i NEED some votes for my Michael Moore On healthcare vid:
http://videosift.com/video/Michael-Moore-Goes-Emo-On-Countdown

Wow, I have never really liked Michael Moore, but these comments are particularly silly.

He says to get out of Afghanistan (because we have no right to be there), apologize and then offer help to rebuild when they work out their own situation.

1. The ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) is in Afghanistan at the request of the elected government of Afghanistan. While there was some electoral fraud on the part of the current ruling party, his main adversary, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, would likely have asked for the ISAF's assistance as well. In his words, "the international community played an active and effective presence, and, with its extensive financial, political and military assistance, supported the formation and establishment of a legal and elected state." Remember, this is the main rival to the democratically elected President of Afghanistan. You would think that if the people wanted us out of their country it would be advantageous for a politician to make our removal part of his platform but he doesn't even mention that in any of his election documents. Further, as a member of the Canadian Forces, I know first-hand that the people there largely appreciate what the international community is doing: fighting their enemies.

2. You can't rebuild when there is no stability. It would be nice if we could go in and just build schools and powerplants and wells and hospitals and leave but that's not the way it works. There are still a lot of people in Afghanistan who will make it their goal to chop off the head of the teacher at the school, or blow up the powerplants, or poison the wells or bomb the hospitals. While we are doing our best building infrastructure for the Afghani people, we are also fighting and dying to make sure no one destroys that infrastructure. It's guaranteed that if we left now all we have worked for will be in the shitter and it wont be long before Afghanistan is under the thumb of the Taliban and harboring terrorists with international targets.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Michael Moore, but here I am. I hope Obama is listening.

To think Afghanistan has a working, representational government is fallacious. And rebuilding is probably impossible without big business opportunists making the whole process financially advantageous and without the people relinquishing some of their dominion.

I say the US government gets out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I say the US government apologizes. I say none of us pay for it, because it wasn't me or you that fucked this up; it was bad policy makers. I'd like to see the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration get on their knees and kiss some dick for this. They can start with those families who lost loved ones because of that damn occupation. They can then move to the people who were displaced because of it. Then they can move to the tax payers who were forced to pay for it.

When they're done with the millions of dick kissing and bukkake facing, I want them to look like a glazed donut. In the eye? Yes we can.

@blankfist, stop flirting with Michael Moore. Stop trying to get oral sex from Obama, you know he's not into you (and you're probably just trying to set him up for impeachment anyways).

Seriously though, I think Moore's heart is in the right place, but I'm not sure it'd be such a big help to the Afghans if we left.

I'm not sure how much it helps if we stay, either.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm in favor of whatever plan results in the least amount of bloodshed over the next 10 years, and I'm not at all convinced that just leaving would be better than what we're doing.

Obama's plan is to ramp up our presence, try to make a lot of progress in a short period of time, and then say to the Afhgans that they're going to be on their own because they're the ones who'll need to fix their country.

I'm nervous about that, because it seems like that could very easily backfire, but then, so could just pulling up stakes and leaving.

Robert Greenwald's advocacy goes a long way towards convincing me that there's no hope of us being able to help, no matter what we do. Other people are more optimistic, but I definitely want to see the end of our presence in Afghanistan happen while Obama's president; though it might not be until his second term.

He said he's going to start drawing down troops in July 2011 from Afghanistan. That seems to be enough to keep Democrats from getting out the long knives at the moment, but he's got a huge political incentive to make things right with his generally anti-war base on this topic. It would be very easy for him to start sounding like Bush if he pushes back on calls for withdrawal, and from the reactions I saw to the July 2011 date, that's about as much patience as progressives are going to have for an Obama Afghanistan Surge.

For now I'm in wait-and-see mode. I hope what he does works. I hope if/when it doesn't he does what I expect him to do, and get our troops out of there.

I've got to hand it to Michael Moore, just when you think he can't say or do anything dumber, he finds a way to go further.

If you want to find a meaningful documentary about the strategic importance of Afghanistan start by throwing out every last one that doesn't spend 90% of it's time on Pakistan. Why do all the idiot boy talking heads like Moore(and his equally stupid Republican counterparts) insist on acting like the greatest prize in the war is the desolate wastelands of Afghanistan itself? Here's a newsflash for everyone, American throne makers NEVER cared about control of the deserts of Afghanistan!

Here's what they did care about, the stability and reliability of the government of Pakistan and it's nuclear arsenal. That's the game. Before the war, Al-Qaeda and it's Taliban jihadist allies were spread from Islamabad to Kabul, with strong ties and connections to the governments all along the way. After 9/11, America's highest policy makers decided that Pakistan's official fence sitting between support for those that bombed New York and those that died there was no longer acceptable. Musharraf was given an ultimatum, them or us, and he was given an example of the consequences of siding with them when the Taliban chose them. Since then, Pakistan has been waging an internal war against the Taliban militants rather than openly supporting them. Their war is a direct mirror of the war in Afghanistan against the same opponents.

I'd absolutely love to see Moore try and explain why we should apologize for fighting the same forces responsible for killing the first and only elected female head of a Muslim state. I'm sure her widow, now leading Pakistan, would be so glad to receive a delegation of Moore and his film crew there to apologize to him for our solidarity with the cause his wife died for. Disgusting.

@NetRunner, so it's okay for me to try to get oral sex from Bush? Where's the love for the other authoritarian warmongerer?

No, both of their Administrations have blood on their hands, I say they all get bukkakes.

@blankfist, yeah, it's okay solicit oral sex from Bush. He's not my boyfriend, so I won't get mad.

Oh, and about the blood on the hands thing, how far back do you have to go before you find a President with no blood on his hands?

@NetRunner. Good point. They're all crooks with blood on their hands. The only logical answer then is to stop voting them in from the two non-peace parties. Problem solved.

I look forward to the Green Party vs. Libertarian Party in three years.

@blankfist, but if they inherit a war from Obama, they'll have blood on their hands too (since you don't give credit to Presidents who inherit and try to responsibly end wars).

Since you bring up the idea of "peace" and "non-peace" parties, tell me, if we just had a straight up vote for Peace party and War party, how many states do you think the Peace party would actually carry?

For that matter, which states? Places like New York and California, or places like South Carolina and Texas?

Are you sure Peace could carry enough states to win the White House?

Would it help or harm Peace's chances if they said that not only are they ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with all possible haste, they will also officially declare an end to the "war on terror", repeal the patriot act, withdraw all deployed troops from around the world, pass deep cuts in defense spending, end the "war on drugs" and legalize all drugs, announce that we're going to withdraw from NATO and the UN, and abolish the CIA and NSA?

Good point. They're all crooks with blood on their hands. The only logical answer then is to stop voting them in from the two non-peace parties. Problem solved.
I look forward to the Green Party vs. Libertarian Party in three years.


I think it's wrong to equate peace with not having blood on ones hands. The most blood on Clinton's hands came from his insistence on 'peace' with Rwanda and minding our own business while 800,000 died for our desire for our own 'peace'.

@NetRunner, it's not that Obama just inherited the war; it's that he's not ending it and, worse, extending it. I don't care if he says he has a plan to end the war, because that's all talk. Reagan talked about smaller government, but he his actions proved otherwise. Lincoln spoke favorably of the Constitution, but his actions illustrated a disregard for constitutional rights.

I don't know how many people or states would get behind a peace movement. Maybe very little. Maybe a lot. I have no basis for an accurate assessment, just speculation. I don't like to speculate.

@bcglorf, there are travesties all over the world. What are we supposed to do? Play world police with sovereign nations? What about the innocents the US has murdered in cold blood during the war in Iraq? Should that be considered an expected casualty during some elusive quest for peace? Come on.

You have the power of hindsight that allows you the self-assured ability to judge historic military scrimmages that lead to the winner's version of 'peace'. But I'd like to see people like you use your powers of perception to look into the future and tell me how some of those are going to turn out: Afghanistan, Iraq... Iran? Will peace be the verdict? Do tell.

What are we supposed to do? Play world police with sovereign nations?

When it comes to genocide, yes! The US is a signatory to the UN Convention on Genocide. It's leading article 1 reads: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
The US and all other signatories to this convention are obligated to act prevent acts of genocide.

What about the innocents the US has murdered in cold blood during the war in Iraq?

I thought we were talking about Afghanistan. Though for argument sake, removing Saddam has still saved more lives than the incompetently mismanaged occupation has cost.

Should that be considered an expected casualty during some elusive quest for peace?
You think war can be fought without spilling innocent blood? The question is what costs more innocent lives, American 'peace' with Saddam while he remains in power, or American war to remove him. The benefit of hindsight already answered that question before the invasion began.

You have the power of hindsight that allows you the self-assured ability to judge historic military scrimmages that lead to the winner's version of 'peace'.
I declared the inaction in Rwanda to be intolerable, no hindsight was needed for that observation. All external powers saw the genocide coming, and had their troops on the ground removing their citizens from the country within hours of the violence breaking out, and had their troops and civilians safely away never to return immediately after. The UN force on the ground knew the genocide was happening too, they used that knowledge to withdraw all but 400 peace keepers from the region as well. The blood on Clinton's hands for failing to stop the genocide has NOTHING to do with hindsight and everything to do with the decision to mind his own business and choosing 'peace' over war.

@blankfist, I notice you're using the singular form of war. I also see you're using the word "extending"...are you saying that Bush put together firm plans to withdraw from all wars, and Obama moved back the date?

Troops are coming out of Iraq, and have been for a while. Why is Obama still "all talk" to you?

You seem like a person who's too smart to have such a black and white outlook on things.

Is Obama a total pacifist? Not remotely. Is Obama trying to rally support for a more active role for the American military worldwide? Not remotely. Is he taking steps to try to extricate us from our overseas combat deployments without jeopardizing the relative stability that currently exists in both countries? I think so.

If we pull out of Afghanistan now, immediately, aren't we still responsible for whatever happens in the aftermath of our withdrawal? Moore seems to recognize that an apology really won't cut it, but if the Taliban regain power, are we really going to pay them reparations?

Obviously if the current parliamentary government stays relatively intact, we'd help them rebuild, but are they really likely to stay intact if we leave before they can raise and train their own army to keep the Taliban at bay?

The real nasty question is what if it looks like it'd take 10 more years to get them there? I hope Obama has the strength to say "then we pull out, and apologize", because then that will really be the only right choice, but I don't think we're at that point yet.

In any case, I get the sense that Obama's asking the right questions, and generally making choices based on the idea of finding the path out of the conflict that will result in the least bloodshed and suffering.

I'm open to any evidence you have to contravene anything I just said, but base distrust of Obama or government in general just isn't good enough for me.

@NetRunner.
I'm on the left. You're on the right.

8====D~

@bcglorf, you're just a warmonger piece of shit and you always have been.

Crawl back into your hole.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
@bcglorf, you're just a warmonger piece of shit and you always have been.

Crawl back into your hole.

Come join the dark side of peace, dear statist.

Rougy said:you're just a warmonger piece of shit and you always have been.

Crawl back into your hole.

It's unfortunate you lash out everytime it's pointed out that the horrors of war can exist without the benefit of war as long as one side is too weak to put up a fight. Call me a war monger if you like, but that doesn't defend the countless atrocities that have occurred when your advise of non-intervention was followed.

blankfist said:Come join the dark side of peace, dear statist.

Our positions are much closer than you might think.

You understand the horrific cost of military intervention and war, and reject it. I was there for 20+ years. The next step is quite simply forcing yourself to look at the cost of non-intervention. The UN had several thousand troops on the ground in Rwanda to ensure a tenuous peace was kept. The policy of non-intervention saw them removed immediately in the face of violence and war, and 800,000 died as a result. I was being derisive in calling that 'peace', it is nothing of the sort, it is merely cowardice and selfishness.

You can try and claim innocence by blaming only those that did the killing, I can't so easily absolve those who turned a willful blind eye to such genocide. Similarly, I hate America far more for it's efforts to ignore and deny Saddam's genocide of the Kurd's than for the casaulties of their incompetent removal of him.

>> ^blankfist:
Come join the dark side of peace, dear statist.

It's not like you're actually arguing for peace -- you didn't seem to be able to answer any point I raised about what the best way is to maintain the lowest level of conflict possible.

What you're mostly doing is parroting an absolute non-interventionist ideology, and pretending as though what happens after we leave doesn't matter.

We're maintaining hegemony and military bases in 130 countries abroad... because we're stopping genocide in absolutely every one of those cases? O RLY? Wow. We sure are a super awesome nation. Because if we weren't stopping genocide in every one of those cases, then I think those of us who are apologizing for Uncle Sam's war-lust should sit down and listen instead of upselling the few good things the defense spending accomplishes.

Oh, and you say we shouldn't get out of those sovereign countries because 'we broke it so we bought it'? It all makes perfect sense. The more we break, the more we have the right to occupy. It's all becoming so clear. If we can go into a country we don't currently occupy, break it, we can then occupy it as if we own it! That is awesome!

@blankfist:
Nice rhetoric, it's very witty.

The question Moore's idea ignores is: what course does the most to reduce conflict and suffering? You seem to advocate that absolute and total American isolation is the answer. Is that not correct? If it is, you can't just ignore all the genocides and atrocities that could and should have been stopped by foreign intervention.

Your ignoring and avoiding critical questions solely because the answers make your preferred course look bad. Sounds a lot like a recent ex-President's approach to the exact same regions.

@bcglorf

I don't like the term American isolation. You seem to be implying that if we don't fight military scrimmages abroad that we're isolationists. But, it's not like we wouldn't be trading with nations abroad. So, let me get this straight: trading with them but not fighting with them is an isolationist position? Fighting with them whether you're trading or not is... good?

I don't buy that.

It's not ignoring genocide when our interventionism may stop that 1% of the time, and cause needless destruction and death the other 99% of the time.

The very simple fact of the matter is this: nothing we do in Afghanistan, militarily, will make things better for the people of Afghanistan.

We could be there another fifty fucking years bombing the shit out of everything and it won't make a jot of difference.

And any analyst worth his salt will tell you that our presence there is only making things worse, not better, in both the long and the short term.

Only the war monger pricks beg to differ, because they're making a killing off the place.

Had we spent 10% of our military budget on seeding economic growth in Afghanistan, it would have given us 500% or more in positive returns.

Michael Moore is right, and @bcglorf isn't worthy of carrying his piss bucket.

>> ^rougy:

Had we spent 10% of our military budget on seeding economic growth in Afghanistan, it would have given us 500% or more in positive returns.

You're probably right, assuming we sent that money back in time to when the Mujahideen (and Osama bin Ladin) still worked for us, and they'd just kicked the Russian occupiers out. We probably could've prevented Al Qaeda from coming into existence in the first place.

@blankfist, you said:

We're maintaining hegemony and military bases in 130 countries abroad... because we're stopping genocide in absolutely every one of those cases?

Oh, and you say we shouldn't get out of those sovereign countries because 'we broke it so we bought it'?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^rougy:
Had we spent 10% of our military budget on seeding economic growth in Afghanistan, it would have given us 500% or more in positive returns.
You're probably right, assuming we sent that money back in time to when the Mujahideen (and Osama bin Ladin) still worked for us, and they'd just kicked the Russian occupiers out. We probably could've prevented Al Qaeda from coming into existence in the first place.


Fuck Al Qaeda. It's obviously another boogie man.

No more Russian commies, so they invented another boogie man.

What I said had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

It had to do with a real way to solve a real problem.

@bcglorf:

"...what course does the most to reduce conflict and suffering?"

Why, more war, of course!

Isn't that what you've been saying about Afghanistan and Iraq all along?

If we didn't stop bombing the shit out of them and propping up puppet governments, imagine how much worse things would be for them?

That's your logic.

@NetRunner. Genocide comment was directed toward bcglorf more than you, but I just combined the two of you into one mental gay orgy and responded as if I was talking to one. These weren't strawman arguments. They're direct debating points for your and bcglorf's positions. I don't think you've been paying attention.

You seem to think we're going into Afghanistan to help them now. Help who? How? That land is a collective of tribes. Are we going to build them roads or drop KFC gift certificates from the sky? What could we possibly offer them? I'm curious what exactly it is you expect us to continue to do there? We've killed families and innocents and children and women. We've done enough. We're occupying their land. We've done enough.

Your analogy is flawed, by the way. The better analogy would be if your brother came over to my house, stabbed me with a spear, then hung around for the next eight years building me shelves I never asked for. And he's syphoning the gas from my car. What I'd really like is for him to just get the hell out of my house.

@blankfist, let's start with this, what exactly do you think is being done by the US in Afghanistan, and why? Murder for fun?

Oh, and your analogy is great for Iraq, but for Afghanistan mine is a lot more apt.

The syphoning of gas part is more appropriate for Iraq. But, it's still an occupation.

Fuck Al Qaeda. It's obviously another boogie man.

No more Russian commies, so they invented another boogie man.


If you recognize Al-Qaeda as exagerated and over simplified short hand then step up and think for yourself already! Proving the neo-con monsters like Cheney are wrong doesn't prove that you are right, real world problems have more than 1 wrong answer. Prove your own argument, explain how much better things would be if America had simply left the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan alone.

You seem to be implying that if we don't fight military scrimmages abroad that we're isolationists. But, it's not like we wouldn't be trading with nations abroad.

Refusing to ever deploy your military abroad is isolationist. Tell me, exactly what kind of help were we able to offer civilians in Afghanistan through trade? We couldn't even give free schools away without the requirement that girls be barred from attending.

It's not ignoring genocide when our interventionism may stop that 1% of the time, and cause needless destruction and death the other 99% of the time.

And it's not stopping genocide by criticizing the 1% of interventions that actually have done some good for our world.

The very simple fact of the matter is this: nothing we do in Afghanistan, militarily, will make things better for the people of Afghanistan.

You are forgetting to include Pakistan in your assessment. As I pointed out in my previous post, there is far more at play than Al-Qaeda having a safe haven in Afghanistan. The problem is the influence of Islamic jihadists being allowed to fester and grow in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They aren't only our enemies, they are equally the enemies of all moderate muslims.

The war in Afghanistan is showing huge progress in marginalizing these extremists. Afghan civilians haven't seen much improvement yet. Without a continued military investment from the UN, they face another civil war when we leave. The Taliban will without a doubt come back in force and it's doubtful the ANA can win against them. It most certainly will be a close enough thing that there will be a lot more blood than there is now. And if the Taliban triumph, the blood will continue to flow for awhile as the 'consolidate' their position. That sounds bad, alot like what you've been saying I suppose. Disagree with the assessment if you wish, but please point out details.

Pakistan is a much better story. Before the war in Afghanistan, the extremists had support within Pakistan's government, all the way to the top. They were using that influence and power to crush and suppress the moderate majority. Today, they are recognized throughout Pakistan as an enemy to the country, rather than just another part of the tapestry. I claim that as a positive gain. The Pakistani people and military are actively routing out and defeating the extremist militants and are claiming victory in many regions the government was never able to operate before. That is a positive gain. There are even editorials appearing in Pakistani papers criticizing their own intelligence agencies for not matching the success of the hated American drone attacks. The hate for the drones is more nuanced than any western media protrays it. The majority of Pakistani's hate the affront to Pakistan's sovereignty they represent. At the same time, they don't mourn the deaths that result, they actually have begun to cheer them. Over the last 6 months in particular several leaders known to have encouraged suicide bombings throughout Pakistan have been taken out by the drones. The Pakistani people are themselves claiming that as a major positive gain, so I feel comfortable to do the same.

I've given here many positive gains that I claim are a direct result of America's intervention and influence in the region. Tell me were it's wrong, and explain why simply ignoring the situation is better.

>> ^blankfist:

The syphoning of gas part is more appropriate for Iraq. But, it's still an occupation.


How do you define occupation? I tend to think it's supposed to mean that it's against the will of the people (as in, during WWII, Germany occupied France), and not generally welcomed by the local populace (as in, America's "occupation" of Germany today).

I think the situation in Afghanistan is somewhat closer to the Germany example than the Vichy France example.

I'm open to being swayed to believe otherwise, but you kinda need to present some sort of case that what we're doing is fighting primarily against the Afghan people themselves, and not the Taliban.

I'm open to being swayed to believe otherwise, but you kinda need to present some sort of case that what we're doing is fighting primarily against the Afghan people themselves, and not the Taliban.

And the evidence that the Taliban do NOT represent the majority of Aghan people is as simple as pointing to the Taliban's fight against any form of elections. If they represented the majority, their case is as simple as telling everyone to get out and vote.