiter it sounded to me like you just agreed with all my points.

Republicans need to go, period. The SCOTUS is in the hands of right-wing activist judges. The influence of the military-industrial complex would wane if we stopped engaging in wars and cut defense spending. Hell, you even said that killing the F-22 and C-17 (which only happened due to Obama's veto threats) was a good thing.

You didn't mount any kind of argument that Democrats would indeed continue the war if the Republican party and their media cheerleaders disappeared.

If I were Stephen Colbert, I'd be saying "I accept your apology" right about now.

it would be like invading Italy after WWII........

except Italy didnt enslave its own people, Italy didnt suppress womens civil rights, stoning them to death for adultery, they didnt execute homosexuals, they didnt put to death Italians who didnt agree with or left roman Catholicism (or whatever major religion it was in Italy in that period), and Italy didnt repress higher education.

Ya but besides all that, its totally like invading Italy.....or something

^ Oh, come on, man.

As if anything we're doing there is stopping any of that.

Nothing of any significance has changed due to our military presence in Afghanistan.

To insist otherwise is really clutching at straws.

except the whole removing taliban from power there, and pouring millions into schools, clinics, infrastructure, and ETT training, ya nothing significant

^ If the US military leaves on a Sunday, the Taliban will be in power the next Monday.

The place is a bigger hell hole than ever, despite the alleged "millions" that were poured anywhere.

I'm not saying it's your fault or anything, but let's not smear lipstick on a pig and call it a beauty queen.

It's nothing like Italy because Italy signed an armistice with the Allies in 1943. The Allies continued to fight Japan until August of 1945 despite having defeated Germany in May.

This would be like fighting Italy after WWII... just because Italy had been allied with Germany.

I'd quite simply argue it is instead like fighting Italy during WWII because Italy was allied with Germany.

The entire problem is because everything has been spun into unrecognizable gibberish by the time it gets near the media, let alone the public. The advocates for staying in Afghanistan use Al Qaeda as shorthand for Islamic jihadists, because that makes it easier for the ignorant masses to follow. Further still, at the "Great Game" level nobody cares over much about a safe haven in Afghanistan for Islamic jihadists. The real concern is a safe haven for jihadists along Pakistan's border. The former head of Paksitan's ISI, that the US and nearly all muslim countries paid to form the jihadist armies that ousted the Soviets is Hamid Gul. He currently is an outspoken supporter of the Taliban's jihad, and formerly said the following in response to concerns about their formation "We are fighting a jihad and this is the first Islamic international brigade in the modem era. The communists have their international brigades, the West has NATO, why can't the Muslims unite and form a common front?" He's still very influential in Pakistan, and he is hardly alone. The jihadist's campaign prior to 9/11 had been garnering support within Pakistan's government, and they had made big strides. Since 9/11, when Pakistan's government responded to western pressures to reverse course, the jihadists have begun efforts to destabilize Pakistan instead. If they can't gain absolute control of the nations nuclear arsenal, instability and civil war within a nuclear state they hold tremendous sway in will also serve their needs.

And there you have the problem. Actually talking about the REAL situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is simply far beyond the attention span of the people. They don't have the time to even hear the basic facts, let alone form any kind of opinion. So instead, the media provides them with unrecognizable pablum. It's like choosing between the steak and the lobster, but the only taste test you get is baby food jars of pureed steak and potates, or pureed lobster and spinach.

>> ^rougy:

^ If the US military leaves on a Sunday, the Taliban will be in power the next Monday.
The place is a bigger hell hole than ever, despite the alleged "millions" that were poured anywhere.
I'm not saying it's your fault or anything, but let's not smear lipstick on a pig and call it a beauty queen.


I agree to your terms, let's just keep the lipstick and beauty queen comparisons off the pre-2001 Afghanistan picture too.

>> ^smooman:

it would be like invading Italy after WWII........
except Italy didnt enslave its own people, Italy didnt suppress womens civil rights, stoning them to death for adultery, they didnt execute homosexuals, they didnt put to death Italians who didnt agree with or left roman Catholicism (or whatever major religion it was in Italy in that period), and Italy didnt repress higher education.
Ya but besides all that, its totally like invading Italy.....or something


Mussolini(you know, the Italian dictator) INVENTED fascism, he not only wrote a book about it, he wrote THE book. He even used the ideas in seizing power BEFORE Hitler did the same in Germany.

The analogy fails, but not for the reasons you point out. The real question is if we are during or after the war ended, and to point out the allies absolutely DID invade Italy DURING WWII.

>> ^bcglorf:

Mussolini(you know, the Italian dictator) INVENTED fascism, he not only wrote a book about it, he wrote THE book. <snip>


Actually the book was ghostwritten by Giovanni Gentile, but Mussolini made it famous!