No, he was appealing to moderates like me who believe that Afghanistan was the right action to take (though it was managed horrifically) and who believes that we should not turn our back on the people there yet again. We owe it to the people who we freed from the Taliban (after we basically let them sieze power there) to live up to our promise to rebuild them, a promise that was made and broken the first time in the 1980s. Now that we have given them a timeline, it is on them to get their s*** together, put together an effective government, and begin to take responsibility for defending their own country. Obama has given us an opportunity to fulfil our promises to the Afghans and I fully support this goal. If they can't get it together in the next 20 months, that is on them.
I haven't changed any of my core beliefs, I just believed Obama's campaign promises to focus on Afghanistan. I do prefer not to have basso's absurdity on the right with a mirror image on the left. You have repeatedly claimed that you (and the left) are better than him (and the right), and acting like him does not show this claim to be true. I am only posting this because I believe that you, unlike basso, might actually take this to heart. Please, prove my belief correct.
My maintained pledge is to not post in them or even open them. Since he starts so many threads, that often leaves me with few D&D options, but... that's not such a bad thing in life, really.
Andy, sorry if I somehow made you mad. I am pissed at Obama, but not you. My post about the joint was meant in a jesting tone. Should have put a smiley. Sorry. I don't think I have acted like Basso. Just like I think it is incorrect to equate Obama with Dubya or Obermann with Glen Beck; to equate the type of liberals who write editorials for the NYT with teabaggers, Palin or birthers. I do admit to razzing "conservos" in a sort of sports fans type of way, but generally try to support my positions with facts or reasonable analysis, so I think on second thought, you will find that I have already proven your belief correct. Regarding Afghanistan and Iraq we have done so much evil there that only sincere public apologies and many billions if not trillions of reparations can start to suffice. Sacrificing another few hundred working class Americans, and if statistics continue another 100 x's as many Afghans, to defeat the Taliban under the false equation of the Taliban with Al Qaeda strikes me as counterproductive. We will have to let the Afghans sort out which tribe rules what with which religious/ideology. Yugoslavia showed that the strong hand of Tito, much less that of foreign invaders like the US military, will change what people think about their neighbors. Despite neo-con dreams we can't stay forever and 18 months seems unlikely to change things, though Obama's crew led by Gates is already waffling on that date.
This is a tangent but I have heard that Afghanistan grows a lot of mar1juana. If we can greatly expand the use of hemp and legalize mar1juana perhaps that can be a new cash crop for Afghanistan.
Actually, you are completely wrong. OF COURSE this helps Obama politically. The far right will never vote for Obama, so that is a lost cause. The far left will never vote for a Republican, so even if he irritates them, he will get their votes. The moderates are what is up for grabs. If he sways their votes, then he wins re-election.
With all this drug money that is supposed to be supporting the Taliban, where is all the hashish? I haven't even heard of any since about 1980.
I suspect most of it ends up in Europe. Perhaps some of us can apply for a factfinding mission to the EU to find out.
That really is not terribly likely. At this point, the left and right extremes are voting. That is because they are so polarized against the other side.
From what I hear they supply most of the world's heroin and it is virtually their only source of foreign exchange. The CIA suposedly encourages it as it cuts down on the amount of $$ we have to ship there. Also it supports our Afghans against the Taliban Afghans, though they also get a lot of funding from it. Supposedly the US is now engaged in large scale extrajudicial excecutions of drug lords there, even if they don't attack US troops.
Speaking as a moderate leftist, the portion of the left that will stay home is small. Michael Moore has theorized that Obama's cynical move will lead to disilusionment by many of Obama's young voters who will then have the common theme of "all politicians are the same" confirmed. That is the real danger.
To be fair, I don't think Glynch has ever proposed a single party bureaucracy or overthrow of the government so there is still a little room to his left.
Used to be able to find Afghan in the '60's and '70's, from what people told me, but you are right... haven't found that story since the end of the '70's. Blame it on the Soviet Union?
He had been talking about the need to focus on Afghanistan since 2002 in that "I oppose dumb wars" speech.
