bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index bumrejects.myfreeforum.org
Open discussion on just about any topic
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Afghanistan
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> In the News National and International
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Do you support the Obama administration's current policy in Afghanistan?
Yes
25%
 25%  [ 1 ]
No
75%
 75%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 4

Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 12:12 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

auntmartymoo wrote:
It is a shame President Obama escalated our number of troops in Afghanistan...


bieramar wrote:
Yes it is. Initially some organized peace advocates (including myself) conditionally supported the "surge" under the Obama Administration's stated conditions, i.e. that the troop buildup for local security would last only through the Afghanistan 2009 election (Petraeus' rationale for the earlier Iraq surge also). Other peace organizations and virtually all of the anti-war groups opposed the escalation, and the Central Florida Veterans For Peace initiated the first nation-wide Impeach Obama movement (drafted by longtime friend of mine, and St. Johns County resident).


auntmartymoo continuing, wrote:

...and lengthened the term of our commitment there.


bieramar responding with a link wrote:


Obama in Afghanistan to Sign Deal to Continue War Through 2024 - President Sneaks Into Country to Sign Document, Bypasses Congress

by Jason Ditz, May 01, 2012

Months of "not quite public" Obama Administration efforts to negotiate a still-secret pact to ensure that US troops will continue to occupy Afghanistan through at least 2024 came to an end today, with a "not quite public" visit to Afghanistan by President Obama to sign the pact....

The terms of the deal, which will govern US military operations in the country from the start of 2015 through the end of 2024*, have not been made public, and as with President Bush and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in Iraq, there was no effort to consult on the long-term pact with Congress.

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/05/0...eal-to-continue-war-through-2024/
===

AntiWar.com is one of numerous internet sites for one aspect of the anti-war movements - which run the gamut from anti-war in general, to specific anti-war strategies and tactics, to peace advocates, to pacifists - all sharing a central position but differing greatly in some efforts.

Every anti-war group that I'm aware had ceased support for Obama's Afghanistan policy following the reneging on the surge condition (above), although some peace advocates continued to support it.
But since May 2012 when the 2024 date was established I don't know any anti-war activist who continues to support his Afghanistan warfighting policy.

auntmartymoo concluding, wrote:

Good thing all the peace advocates voted against him in 2012.

No, wait...


Many peace advocates, including myself, voted for Obama's re-election, because we are not "single issue" voters. And some "single issue" voters chose the "evil of two lessers" as Romney's militaristic foreign policy was deemed even worse than Obama's.

Also some peace and anti-war advocates did not vote for Obama - some because they are single issue voters, some because the opposed other elements of his platform, some because they supported Romney's platform.

*Technically the 2024 date and agreement is a "blueprint" and "rules of engagement" document governing the allowed actions of U.S. troops after the scheduled 2014 combat troop withdrawals. It is NOT a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) like the one the Bush Administration and the Iraq central government agreed to. I anticipate (and predict) that IF a SOFA is eventually signed between the U.S. and Afghanistan, it will not include the 2024 date.


Last edited by bieramar on Fri May 17, 2013 12:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You voted for him because you are basically a marxist.
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tsiya wrote:
You voted for him because you are basically a marxist.


Once more, for the umpteempth time, I'll ask you to list EXACTLY to which "marxist" principles you believe I subscribe.

Of simply list exactly what you believe the "marxist" principles are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sharia's Protector

National Review's Happy Warrior
December 27, 2013

Rohullah Qarizada is one of those Afghans you used to see a lot on American TV in the immediate aftermath of the Taliban's fall. Trimly bearded, dapper in Western suit and tie, he heads the Afghan Independent Bar Association in Kabul. Did you know Kabul had a bar association? A few years back, I ran into one of the U.S. prosecutors who helped set it up, with a grant from the Swedish foreign ministry. Mr. Qarizada currently sits on a committee charged with making revisions to the Afghan legal code. What kind of revisions? Well, for example: "Men and women who commit adultery shall be punished based on the circumstances by one of the following punishments: lashing, stoning."

As in stoning to death. That's the proposed improvement to Article 21. Article 23 specifies that said punishment shall be performed in public. Mr. Qarizada gave an interview to Reuters, explaining that the reintroduction of stoning was really no big deal: You'd have to have witnesses, and they'd better be consistent. "The judge asks each witness many questions," he said, "and if one answer differs from other witnesses then the court will reject the claim." So that's all right then.

Stoning is making something of a comeback in the world's legal codes in October the Sultan of Brunei announced plans to put it on his books. Nevertheless, Kabul has the unique distinction of proposing to introduce the practice on America's watch. Afghanistan is an American protectorate; its kleptocrat president is an American client, kept alive these last twelve years only by American arms. The Afghan campaign is this nation's longest war and our longest un-won war: That's to say, nowadays we can't even lose in under a decade. I used to say that, 24 hours after the last Western soldier leaves Afghanistan, it will be as if we were never there. But it's already as if we were never there: The last Christian church in the country was razed to the ground in 2010.

At this point, Americans sigh wearily and shrug, "Afghanistan, the graveyard of empire," or sneer, "If they want to live in a seventh-century s***hole, f*** 'em." But neither assertion is true. Do five minutes' googling, and you'll find images from the Sixties and early Seventies of women in skirts above the knee listening to the latest Beatles releases in Kabul record stores. True, a stone's throw (so to speak) from the capital, King Zahir's relatively benign reign was not always in evidence. But, even so, if it's too much to undo the barbarism of centuries, why could the supposed superpower not even return the country to the fitful civilization of the disco era? The American imperium has lasted over twice as long as the Taliban's rule and yet, unlike them, we left no trace.

Seven years ago, in my book America Alone, I quoted a riposte to the natives by a British administrator, and it proved such a hit with readers that for the next couple of years at live stage appearances, from Vancouver to Vienna, Madrid to Melbourne, I would be asked to reprise it like the imperialist version of a Beatles cover band. The chap in question was Sir Charles Napier, out in India and faced with the practice of suttee the Hindu tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Napier's response was impeccably multicultural: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

India is better off without suttee, just as Afghanistan would be better off without child marriage, honor killing, death for apostasy, and stoning for adultery. What my readers liked about my little bit of Napier karaoke at live appearances was its cultural cool. It wasn't an argument for more war, more bombs, more killing, but for more cultural confidence. In the long run, that's more effective than a drone. For the least worst two-thirds of a century in its history, the vast fractious tribal dump of Sudan was run by about 200 British civil servants. These days, I doubt the smallest Obamacare branch office makes do with fewer than 200 "navigators." Yet, alert to the obsolescence of the mid-20th-century social programs, the Right remains largely blind to the similarly too-big-to-fail model of the American way of war. No serious person can argue that we're not spending enough money. The problem is we waste so much of it to the point where in Afghanistan the Western occupation accounts for 97 percent of GDP, and all we have built is another squalid sharia state.

The American way of war is to win the war in nothing flat, and then spend the next decade losing the peace. The American people have digested that to the point where they assume that, no matter how "unbelievably small" (as Kerry promised of Syria) the next intervention is, it's a fool's errand. The rest of the world grasps it, too. If Hamid Karzai treats Washington with contempt and gets away with it, why expect the Iranians to behave any differently? A nation responsible for almost half the planet's military spending goes into battle with the sentimental multiculti fantasist twaddle of Greg Mortensen's Three Cups of Tea as its strategy manual and then wonders why it can't beat goatherds with fertilizer.

Incidentally, I'd be interested to know which particular fellow at the Pentagon ordered that a copy of Three Cups of Tea be included in every Kandahar-bound kitbag. He should be fired. Come to think of it, he should be stoned.

http://www.steynonline.com/5933/sharia-protector


_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> In the News National and International All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12
Page 12 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum