Comments on: “A New Low”

By: Arun

Arun — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:27:30 +0000

And here is another POV:

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/informational_posting/000320.php

By: Arun

Arun — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:15:58 +0000

http://www.nationalreview.com/smitht/smith200511210820.asp

claims good progress.

This says there is some:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2005/November/middleeast_November149.xml§ion=middleeast&col=

By: Zero

Zero — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:09:46 +0000

Actually, I believe that the aforementioned Euphrates campaigns have been showing significant results: pushing the insurgent bases of operation farther into the desert, taking control of border towns being used as crossing-points for foreign fighters entering Iraq from Syria, the building of alliances with several anti-AQ tribes (especially to provide intelligence against the pro-AQ locals), etc. The operations in Anbar are not independent, isolated actions, but must be viewed as a whole. We’re making good progress out there.

By: Haelfix

Haelfix — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:39:33 +0000

Look im not disaggreeing with anything you guys said. Yes the bill sets up a false dichotomy.

Otoh be sure that the point of the original bill in the first place was not to truly debate things or to enact change. Everyone knows the Dems ultimately don’t want to withdraw too soon or hastily either and the two parties are a lot closer than the media portrays them to be on how to ultimately proceed. Be sure that many Republicans want and demand ’smart’ withdrawal plans as well.

This is usually b/c they have the same analysis (usually from proffessors and so forth in foreign affairs, telling them the same things).

Again, anyone who knows anything about Washington politics knows that deals are done at coffee tables and behind closed doors. The stuff on the floor is for *show* and to win votes.

And in general, whenever someone is ‘outraged’ at ‘x’ that happens in the legislature, usually that just means the person is either naive or hasn’t lived long enough around all of that to appreciate how things work.

The repub bill was more of a way to say ‘hi, leave us alone, we are not goint to waste time on this Red Herring and we wont let you kill our approval ratings anymore than we can’

Again, im not saying thats right or wrong, just pointing out that perspective.

By: JoAnne

JoAnne — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:37:19 +0000

Charles #12: No worries, I completely respect a difference of opinion. But I will only respect that difference if the other side has taken the time to gather the facts and think about the issues for themselves, rather than parrot information fed to them from a side they wish to believe. And I say this with experience – all of the people closest to me are Conservatives (yes, you can just imagine dinner time conversation!)

By: Arun

Arun — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:10:46 +0000

Elliot, actually the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. The Taliban arose around 1994, after the various factions of holy warriors who had fought the Soviets fought among themselves. The US fault lay in helping create these people, and then walking away from it all. Pakistan first backed Hekmatyar, who I think more damage to the city of Kabul than the Soviets had; and then the Taliban.

The documents at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/ are worth reading in this regard.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:07:17 +0000

A gentle reminder to all here. Both Saddam and the Taliban were supported by the United States. Saddam to fight Iran and the Taliban to fight the Soviets.

By: donna

donna — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:07:20 +0000

I’m embarassed that jerk is my congressman. I’m certainly going to work to make sure that he isn’t in the very near future.

What an ass Drunken Hunter is.

By: spyder

spyder — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:02:35 +0000

“That the “progressive left” has effectively withdrawn from this nation’s fight against a brutal Islamofascist enemy”

Wow, if i substitute “Communist” for “Islamofascist” it does begin to sound like Vietnam. And Charles, pray tell please, your own military service history??

By: X

Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:56:59 +0000

Regarding brutal Islamofascist enemies – Saddam was brutal, and more Stalinist than Fascist; but the “Islamo-” label applied to him is ridiculous.

By the way, I think it is in the nature of men to be brainwashed. In Pakistani madrassas, young men were led to believe they would be taking up arms with the Taliban against the infidel, whereas the infidels were actually the Northern Alliance, once headed by Ahmed Shah Massoud. So Pakistanis fighting alongside the Taliban were killing fellow Muslims, fellow Sunnis even. But these were kids brought up and schooled in the cloistered environs of the religious schools.

What excuse do Americans have who cannot even identify the “Islamofascists”? In any case, the al Qaeda are not fascists; one wonders how one can fight a war without being able to identify the enemy; bin Laden is dangerous, but different from a Hitler or Mussolini. But it does make one think that a free and open society is greatly overvalued in that it does not diminish willful ignorance. You may say, in the open and free society, we are not bound to such people. But, we’re at war, in the wrong war, so in what practical way are we not bound by the decisions of such people?