Democrats & Liberals Archives

Afghanistan - The "Good" War?

Afghanistan is back in the news periodically as Obama “reshapes” U.S. involvement in the country. However, one has to wonder if it is any different than it ever was.

Many people believe that the invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of the Taliban government was the "right" thing to do because they harbored bin Laden. However, the stakes at play were a route for the Caspian Pipeline.

The new Afghan "democracy" was touted with the "election" of Hamid Karzai - ex-primary UNOCAL consultant- to the presidency of Afghanistan. Many around the world, and in the region, feared the rigging of those elections, and that Karzai was little more than a U.S. pawn. Now we have open news that this may well be the case. Borger and Macaskill write in the Guardian "US Will Appoint Afghan 'Prime Minister' to Bypass Hamid Karzai." Really? The U.S. can appoint a government official in another nation to usurp the powers of the "elected" president? This is followed on 3/24 by Jane Perlez of the New York Times with "U.S. Weighs Sharif as Partner in Pakistan." So the U.S. is meddling in Pakistan's political process as well?

So why are we there? Is it to oust al Qaeda, control "terrorist" groups, "stabilize" the region? Or are we there because of the long simmering oil and natural gas issues with Russia?

As Pepe Escobar succinctly states in his article "Liquid war: Welcome to Pipelineistan:

Forget the mainstream media's obsession with al-Qaeda, Osama "dead or alive" bin Laden, the Taliban - neo, light or classic - or that "war on terror", whatever name it goes by. These are diversions compared to the high-stakes, hardcore geopolitical game that follows what flows along the pipelines of the planet.

This is not new news, but our ongoing "interest" in Afghanistan has virtually nothing to do with either "terrorism" or with good wishes for the people of Afghanistan - anymore than we seem to care about the people of Pakistan or Iraq. The United States is not there for them - it is there because of U.S. "interests." Apparently, both our government, and the people of the United States, are willing to accept a lot of "collateral damage" to protect (or advance) those "interests." All too frequently those interests are energy related, and those interests pass through and advance corporate interests. For example, the consortium of oil companies who were bargaining for the pipeline through Afghanistan.

The Clinton administration had been working with the Taliban from 1994 forward. Why? Because some companies (particularly UNOCAL and Saudi owned Delta) wanted "to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan." ... "so that the vast untapped oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian and Caspian region could be transported to markets in South Asia, South-East Asia, Far East and the Pacific" 17. This is supported by Jon Flanders article. While official relations were purportedly broken off in 1998, relations with the Taliban were maintained through the State Department (Ahmad) and through the Pakistan Military Intelligence ISI by the CIA (Chossudovsky).

According to Jon Flanders (2001), U.S. interest in the pipeline restarted in 2000, but was still not moving forward when Bush was elected. With Bush came Cheney (CEO of Halliburton) and Halliburton had investments in Turkmentistan for "integrated drilling services with an estimated value of $30 million for the total package." (Flanders)

It should not be surprising given the oil interests of the President, his kin, and his appointees, that Bush placed Afghanistan on the top of his action list. In July 2001, Colin Powell gave the Taliban $43 million for "humanitarian aid" (Madsen 2002).

According to a BBC report by George Arney (9/18/01), the US was planning military action in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. "Naiz Naik, a former Pakistan Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action would go ahead by the middle of October." (From: Power Play? Wolf, 2001)

All of which of course begs the question of September 11, 2001 and the catastrophic lies and invasions that occurred as a response. However, this article is not focused on 9/11 (though it hauntingly suggests the power of "interests"). Rather, one has to ask whether our new President has any different a world view, or policy initiative, than has been in play in the United States since at least the end of World War II.

Currently, Obama has expanded drone attacks into Pakistan and there is actually very little news of U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Has the "war" shifted? Obama has already stated, and started, the shifting of forces from Iraq (the "bad" war) to Afghanistan (the "good" war). I have to ask if this is because Iraq is seen as safely on a leash, or whether the saber rattling of Russia has raised the priority of protecting the pipeline (and hence "leashing" Russia's energy power)?

Left or right, there is little hard questioning of either why we are there, or what we should be trying to do. The focus has largely been "get out of Iraq" with a general acceptance that we left Afghanistan "undone." "Undone" meaning we still don't have bin Laden. However, the stakes have changed, and it is looking increasingly likely that the Taleban will be back in control of the Afghan government soon - and perhaps Pakistan's as well. While this prospect is murmured as "unfortunate," it is seen as a "realistic" approach. Perhaps, the negotiations with the Taleban have little to do with what is "realistic" and who can provide the muscle to guard the pipeline.

One note of hope is Obama's pledge to take the United States to energy independence. Success in this are - and around the world - would radically reduce the armed conflicts. While oil and gas are not the only conflict issues, they are major ones. Addressing that would start a transformation of international policy - overt and covert.

Related Articles of Interest
Ramzy Baroud. 2/21/2009. A New Afghanistan Nightmare

John Steppling. 8/13/2008. Inventing Your Own History as it Happens

Rowan Wolf. 5/26/2005. "Pipe-istan" Becomes A Reality.

Rowan Wolf. 6/27/04. Afghanistan - not a pipe dream any longer

Rowan Wolf. 5/2002. Power Play?.

Posted by Rowan Wolf at March 25, 2009 3:33 PM
Comments
Comment #278604

We lost our way in Afghanistan when we diverted to the unethical, immoral stupidity in Iraq. Even if not all our motives for going into Afghanistan were pure as the driven snow (and how many large endeavors are?), they were mostly as stated, i.e., to capture or kill the entity behind 9/11.

Just because we came down with that dread disease, dumbshitytis, doesn’t mean Afghanistan can’t be redeemed. It may be too late, but an attempt won’t be any more harmful than the harm that has already been done, and it could end up pretty good.

Obama is serious about losing our dependence on oil energies, so ulterior motives for being in Afghanistan should fall by the wayside.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2009 4:16 PM
Comment #278607

The war in Afghanistan was ‘lost,’ or if you prefer, ‘won’ a long time ago. It’s done, and the natural political equilibrium is asserting itself. The puppet government of Karzai and the Northern Alliance failed. That’s no surprise. Afghanistan has been ruled by the Pashtun majority for its whole existence, except for when the Communist-backed government ruled in the 80’s. There’s no point in staying. The US reneged on the promise to rebuild the country’s infrastructure and political structure, mostly because of Iraq and the pointless effort to repress the Pashtun.

Call it good. Reproduce the Iraq model. Call the bad guys reformed, give them guns and power, and walk.

Unless… someone has a bead on Osama bin Laden. We owe him, big time.

Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2009 4:31 PM
Comment #278613

First mistake, it is not a war. The “War on Terror” has been replaced with “ongoing struggle” and “enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/31/obama-abandoning-war-on-t_n_162804.html

“One note of hope is Obama’s pledge to take the United States to energy independence.”

BHO lied; he can’t possibly cut our dependence on foreign oil unless drilling is opened in the US. We are going to use oil, we have to use oil, and we have no other way of shipping goods, whether by air, rail, or road. It is ludicrous to think we can wean ourselves off foreign oil because we have no alternative power. Wish as you may, there is no other power, and if we start paying for it now, as BHO wants to do, it will be many, many years before any results will come. And BHO knows this. His “Cap and Trade” policy is not to cut carbon use; it is to raise taxes on everyone. The lower and middle-income will be hit hardest. Gas, electric, and all consumer goods will increase. Do you think BHO is any different than any other president in the past 100 years? Yes, it’s about oil, it always has been about oil. The US along with other world leaders has always tried to protect or control the oil of the middle-east.

The left lives in a fantasy world.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 25, 2009 5:32 PM
Comment #278617

> Do you think BHO is any different than any other president in the past 100 years?
The left lives in a fantasy world.
Posted by: Oldguy at March 25, 2009 05:32 PM

The answer to the question: Yes

Response to childish reference: Nice place to be

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2009 6:10 PM
Comment #278620

Then we have no reason to send more troops to Afghanistan. Liberals have no stomach for war, so lets just call the troops home. The left has already told us that this area is another Vietnam. Let’s call for a pullout. Since this article sees the real reason for being there is for oil.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 25, 2009 6:51 PM
Comment #278626

Oldguy
At least you got one on the left to admit he lives in a fantasy world. It’s a start!!!!

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2009 7:36 PM
Comment #278627

Oldguy,
Yes President Obama is different than the rest of the Presidents of the last 100 years. For why I realize that President Bush could not explain to UBL or the rest of the World how to fight his way out of a paper bag. President Obama grew up knowing that the Road to the Promise Land was possible.

Now for Afgan, why an expensive adventure I do believe that if America and the rest of the World would properly use their For and Non-Profit Corporations than a lot of the problems can be solved. For exanple; the poppy plant production in Afgan is suppose to be the best in the world, yet not one medical company has stepped forward and offered to buy all the product that they can produce. Why? Yes, it would hurt the heronie trade as prices for the raw material increases; however, it would also lower the cost of medical morophine and other opium drugs on the market.

No, I’m not claiming that I know what is best for the Afgan People; nevertheless, I do believe that President Bush promised that he would bring the country into the 21st Century. So, while President Obama is under no obligation to keep following that policy I do believe that the Corporate World has the resources to show the rest of us that they can truely make a difference.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 25, 2009 7:39 PM
Comment #278628

Oldguy,
“Liberals have no stomach for war, so lets just call the troops home.”

You’re right about that. War makes me sick. It disgusts me. War is a last resort, not a choice. I say that as a liberal and a veteran. We went into Afghanistan because of Osama bin Laden & because the Taliban government refused to hand him over, & provided a sanctuary for Al Qaida. They paid a heavy price. We stayed in the country without building the infrastructure the way we promised. We gave a half-hearted effort to finding Osama bin Laden because we moved the troops and funds into a pointless invasion and occupation of Iraq. We put a former UNOCAL consultant in charge of the country, and it didn’t work out. Our allies have been awesome in working with the US. Now we have a terrible financial situation on our hands, and it’s time to wind down those wars or occupations or whatever you want to call them.

Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2009 7:40 PM
Comment #278633

Oldguy

We are going to use oil, we have to use oil, and we have no other way of shipping goods, whether by air, rail, or road.

That is absolutely false. We have the technology today to eliminate our use of fossil fuels by the end of the century, all we need is the political will to actually implement these technologies.

Rowan,
We need to remain in Afghanistan in order to destroy the Al Qaeda organization and make certain that they are unable to execute any attacks on the United States.

I believe any natural gas/oil pipelines there are only minor distractions to the greater issue at stake. In any case, a pipeline from Central Asia to the Pakistani Coast would go a long way toward preserving the sovereignty of these states, which are currently reliant on Russia. This is especially true in light of Russia’s use of threatened natural gas cut-offs to exert influence over Eastern European countries (especially Ukraine).

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2009 7:52 PM
Comment #278651
We have the technology today to eliminate our use of fossil fuels by the end of the century, all we need is the political will to actually implement these technologies.

Politicial will is irrelevant, we will do so long before the end of the century because it makes business sense and common sense. The problem is that we cannot ‘magically’ get there by just throwing taxpayer money (money we pay into the system) at it. It requires science to follow the inevitable path it will take, it can’t be driven by a political bureaucracy. Political entities such as the federal government will never lead us to the best, most effective method because of political forces pulling on that train, only nimble private individuals will find the best and most effective paths. This has been proven over and over and over again.

Believe in the fairy tale of a centralized politburo directing our lives for our own good all you wish, if you want to get there you need the federal government keeping their noses out of it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 25, 2009 11:34 PM
Comment #278655

Rhinehold,
So you agree with President Obama that there is no Silver Bullet to fix the energy problem.

Wrong!
Have the Federal Government put up the money to transform every Automotive Plant in the U.S. A to mass produce the 250 million electric/natural gas cars and trucks as well as build the extra ones need so it can be done in less than 5 years.

Than have the Federal Government guaranteed the loans to the banks so that every Amer4ican can afford to purchase them.

Than take the $750 Billion America saves from importing foreign oil and pay down the whole thing. For who will care if the price of oil goes to $200.00 a barrel at that point.

Yes, America can wait on “We the Corporations” to get their act together as if we have another 100 years to become Oil Independent; however, the one thing you are forgetting is that “We the People” still rule the hen house. And I can guarantee you that She is not going to what for a bunch of stuffed suits to get off their butt. Especially since they have a President of the United States of America that has a Vision for the Future.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 25, 2009 11:58 PM
Comment #278659
Have the Federal Government put up the money to transform every Automotive Plant in the U.S. A to mass produce the 250 million electric/natural gas cars and trucks as well as build the extra ones need so it can be done in less than 5 years.

Henry,

And how would we power these vehicles? The extra burden on the electrical grid and current production of natural gas of the US would be staggering, as well as cripple our economy since we would not be able to recharge our vehicles quickly enough.

DO we have the charging/refuling stations set up throughout the US yet? That infrastructure would have to be built as well. We don’t have the technology to quickly charge electric cars. The retrofitting of the plants would take more money that you are calculating, etc.

If I want to take a cross country drive, for example, with an electric car that takes today about 6 hours to fully charge, just to drive around 120 miles, it would take me a lot longer than it does now.

Nevermind the educational programs that would have to be implemented to retrain all mechanics to work on those vehicles.

Nevermind the polluting effects that would place by burning coal that is far dirtier and more dangerous to get out of the ground than gas.

Nevermind the retraining that every citizen would be forced to go through to drive an electric vehicle (they are not like driving gas powered cars).

Nevermind the waste of the cars we already have in existence.

Nevermind the tax on the resources of steel and other metals that are already stretched.

Nevermind that small electric cars are good for urban driving but not at all good for long distance driving leaving most people who live in rural areas (about half of the citizens of the country) would be hit with a hardship of being forced to do so.

Nevermind the fact that we don’t have the technology today for safe electric SUV, anyone with more than 1 or 2 kids would be left looking for a way to get their family places.

Your plan is short-sighted and unfeasable. It would do more harm than good to rush something like that through our economy, especially at a time like this. It is irresponsible beyond all imagination.

We will get there, it will take longer than 5 years but we are ALREADY on the path. The shuttles between the airports and the car rental lots/parking garages are natural gas in most cities. The buses in most cities are being converted, responsibly, to natural gas or electric.

And it is exactly the type of POLITICAL answer that is WRONG for the country that a governmental entity, who has the power to force it upon its citizens, that we should keep out of political devices.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 12:11 AM
Comment #278672

Rhinehold,
Why my plan is acutally long-sighted and feasable, what it is happens to be Unconstitutionaland against Civil Law. So, that being said I do believe that your local store has already established the method I would choice if I was going to make an Electric-Natural Gas Vehicle. For why the general population already knows how to switch out their propane tank on their home grill. I could see pulling up to the store and having an Attendent quickly change out the tanks.

And why it would temporarly create a new job, I can see a day in the near future where the Customer could do the task by themselves or whatever means the Children of the 21st Century thought best.

So, you can enjoy driving your family cross the country while Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders figure out the logistics of such things. Because if we do not the shuttles between the airports and the car is not going to matter.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 26, 2009 2:43 AM
Comment #278684

> Liberals have no stomach for war…
Posted by: Oldguy at March 25, 2009 06:51 PM

FDR (WWII)…Truman (Korea)…Kennedy (Missile Crisis)…Johnson (Viet Nam Stupidity)…Clinton (Kosovo)…

Those on the left can be just as mongering as those on the right can be stupid about war. Boxer Rebellion (rescuing the British?), Spanish American (Remember the Maine?), Mexican (Chasing Pancho?), Korea (Stopping Communism?), Cuba (Bay of Piglets?), Grenada (Stopping Communists?), Panama (Stopping a Fruitcake?), Gulf War I (Saving a despot from a despot?)…there is no corner on war’s stupidity…right/left…mongering is mongering.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2009 6:05 AM
Comment #278687

MD
You forgot Wilson and WW1(stupidity)


The only legitimate reason for involvement in Afganistan is to prevent it from being used as a basis of attack on the US,period. No country can allow a place for continued attacks like 9/11 to forment. Whether it has a democratic government, a religious government or no government at all does not matter only that it does not harbor known enemies,prepareing new attacks.

Posted by: bills at March 26, 2009 7:31 AM
Comment #278689

KAP:

They All live in a fantacy world:

Henry Schlatman:

I have a real hard time following your thought line. Do you have a problem with the English language?

“Now for Afghan, why an expensive adventure I do believe that if America and the rest of the World would properly use their for and Non-Profit Corporations than a lot of the problems can be solved. For example; the poppy plant production in Afghan is suppose to be the best in the world, yet not one medical company has stepped forward and offered to buy the entire product that they can produce.”

Now, if I understand you correctly, you are asking why American companies don’t go to Afghan & invest in their infrastructure? Well, number one, according to the left, corporations are on the level of the “Great Satan”, so why would the left want the enemy to get involved in Afghan? TThe left don’t want corporations to succeed in America, why would you want them to suceed in another country. Secondly, why would any American company want to go over there, knowing that the dems are in charge?

Phx8:

So what determines if a war is the last resort? If a republican is in charge, war is not justified, but if democrat is in charge, it is the last resort. You’re saying that all means of settling the problem in Afghan have been exhausted? I have never in my long lifetime seen a liberal come to the point of saying all other means have been exhausted. I don’t understand why the left is not screaming to bring all the troops home. Last year you were. Is it justified to fight an unwinnable war in Afghan that is being fought solely for the purpose of gas lines, simply because the president is now a dem? So much for your principles.

WR:

“That is absolutely false. We have the technology today to eliminate our use of fossil fuels by the end of the century; all we need is the political will to actually implement these technologies.”

First of all, the end of the century is 91 years away and long after we are dead and buried. I may be wrong, but I don’t think we can wait that long. The average person is concerned about what it will cost them to heat and cool their houses, and how they will get to work next month. You guys really think ahead, don’t you?

“In any case, a pipeline from Central Asia to the Pakistani Coast would go a long way toward preserving the sovereignty of these states, which are currently reliant on Russia. This is especially true in light of Russia’s use of threatened natural gas cut-offs to exert influence over Eastern European countries (especially Ukraine).”

Let me get this straight, it’s ok for foreign countries to access their on natural reserves of fuel in order to maintain their sovereignty and not be held hostage by foreign powers, but it’s not ok for America to do the same thing? This is a great example of liberal thought.

Rhinehold is right. The government doesn’t have the ability to come in out of the rain, and you trust them to create oil independence. With the government, it’s about taxes and power and nothing else. Private enterprise and a free market is what make advances in technology, not government.

Marysdud:

Only WWI and II were called wars, the rest were called police actions or some other name. But never war, just as the left has been trying to change the name “War on Terror” ever since it started. I said dems have no stomach for war, but they have created conflicts to cover other things (Clinton and the blue dress). When a liberal does get in a conflict, it is never with a plan for victory.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 26, 2009 8:38 AM
Comment #278690

Cheney/Bush had a plan for victory??? BushI had a plan for victory??? You may be an old guy, but you never seem to learn. War is mostly unnecessary, and whether it is a ‘police action’ (Korea), drug raid (Panama), invasion for oil (Iraq), just being stupid (Grenada), or something else righties and lefties are equally dumb and dumber.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2009 8:45 AM
Comment #278694

Then you won’t have a problem calling for all our troops to be sent home?

Why should we be in Afghan to protect natural gas supplies? This came from your side, want to answer this? After all the hammering Bush took over oil, and I might add you are still bringing it up, and yet it’s ok in Afghan?

Posted by: Oldguy at March 26, 2009 9:15 AM
Comment #278695

Oldguy,
When it comes to My Elders and Peers, Yep! However, I can assure you that your Grandchildren can tell you what I am talking about.

As far as Afgan, I would like to see an American Medical Corporation go to the country and show their citizens how they can use their Cardinal Knowledge of the poppy plant to work in the global supply of opium based medicine. At least a majority of the crop would be going to fuel Societies Goals vs. allowing the crop to be used by the likes of Al Qaeda to raise money.

Hell, the worse thing we could have Americas’ Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders repel the regulations that keep them illegal. Although the figures would look good on the Bottom Line for Government and Business.

And if the Democrats still believe that the Corporation is The Great Satan than why in the 1990’s it seems that every American was making money? However, I will give you the fact that the Democrats in the 70’s felt burned by Big Business Drive to chase the dollar.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 26, 2009 9:34 AM
Comment #278702

Henry,

And in 2008 we REALLY got burned by the dollar chase…

Old, there is a good reason for going into Afghanistan…there is not so good a reason for staying there. We really need to get our business there done and get out. This will soon turn into a quagmire, and that is unacceptable.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2009 10:55 AM
Comment #278703

HS:

You did a better job this time; I believe I can understand what you are trying to say. Since you tell me my grandchildren would be able to understand you, then I am presuming you to be very young. And as a young person, I don’t believe you have the slightest idea what was taking place in the 70’s.

You believe an “American Medical Corporation” should go to Afghan, and I am assuming you are talking about a Pharmaceutical Company. In case you didn’t know this, the Pharmaceutical companies are on the hit list of liberals because they are part of the health care problem. Of course Pharmaceutical companies are like all companies, they work for a profit. What profit would there be to go to Afghan and “show their citizens how they can use their Cardinal Knowledge of the poppy plant to work in the global supply of opium based medicine”? Who is supposed to pay for the salaries of these Pharmaceutical company employees?

Secondly, it is too dangerous for civilians to go to Afghan, especially when they are there to interfere with their illegal income.

The drug problem is the result of corrupt politicians who put their own personal gain (payoffs with drug money) ahead of what is right for their country. Similar to what dem liberals are doing in our government. This is why the dems want to make a 3rd world nation out of America.

“I will give you the fact that the Democrats in the 70’s felt burned by Big Business Drive to chase the dollar”.

I would like to let you in on a little known secret: all companies are in business to make money and all investors are also in business to make money. Saying big business likes to chase the dollar is like saying liberal democrats have never seen a tax hike they couldn’t support.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 26, 2009 10:57 AM
Comment #278705

Marysdud:

“Old, there is a good reason for going into Afghanistan…there is not so good a reason for staying there. We really need to get our business there done and get out.”

Could you tell me the reason? What does BHO hope to accomplish? He has already been ordering missle hits in Pakistan. Doesn’t this increase the possibility of an expanded war?

Hey, you guys are not going to be allowed to have it both ways: either you are for the war or your against it. BHO promised to pull out and promised his radical left support that he would bring the troops home.

I want you to justify our being in Afghan with prospects of expanding into Pakistan.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 26, 2009 11:07 AM
Comment #278708

Old,

Senility must be setting in…the way I remember it is He promised to get us out of Iraq and to finish the business of Afghanistan…the first half of the promise is being accomplished as we speak, and he has tackled the second half…but then…I AM getting OLD…

By the way, most here find it fairly easy to communicate with Henry, if you have that problem, perhaps you should look within???

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2009 11:36 AM
Comment #278717

oldguy

guess obamas going to get bin ladin. thats why the libs say afghanistan was justified, and iraq wasn’t. funny thing is that he’s no longer in afghanistan so why are we going to stay? to be honest with you IMO bin laden is dead, and has been since tora bora. ya we’ve had some tapes but no actual video or anything else for that matter that is absolute proof that he’s not taking a dirt nap. do you believe someone that arrogant would quit trying to stick his finger in americas eye? IMO both sides have a vested interest in him still being alive. if it was proven he was dead, the left could not continue droaning on that we didn’t get him, and the fact that he was killed under bushs watch would be a fate worse than death. for the terrorist it would be a huge blow to thier morale.

Posted by: dbs at March 26, 2009 12:58 PM
Comment #278724

I’m assuming that you mean…everyone on the left is in bed with terrorists? Obama is a terrorist? Please clarify…

Our entry into Afghanistan WAS justified for the pursuit/capture/killing of Osama ben Ladin. Our entry there did not lack honor, as did our invasion of Iraq. It may or may not be justifiable for the same reason now, but it is not a sustainable reason. We need to GET THE JOB DONE. There is no more evidence that Osama is dead than that he is still alive. I don’t think it wise to assume he’s dead, because he has proven himself to be too dangerous.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2009 1:59 PM
Comment #278729

“I’m assuming that you mean…everyone on the left is in bed with terrorists? Obama is a terrorist? Please clarify…”

it was rhetorical. where did you get the idea that i was saying obama and the left were terrorists?

“It may or may not be justifiable for the same reason now, but it is not a sustainable reason. We need to GET THE JOB DONE.”

exactly. whether you believe going into iraq was justified or not, we are getting the job done. funny thing is for years the left has continued to say it was a lost cause. at least obama seems to be listening to those who are in charge on the ground, and not just calling for imediate withdrawl for purely political reasons.

as far as bin ladin, i’m sure if he is alive and pops his head up we’ll get him. but looking at his m.o., and arrogant nature, i think it is very unlikely that he would have gone this long with out putting out one of his famous FU america presentations. i’de bet money on him being dead or at least medicaly incapacitated as he is known to have serious medical problems.

at this point catching or killing him would only be a morale booster as there are many who have been trained to carry on the fight he started.

Posted by: dbs at March 26, 2009 2:36 PM
Comment #278742

dbs

I agree with you, he is arrogant and would have to show himself if alive. These muslims thrive on lies and deception, it is to their advantage to keep him alive, whether he is or not. And, yes, it would be a fate worse than death to the libs, if he were already dead. Could you imagine Bush getting credit for his demise?

I want to know how the left feels about attacking in Pakistan territory. Wouldn’t that be considered expanding the “POLICE ACTION”. Can liberals justify an expanded action? What does “getting the job done” consist of? Personally, I never felt it was dishonorable in either case.

I want to know when the left will say enough, let’s cut and run?

Posted by: Oldguy at March 26, 2009 3:51 PM
Comment #278764

Oldguy,
A proud Child of the 70’s I realize that some of My Peers have problems seeing past the two deminsional thinking of Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders; however, if you care to discuss what a 6.4 Billion 360 degree multi-deminsional world is than lets play the game. However, out of respect to your Children and Grandchildren I do believe that they need to explain to you what 3D Thinking is. But good luck getting them to do that.

And again as far as Afgan, saying that it is not safe enough for an American Corporation to go to Afgan and speak about buying their poppy plants for medicine is flase at best. No, if Big Brother can do business in Iraq and other waring nations than turn around and call Afgan to wild leans toward the Argument of Stupidty.

No, more likely the Medical Corporations do not want to get into a bidding war with Illegal Drug Dealers over the same product. For by doing so not only will it cause the price of heroine on the street, but also drive up crime as more drug addicts will need more money to maintain their buzz.

And again I have to ask why the Conservatives and Republicans now seem against the wars started under their Party Watch? Is it out of fear that President Obama will get credit for winning them or the fact that the wars America was lead into were only suppose to help the Republicans maintain control?

Now I realize that most Americans do not understand what is going on in Afgan; nevertheless, seeing that the people we went there to defeat still want to rape and plunder the country side I do believe that our job is far from being over. So in order to help keep the Peace in America I wonder if those citizens who oppose President Obama would care to move to Afgan and show their Citizens why the Loyal Opposition is right.

And oh yea, Oldguy if you have not noticed the Democratic Party is no longer the one you remember from the 1970’s and 80’s. In fact, if you corner them into a debate about building a Better World today they do have an answer unlike their political counterpart the Republicans.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 26, 2009 5:35 PM
Comment #278771

I’ve said it all along. There is no way anything positive can come out the Iraq stupidity, because it was entered into dishonorably. Any net gain will be tainted with that dishonor. The people may end up better off (doubtful), but that was not our affair to begin with…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2009 5:51 PM
Comment #278774

Should We Surge in Afghanistan?

This is from my blog on the subject under Government Plans. http://indianaoracle.wordpress.com

During Obama’s election campaign, he often stated that we should be focusing our middle-east military operations on Afghanistan. Were he to be elected, this would become US military direction in that part of the world.

I mark the beginning of our challenges and costs in that general region (Kuwait notwithstanding), the day we moved from strike mode to occupation-nation-building mode in Iraq.

As an ex-military officer with a solid understanding of history and politics, expanding the campaign in that way was high-risk, and, yet again, deploying military force in support of utopian ideals. Many of my equally patriotic readers may disagree with this at some level.

Regardless, Afghanistan is another “war of choice”. I feel the same way about Afghanistan as I did about Iraq, only more strongly. Here is the logic. (this is an equal-opportunity offender article)

Content: The President, Current Military Situation, The Opium Problem, History of Afghan Campaigns, Get OBL, Five Big Questions, Can We Afford It? Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by: Indiana Oracle at March 26, 2009 6:12 PM
Comment #278778

HS

I have absolutely no idea what 3d thinking is and doubt that my grandchildren do either. I think someone has smoked to much loco weed.

HELLO, anyone out there? Are there any liberals who think US Pharmaceutical companies should be buying “poppy plants” in Afghanistan? Let’s have some discussion; will this help the Afghan situation?

“And oh yea, Oldguy if you have not noticed the Democratic Party is no longer the one you remember from the 1970’s and 80’s.”

Your correct; the democratic party of the 70’s was liberal and today they are outright socialist.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 26, 2009 6:28 PM
Comment #278786

>Your correct; the democratic party of the 70’s was liberal and today they are outright socialist.
Posted by: Oldguy at March 26, 2009 06:28 PM

Old,

That has GOT to be the single most ridiculous statements I’ve read lately…do you even know what socialism is? Obama may be capitalism’s savior…it can’t seem to save itself, and to salvage it Republicans merely want more of the same things that brought it to its knees.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2009 7:19 PM
Comment #278800

Marysdud:

“That has GOT to be the single most ridiculous statements I’ve read lately…do you even know what socialism is? Obama may be capitalism’s savior…”I’m glad you asked that question. This is the definition of “Socialism” found in Webster’s dictionary:

socialism
Pronunciation:
\ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Now you do realize I was talking about the democratic Party as a whole, although BHO does fit the definition. I am copying and pasting a commentary, written by Henry Lamb for the WorldNet Dailey. I am pasting it so it will be read and I will include the link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=78330

Is Obama a socialist?

________________________________________
Posted: October 18, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009
“Socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: The end justifies the means.
For more than half a century, capitalism in the United States has taken a beating from the socialist revolution. Despite the best efforts of conservatives since the Roosevelt era, socialists have made great strides toward converting the nation to socialism. Apparently, the majority of Americans either fail to recognize the transition, or welcome it. The enthusiastic support for Barack Obama, especially among young people, is abundant evidence.
Obama has declared that he believes every person has a “right” to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a “right” to health care.
Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. (Hear Obama’s words here.)
The Socialist Party USA recognizes the “right” of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home-financing industries.

The Socialist Party USA believes that “capitalism is fundamentally incompatible” with socialism. For years, Obama worked in Chicago through the Annenberg Challenge, along with Bill Ayers, to funnel more than $50 million to anti-capitalist education projects. In November 2006, Ayers traveled to Venezuela to speak at Hugo Chavez’s Education Forum where he railed against “the failings of capitalist education,” and praised the “Bolivarian Revolution and the profound reforms in education made by Hugo Chavez.”
The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six-months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of “comprehensive” immigration reform. Listen to Obama’s promises to La Raza in 2007.
The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says, “I will end this war,” with never a reference to “winning” or “victory.”
The Socialist Party USA calls for the “unconditional disarmament” by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending. Listen to his words here.
The Socialist Party USA calls for a “livable guaranteed annual income.” Obama trained ACORN members to conduct “Living Wage” campaigns in cities around the country.
The Socialist Party USA calls for a “steeply graduated” tax policy to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor. He revealed his philosophy when answering a question from Joe the plumber, who complained that he was being taxed for his success. Obama said:
It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.
This list of comparisons could be quite long. This is sufficient to reveal an unmistakable similarity between Obama’s political beliefs and the beliefs of the Socialist Party USA. The tragedy is that Obama’s supporters don’t care. In fact, many of his supporters are delighted that he promises to usher in a new era of socialism, and push the memory of capitalism further into history.
Socialists, who are in perpetual revolution, who believe that the end justifies the means, have worked through educational institutions, non-government organizations such as ACORN and by electing socialists to public office to silence teaching the virtues of free enterprise, capitalism, private property, individual responsibility and personal achievement. For nearly two generations, students have been fed a steady diet of socialism under a variety of disguises, including Outcome Based Education, No Child Left Behind, School-to-Work and a host of other “feel good” slogans.
Students and young adults no longer know why capitalism is better than socialism. Like Obama, young people really believe that when government redistributes wealth, “it’s good for everybody.” They do not realize that wealth redistribution is no substitute for wealth creation. They are never taught that the only way to create wealth is for an individual to combine his energy and intellect with resources to produce a product that improves his life, or for which someone else is willing to pay.
Private property, the accumulation of personal prosperity and individual achievement are anathema to socialism. Socialism sees the individual as nothing more than a cog in a government-run machine designed to ensure equity for all.
Capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks equity. Freedom increases as prosperity increases. In a socialist system, there can be neither.”

Now that you have read the article and the definition, perhaps you could tell me why my statement is “ridiculous”?


Posted by: Oldguy at March 26, 2009 8:55 PM
Comment #278802

Of course we can look at the latest moves by the dems to see them incorporating these very things

1. passing laws to tax, retroactively certain individuals
2. Giethner’s request for more power to control all business.
3. the takeover of banks and AGI.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 26, 2009 9:04 PM
Comment #278816

BTW, have I said recently that I love South Park? Last night’s episode ROCKED!

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 10:37 PM
Comment #278819

What you call ‘socialism’ I call Representative Democracy. When conservative capitalism falls down a well, Representative Democracy tosses the rescue rope. We elected President Obama to do just what he is doing. The reason is that the other way did not work…it fell down the well. Obama is not going to nullify your precious ‘capitalism’, he is going to save it from self-destruction. You should be thanking him.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2009 10:45 PM
Comment #278835

Rhinehold,

Political entities such as the federal government will never lead us to the best, most effective method because of political forces pulling on that train, only nimble private individuals will find the best and most effective paths. This has been proven over and over and over again.

Were you refering to NASA’s moon mission? When did the private individuals get there?

Or perhaps you were thinking of the role government played in Edison’s idea of power generation. Which private individual funded and did that on their own?

I won’t deny it takes science and private initiative, but pretending that government has no role is more than a bit dishonest.

Rowan,

While I agree Unocal and others have played a major role in the “stans” politics for some time now, as Obama likes to say, the world is a complicated place. There are many factors in our involvement there and it is without doubt we have interests there. Pretending we don’t won’t make Bin Laden go away. I think coopting the Taliban could be a smart move or a grossly stupid one, depending on implementation.

That said, I think Ward Churchill said some prescient things about Wall Street and the violence it wreaks in corners of the world, including middle class America. I think his crucifixion in the press was proportional to his hitting at a core truth. Yes, what he said was abhorrent to many, but a deeper understanding of his position was not that far off the mark. Raw power isn’t usually pretty.

Posted by: gergle at March 27, 2009 12:38 AM
Comment #278837

Oldguy,
That is why you sometimes have a hard time following what I am sayong. For why not the exact answer, 3D Thinking has something to do with the fact that you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to my opinion; however, somewhere in the middle lays the Cold Hard Truth.

Sort of like a coin, heads, tail, and the edge. No wonder My Peers lose the Batlle of Stupidity with Their Children.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 27, 2009 12:54 AM
Comment #278843

If ‘conservatives’ demonstrated devotion to the Constitution and freedom and liberty during the Bush administration, and opposed signing statements, the Patriot Act, torture, and so on, I make take them seriously. Unfortunately, most conservatives remained silent when Bush rode roughshod over Constitutional rights. Conservatives remained silent about nation building in Iraq. They said nothing when the GOP cut taxes and increased spending, and Bush never vetoed anything done by the conservative GOP. Conservative cowardice led them to trade their rights in exchange for security, and to their eternal shame, they cut a deal.

So when we hear protests about nationalization, and fears of socialism and dictatorship from these people who were so silent for so long; truly, they deserve to be ignored, and they do not deserve respect. They want Obama to fail. They want his policies to fail. They want America to fail, because they think that will redeem their philosophy and their moral cowardice during the Bush years, and their faux devotion to liberty; as if people will turn to them should depression cripple the country.

Posted by: phx8 at March 27, 2009 1:46 AM
Comment #278849

phx8,

Quick question. From your above comment, signing statements are bad, right? I just want to make sure I am clear on your position on that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2009 5:03 AM
Comment #278850

He only finds signing statements distasteful when they are overused in circumventing the Constitution or otherwise flying in the face of law.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 27, 2009 5:36 AM
Comment #278854

So, if a president were to sign a signing statement that gave him a de facto ‘line item veto’, which has been ruled unconstitutional, he would be upset about that, right?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/3/12/9530/52038

I just want to make sure we are on the same page…

President Obama’s signing statement and declared intention to not follow certain provisions of the Omnibus Spending bill are a de facto line item veto. I would argue that the very fact that instead of relying on clear Supreme Court precedent, as the President does in the first part of his signing statement, and instead of being a declaration of what the law may mean in a hypothetical scenario, as many generalized assertions in signing statements are, the specificity of and the stated and express declaration to NOT abide by the law make this signing statement, in this procedural aspect, as bad or worse than President Bush’s signing statements.
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2009 7:10 AM
Comment #278856

Marysdud:

So you accuse me of not understanding the term socialism and when I send proof of the democrats move to socialize our nation, you respond with this weak statement:

“What you call ‘socialism’ I call Representative Democracy. When conservative capitalism falls down a well, Representative Democracy tosses the rescue rope. We elected President Obama to do just what he is doing. The reason is that the other way did not work…it fell down the well. Obama is not going to nullify your precious ‘capitalism’; he is going to save it from self-destruction. You should be thanking him.”

The definition I gave you was from Webster dictionary and the definition did not include the term “Representative Democracy”. You have no answers to the socialist moves of BHO, Pelosi, and Reid, that will completely change our nation? I do not see capitalism failing, I see people who were working for their own best interests and became crooks. Madoff was a crook, although he was considered to be a great capitalist. If the current laws and warnings had been heeded, his scam would never have happened.

If our nation manages to survive, and I am having my doubts about that, BHO will go down in the history books as another Chavez, Castro, Mussolini, or even Hitler. All Germany needed was a crisis and the people blindly followed Hitler as the savior of the nation. You tell me I should be thankful for BHO, and I say he is a “Type” of anti-Christ.

There are no limits to the power he will seek and control he will demand over the public. Time will tell.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 27, 2009 8:46 AM
Comment #278860

Obama plans to send in 4,000 more U.S. military troops, whose mission will be to train and expand the Afghan army to take the lead on counterterrorism. He also plans to send in hundreds more U.S. civilians to help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their nation.

Those forces are on top of the 17,000 extra combat troops that Obama has already approved.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_afghanistan

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 27, 2009 9:50 AM
Comment #278861

RD

The civilian force is part of the Obama “Brown Shirts”, http://www.desertconservative.com/2009/03/23/obamas-brown-shirtscloser-to-a-reality/

This is all part of the move to “change” america. The change we were promised. I have a feeling they are not the changes we expected. Do you think it is possible to take over a free nation and create a dictatorship. No wonder the push to ban 2nd ammendment rights. Hillary is blaming 2nd ammend for the problems in Mexico. AG Napolitano is also planning to crack down on gun owners. Revolution is coming. I never thought I would ever see this day, although my father who whould be 98 years old if still alive, told me 50 years ago, this was coming.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 27, 2009 10:28 AM
Comment #278862

This “civilian” force is part of putting america to work. Just what we need, more government employees. How do we pay them? More taxes and just print more money.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 27, 2009 10:31 AM
Comment #278869

The word ‘socialism’ is being over used as a scare tactic. The strategy is to make as many people as possible scared to death of the man trying to salvage something (including capitalism) out of the muddle our unregulated free market got us into.

1. Not all social policy is bad.

2. Not all capital policy is good.

3. Every government has some of each.

4. The most successful ones, i.e., the United States of America, is a balance of the two.

I’m not afraid of Social Security nor the public school system…apparently, you are.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 27, 2009 11:11 AM
Comment #278870

Rhinehold,
Signing statements have been around since the beginning of the country. In the past, their use was rare, usually to clarify the Executive branch interpretation of legislation. Bush took it into new territory, as a method of making law, which is far beyond the power anyone ever envisioned for the Executive branch. The Bush signing statements re-interpreted legislation into something very different from what was intended, or simply said the legislation did not bind the Chief Executive. He carried out more signing statement than all previous presidents combined.

Posted by: phx8 at March 27, 2009 11:13 AM
Comment #278871

My little book in my little red Jeep is of the constitution and it’s not Red!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 27, 2009 11:15 AM
Comment #278875

Md:

You ought to be scared. The 2 examples you have given are failing. Two examples of government run programs. SS is failing, and every time a move is made to correct the problem, the dems scare thae crap out of old people. This is an example of Lee’s latest post in the red column. The old saying that a “boat is a hole in the water in which you keep throwing money”, applies to public schooling. We just keep throwing money at the problem and the students results keep getting worse. Great examples of socialism. In fact, why don’t you give me an example of a successfully run government program?

Posted by: Oldguy at March 27, 2009 11:38 AM
Comment #278877

Rodney,

I don’t carry mine in my car, but have it within easy reach when at home. I take it out and peruse it on a regular basis. It, like the Magna Carta, the Bible and other moral tomes, is indispensable in defining ways to live and to govern. Because it is the law of the land, and the best guide to a representative democracy, it must be closely followed and protected by our President. I am glad we have a Constitutional scholar in charge of protecting it this time instead of someone who refers to it as ‘just a god-damned piece of paper’…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 27, 2009 11:45 AM
Comment #278879

I believe you do Md, Bush Knew or cared about as much of it as Al Haig.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 27, 2009 11:52 AM
Comment #278880

Old,

You speak to me of ‘failure’??? Pahleeeze! What do you see when you look at the current unemployment figures, the numbers of foreclosures and bankruptcies…the number of tent cities growing up around our cities and large towns? Do you see capitalism’s successes?

Have you heard the news about our largest finance houses dumping their toxicity onto our global banking system? Have your ears clogged and your eyes closed to the suffering that is building and will continue to build until there is little left except the next fuedal system?

Why in the world are you still concerned about some regulation and a temporary take over of failing institutions? Damnit, man, there is a global financial meltdown under way, and you’re picking up your fiddle…go figure…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 27, 2009 11:55 AM
Comment #278883

Another article on Afghanistan with no reference to opium or poppies. Here’s an article from todays LATimes about a bombing near Peshawar, which is in Pakistan, close to the Afghan border. “Pakistan’s most lethal suicide bombing in months and underscored the spiraling violence that President Obama’s new regional policy, unveiled today in Washington, is meant to help address.”


Posted by: ohrealy at March 27, 2009 11:56 AM

Posted by: ohrealy at March 27, 2009 12:02 PM
Comment #278885
Signing statements have been around since the beginning of the country. In the past, their use was rare, usually to clarify the Executive branch interpretation of legislation. Bush took it into new territory, as a method of making law, which is far beyond the power anyone ever envisioned for the Executive branch. The Bush signing statements re-interpreted legislation into something very different from what was intended, or simply said the legislation did not bind the Chief Executive. He carried out more signing statement than all previous presidents combined.

Ok, so now it is just the number of them, not the fact that the individual statements might have been unconstitutional like Obama’s is. I like how that changed tune after I posted that article…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2009 12:08 PM
Comment #278886

oldguy

here in ohio during the election cycle i listened to endless radio ads by the faux pro 2nd amend. group the ” american hunters and shooters association ” and thier hack spokeshole ray schoenke saying obama believed in the 2nd amend. and would protect it and that the claims by th NRA that he would impose new far reaching gun controls were un true. guess what they were right. i new they were right, but to many voters were to fixated on the shiney object to really look any deeper, because if they had they too would have seen this comming. now they are using the drug war in mexico as an excuse to further infringe on our rights. i think you, and your father are correct. what a shame people so easily turn over thier freedom thinking the gov’t will keep them safe.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2009 12:09 PM
Comment #278894

dbs

What part of OH are you from, I’m in southwest. Family is KY transplants.

The only hope we have is that many redneck, blue-collar, union workers who believed the lie, will hold their rep and senators to task. If you will notice, liberal politicians (Dingle in MI, for example) are hesitant about gun control. Among union workers, this is one issue that will backfire on BHO.

Ever since the 60’s and Kennedy’s death, the dems have been hacking away at 2nd amend rights. They always need a crisis to pass laws. Wasn’t it BHO’s man who said “never waste a crisis”? Even if the crisis is manufactured.

MD

The problems we face are only some of the many this nation has faced in its history; from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War to WWI, the Depression, and WWII. And somehow we have always succeeded. If the government had just gone home and kept their mouths shut, we would have probably already been back to normal. It is a proven fact that FDR’s social programs extended the depression until WWII began. Don’t go back to the toxic loans and banks, we all know Frank and Dodd were, through HUD, Freddie, and Fannie created this mess. Another example of the government sticking their nose in and creating problems.

“Why in the world are you still concerned about some regulation and a temporary takeover of failing institutions?”

I am concerned because when it comes to the government, temporary becomes permanent.

Again, I ask you to name me one government controlled program that has been successful? And can you honestly say to the people on this site that SS and the public school system are successful?

Posted by: Oldguy at March 27, 2009 12:45 PM
Comment #278900

oldguy

i’m actually from california ( please don’t hold it against me ;-) )

i relocated to ohio @ 6 months ago, for a lot of different reasons. i live in west central ohio in bellefontaine it’s about 40 miles NE of dayton. i actually lived in SW ohio for @ a year as a kid when we relocated for my fathers job. we lived just off 275 & montgomery rd. right next to blue ash. i think the area is refered to as indian woods.

i hope you’re right about those union members, and the blue dogs they elected. i’ve been thinking the same thing. what worries me is that the dem leadership may try to punish them if they don’t stay in line. as far as the attack on the second amend. i think that started with roosevelt and the national firearms act of 1934. thats my opinion at least. have you ever read john ross’ book “unintended consiquences”? if not i’de highly recomend it. great story with a lot of historical references.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2009 1:10 PM
Comment #279005

>again, I ask you to name me one government controlled program that has been successful? And can you honestly say to the people on this site that SS and the public school system are successful?
Posted by: Oldguy at March 27, 2009 12:45 PM

Old,

Perhaps a better question might be:

Can you name a program the government has made worse than the situation was before the government got involved?

1. Social Security…currently the system may have to fold because there will be too few workers and they will be making less in wages, so it will become difficult to maintain.
But the reason Social Security came into being was that many of our older citizens were starving or freezing to death because they had not made enough in their lives to put aside enough for sustaining life into senior years, and families of poor people tend to be poor people themselves.
If the drying up of Social Security cannot be stopped, the same thing may happen again, but for those since the thirties, who have been aided from retirement to death, it has been a blessing.
Are you saying we should have just let them die early deaths because we should have perhaps seen a system failure sometime in the future?

2. The US Postal System served the country well, by providing affordable service from the time of the Pony Express until today. There was no corresponding civilian service available, and to wait for such competition would have postponed good mail service for decades, and perhaps a century.
If mail service had not been provided in a structured way by the government, how much more difficult would it have been for initiatives for progress to have occurred?
The Postal Service is failing, not because it has been run poorly, but because the need for such service has been steadily slacking for a couple of decades. Much like buffalo hunters, cowboys and rail road spike drivers, the postal service has just outlived its usefulness.

3. Where would this nation be and how would it have competed in this world without our public school system?
Yes the system has fallen on hard times, but do you not see that private business has also fallen on hard times?
With some patience and some tweaking business may very well survive the greed and chicanery that brought us down, and with a little patience and some much needed reform our public education may very well again provide a decent education to all our citizens.
Just because a government system falters does not mean it was a bad system nor does it mean it was not needed in the first place.

It is okay for you to be a government hater and foo-fooer, but please forgive me if I have a little more faith in our American spirit than that…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 28, 2009 7:09 AM
Comment #279006

PS:

My father was a carpenter in the twenties and thirties. He had four children (I came along in 1940), and with the financial failures after the stock market crash, he had a hard time finding work. With hungry mouths to feed, and desperation setting in, he was at wits end. He heard about a government program called the CCC. He applied for the program and worked at building national park buildings and trails at fifty cents per day. With that amount he was able to give sustenance to his family until such time as he could go to work for a rail road building stations and other buildings.

You can talk about FDR failures if you want to, but quite frankly the ‘social’ programs he initiated helped keep my family going at a time when ‘going’ was a seriously tough road to go. Just think, if it wasn’t for FDR, and his socialist regime, I would likely not be here setting you straight about FDR’s socialist regime…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 28, 2009 7:28 AM
Comment #279008

Marysdude,
Actually FDR programs wre not socialist, but very capitalistic. For how many roads where built for Commerce and Industry that are still in use today?

How much of a National Power Grid would America have today if it wasn’t for FDR Projects?

And how many Americans would still be on the Farm today if it was not for FDR programs in the 1930’s?

Yes, if I do recall properly it was Rush and Company that made fun of former VP Gore when he mentioned putting SS in a “Lock Box” in 2000 was it not?

Oh, and why the post office is no longer owned by the government and may need to change completely in the 21st Century. I do believe that without the Post Office in the 20th Century America would not be where She is today.

Now, in all fairness to Oldguy I do believe that once “We the People” can get Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders through Health Care Reform, Education Enlightenment, and Energy Independent that we need to take on the Entitlement Programs one by one. For IMHO, from AIG to Zebras in the Zoo you cannot tell me that the Government and Society of “We the People” cannot do a whole lot better than proving to others that we understand the Argument of Stupidity.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 28, 2009 8:46 AM
Comment #279019

SD

I asked you to name me government controlled programs that have succeeded and you name me the same 3 programs I name to you and then you defended their failures. I am still waiting to hear about the successful programs.

1. The reason for SS may have been noble, but there were other safety measures in those days. Many people received pensions, even though they were small, for military service, etc. Another thing that might be noted is that in those days retirement was not something that was looked forward to as today. Our family situations were much like the Amish today. The children took care of their parents, when they could no longer work. My grandfather lived with us until he died. My wife’s grandmother drew a small pension (not SS) and lived with her kids (traveling from one to another) until her demise at 97 years. But the problem with SS is that it was never a fund that was invested and used to pay benefits. I retired from the railroad and I draw RR retirement. RR retirement is very similar to SS, except the money was actually sealed in a “Locked Box”, where congress could not get their hands on it. SS became a slush fund that was “Pay as you go”. Now we have reached the age of the retiring boomers and there is no money because the government has been stealing it, since its inception, to pay for programs. It was set with good intentions, but immediately became a scam to tax and spend.

2. Concerning the postal system; yes good idea, but the same analysis can be applied. They created so many positions and the pay and retirement benefits were so high that it was impossible for incoming money to keep up with outgoing funds. Very similar to the problems the American big 3 auto industry faces. I have friends who retired from the postal service and they have very good benefits and were able to retire young. There are other shipping industries that can do the job of the postal service and would immediately move in to take over a failing system. Have you checked the wages and benefits of managers of the postal system? The left cries about the packages of private industry and yet these things also go on in government controlled programs. Freddie and Fannie for example.

3. The biggest change would be the school system. The schools in America were originally placed in the local churches and many pastors were the school teachers, simply because they had more education themselves. The idea of a public school system was again very noble, but the control of the schools was shifted from local control to government control and therein lays the problem. When the government controls the funds, then the system either falls in line or the funds are cut. Since government funds are used the local people have no control over what is taught. When the government decides what is taught there is a problem of a certain agenda being taught. I grew up in a time when teachers freely talked about God, and punishment was a ruler across the knuckles of a paddle on the behind. Students were respectful to their parents and teachers. Not so today, most inner city schools are no more than a zoo. The government keeps throwing money at the problem and things just get worse. There is one thing you can always count on; a politician promising to invest more money in education to fix the problems. How much is enough? It is fact that school vouchers work and for half the price children can get a better education. But the problem is that non-government schools have control to hire and fire good teachers and the NEA will not let democrats forget who is supporting them. Why do the politicians send their kids to private and religious schools but the public are not allowed? The public school system may again have been stet up with the right principles but they are failing today.

Now name me a government program that works and I might add is more economically run than the private sector?

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 11:35 AM
Comment #279029

You seem to ignore the point…NAME A PROGRAM THE GOVERNMENT HAS SCREWED UP THAT EITHER THE CIVILIAN SECTOR DID NOTHING ABOUT OR WAS COMPLICIT IN HOLDING DOWN.

You say Social Security was a noble cause, public education was a noble cause, the US Postal Service was a good cause…why was the government instrumental in causing these ‘noble causes’ to become viable, even for a short time? Why were these programs necessary? Because people needed them and there was NO CIVILIAN SUBSTITUTE.

Business and the moneyed few, had no cat in the fight, so only the government was left to ‘insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare’ of it’s citizens. That is what good government does…and, while each of these mentioned is not listed by nomenclature in our Constitution, the inference is surely there.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 28, 2009 1:55 PM
Comment #279045

promote the general wefare doesn’t mean to provide gov’t entitlements. a monthly check was not what the founders had in mind when they made that statement.

Posted by: dbs at March 28, 2009 3:23 PM
Comment #279049

dbs

The area is called Indian Hills and I live about 30 miles NW. I’m about 80 miles from you.

Oldguy

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 4:27 PM
Comment #279050

No, solving problems left unsolved by the private sector was on their minds, else why include it in the preamble? entitlements was a solution to an obvious problem that the private sector was uninterested in. Argue that there may have been a better solution to the aging starvation problem, because a better solution may have been available, i.e., “let them suckers die!”, but Social Security was the one chosen, and choosing it was well within the framework.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 28, 2009 4:30 PM
Comment #279062

MD

Then you tell me why SS is failing? How much longer will this great program work? What is america to do when we’re busted?

The left is always supposed to be looking out for the down trodden and underprivilaged, tell me does the voucher system work? Are the low income in DC happy to have a chance to send their kids to a productive school? Why would you not support vouchers?

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 6:26 PM
Comment #279063

“Follow the money”, who stands to gain by continuing to throw money into a failed system?

As long as politicians never fix a problem and the roles of leadership bounce back and forth, they will always use the problem to attract voters.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 6:30 PM
Comment #279066

>Why would you not support vouchers?
Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 06:26 PM

Because there are too many religious strings attached. Children should be encouraged to learn, in America, with its freedom from religion, without all the superstition attached. Many/most private schools are church sponsored. Churches have a priority that is far above the teachings necessary for good schooling, and that priority is recruitment. Recruiting, by its very nature, is a lie, pursued by liars. Why, with all the lying going on in the business world, in sports, and in government, would I want our children exposed to more of it?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 28, 2009 7:16 PM
Comment #279067

As far as Social Security is concerned…the system may collapse as predicted…it may also be salvaged by some factor yet unknown to me…but, either way, the Social Security program was entered into honestly. It was entered into for the very best of reasons. It was entered into legally, and until recently (two decades or so) was solvent. President Johnson laid the groundwork for its downfall because our citizens were not for his war. I doubt that he anticipated the harm he had done, but it was done none-the-less. Every administration since his has broken off a little chunk, until it will, barring some intervention, become insolvent sometime around 2040.

Because a program may fail is no excuse for not having the program in the first place. Failure was not built into the system to begin with, that will come later. There may be some things that just can’t be helped, like starvation of the elderly, but would you have preferred that nothing had been attempted?…”Just die you old fools!”???

Posted by: Marysdude at March 28, 2009 7:29 PM
Comment #279075

MD

Your argument is based upon you own personal beliefs rather than logic.

“Because there are too many religious strings attached. Children should be encouraged to learn, in America, with its freedom from religion, without all the superstition attached.”

What you are saying is, because you personally are against religion, parents do not have the right to train their own children. The government merely gives the voucher and the parent chooses the qualified school. The money used is taxpayer’s money and it is simply being given back to the taxpayer. It is superstition to you, but personal religious beliefs are the foundation beliefs of each individual. I find it amazing that you are basically saying that the 1st amendment does not exist in your opinion.

Up until the early 1960’s religion was taught and discussed in public schools. Are you saying the people who came out of this education system were less of a citizen than the ones who came out of the post religious system? That is disturbing.

You say a religious based school’s sole priority is recruitment and yet these schools consistently outperform the public school system.

I agreed that the intention for SS was noble and that corruption has destroyed the system. You have only proved my point that any government controlled system is destined to fail. The very idea of giving government more power and control is follows the same direction of SS and public education. But when ideas are brought forth to find a way to correct the problem, the liberal democrats block it simply because it would cut off the flow of money. Money that is stolen and used for personal pork projects. Are you not able to comprehend this?

“Because a program may fail is no excuse for not having the program in the first place.”

Spoken like a true liberal. Would you build a house if the architect told you it would fall down when it was 5 years old?

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 8:33 PM
Comment #279085

“Because there are too many religious strings attached. Children should be encouraged to learn, in America, with its freedom from religion, without all the superstition attached. Many/most private schools are church sponsored. Churches have a priority that is far above the teachings necessary for good schooling, and that priority is recruitment”

BS if the parents have a problem with the charter or private school they can choose not to accept the voucher. parents that have the chance to take thier kids out public schools do so because private and charter schools out perform public shools and do so on far les money. the oposition comes from teachers unions, and the politicians that rely on thier support.

Posted by: dbs at March 28, 2009 10:53 PM
Comment #279087

The NEA has been the major contributor to the destruction of our schools. Next comes the courts.

What MD is trying to say is that the parents do not have the right to religiously train their children. But it “takes a village” and the government to do the job correctly. They fill their little minds with mush.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 11:52 PM
Comment #279099

Churches are membership organizations. Membership organizations fail when membership slides. Far more important to churches than teaching the word of God…far more important than making sure students get a good education…by far more important, is increasing membership. It is what missionary work leads to, it’s what conversion results from, and it is why churches went into the business of education (parochial schools) to begin with.

Parochial schools, in the modern age, do not put out smarter or better prepared students than moderate to good public schools. The greatest difference between parochial and public schools is the flush membership rolls in the church that sponsors it.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 29, 2009 6:13 AM
Comment #279100

Oldguy,
Bingo! you said “Spoken like a true liberal. Would you build a house if the architect told you it would fall down when it was 5 years old?”

Well, considering many of Americas’ Ancestors did it without the help of an architect maybe the Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders over the years were smart to allow their Citizens to be educated enough to stop doing that Stupidity.

And BTW, it takes Self-Drive and Free Willingness to Learn Wisdom. Otherwise you are doing nothing, but repeating what a book or person told you are you not?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 29, 2009 6:13 AM
Comment #279108

For all the hoopla, I can’t see much difference the last election made in our two wars. McCain supports Obama and Pelosi is angry at him. We are drawing down troops in Iraq, which we would have done anyway. We are building up troops in Afghanistan which we would have done anyway. We have the same head of it all (Gates).

I do see things being called by different names. A Rose by any other name still smells as sweet! (bad analogy).

Politics is so strange. It is amazing to see obama follow Bush’s “failed policies in Iraq”.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 29, 2009 9:26 AM
Comment #279122

CH

I believe it was stated by several, when BHO got a real picture of what he was facing in that part of the country, he would see things differently. So much for the screaming and hollering about bringing the troops home. Things are never what they seem. My question, why are the libs trying to defend and justify his military moves now?

Posted by: Oldguy at March 29, 2009 1:58 PM
Comment #279134

Oldguy;

It is so wild. Campaign on bringing the troops home. First thing he does is increase the number of troops overseas.

Campaign against deficits and debt, first thing he does is increase the deficit farther than any president since WWII.

It is so astonishing to have the Europeans publicity expressing anger toward our new president’s policies so soon after his election.

Poll numbers declining. He is roughly where Bush was at this time in his presidency.

That is why politics is so interesting. Always setting new records in hypocrisy.

I wonder when Obama tries to overturn roe v wade?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 29, 2009 4:27 PM
Comment #279172

CH

I believe there is a mad rush to accomplish an agenda, because sooner or later there is going to arrise a cry of protest from the american people. Push things through while he is popular and while he has people convinced we are on the verge of total chaos.

I heard a dem congresswoman today on fox news. She is calling for gun control because there are about 250 american gun dealers selling guns to mexicans for drug money. My question is if they are selling guns to illegals and the government knows it, why don’t they enforce existing laws? It’s easier to create panic and pass laws on americans than to enforce existing laws on illegals. Gun control is a big agenda of the dems, but it is a hot button issue. It will cost the dems and they know it.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 29, 2009 11:46 PM
Comment #279188

Was that Congresswoman’s name Michelle Bachmann? Oops! I’m sorry, she’s the OTHER side of the kook coin…some Democrat somewhere says something about guns being a problem, and suddenly we are going to have a reinvention of the ‘fairness doctrine’…right? Oh, damn! With all these aspersions being tossed about, I lose track.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 30, 2009 3:36 AM
Comment #279206

It doesn’t matter who she is, she is still part of the controlling party and I would assume representing the ideas of her party.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 30, 2009 9:06 AM
Comment #279214

Does that mean you are in agreement with Bachman?

The strangest thing about the Democratic (liberal) party is our affinity for disagreement with each other. Lockstep, ditto heads we are not. I don’t agree with anyone who panics about guns on my side, and disagree about the same amount with those on your side who panic about the fairness doctrine.

It is a matter of political philosophy. The conservative view is a tunnel, the liberal view is a vista.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 30, 2009 10:51 AM
Comment #279309

PS:

It just occurred to me that the proof of what I say is in the pudding…I think we did the right thing by going into Afghanistan. Rowan does not, so although we both swerve left on the political spectrum, we are not in lockstep on all things. When I read posts from those on the right, they either agree with each other on all things, or say the same things in a different way…ditto-heads, even if they claim not to be Rushie followers.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 12:51 PM
Post a comment