The latest UK retired general is saying he asked for substantial troop increases and was denied by Brown. Our basic problem in all this is that we aren't in any kind of communication with Al Q and what they think they are fighting for. I don't know whether any of this stuff is worth fighting over - history would indicate not much ever is and that our working knowledge is pathetic. There were many valid protests that could have stopped WW1 and 2, yet not much understanding even now about how such culturally advanced societies like Germany, France , Britain, Japan, Russia and the US fell into such a mess. The essential question seems to be why we are forever stuck in the 'war model' when we can clearly change to live in plenty without war. This question raises practical issues about living in peace when there are those who might use such a situation merely to establish better footings for war in their own domains, and a solution is clearly needed to prevent this. Our current solution is the 'American Umbrella'. Even I am reluctant to dismantle this without proper agreements actually put in practice - we should remember here that this umbrella could be collapsed by collapsing the dollar and Euro and is already screwed by the expansion of heavy manufacturing and technology secrets. Bush threatened to bomb (presumably nuke) Pakistan back to the stone age and there will already be some kind of vile plan for a new kind of mad first strike. I suspect our debates are those of innocents.
On 7 Oct, 03:39, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Looks like I may have been too hard on Gen. McChrystal. Our > in-the-tank MSM didn't give me the whole story. Thank God for the WSJ > opinion pages. > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020448830457442896122227... > > dj > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, Obama's war is winding down. I wish he had the guts to cut bait > > or fish but it seems the strategy is to remain there putting our > > soldiers lives at risk fighting a half-ass war with one arm tied > > around our back. The unfortunate leaks have only exacerbated the > > problem. Gen. McChrystal may very well have sacrificed his career > > going public with this disaster but I understand why he did it. I > > wish he'd just quit; talking sets a bad precedent. We don't need our > > military bickering with our elected officials. Mr. President, in > > Afghanistan it is time to shit or get off the pot. All this > > indecision is making us look weaker and weaker. > > > dj > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:07 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> the louder the erudite tunes from the latest best and > >> brightest -- whistling past graveyards, to be filled by people far > >> away. Orn. > > >> That's about it I'm afraid. The only way any of this might make sense > >> is through dreadful assumptions about someone's human nature. A > >> brilliant turn of phrase Orn. > > >> On 6 Oct, 09:48, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I hesitate to repeat my views again about such things Neil. So, here > >>> are some words from someone else. > >>> Orn. > >>> =========== > >>> Starting Another Year of War in Afghanistan > > >>> October, 02 2009By Solomon, Norman > > >>> October 2009 has begun with the New York Times reporting that "the > >>> president, vice president and an array of cabinet secretaries, > >>> intelligence chiefs, generals, diplomats and advisers gathered in a > >>> windowless basement room of the White House for three hours on > >>> Wednesday to chart a new course in Afghanistan." > > >>> As this month begins the ninth year of the U.S. war effort in > >>> Afghanistan, "windowless" seems to be an apt metaphor. The structure > >>> of thought and the range of options being debated in Washington's high > >>> places are notably insular. The "new course" will be a permutation of > >>> the present course. > > >>> While certainty is lacking, steely resolve is evident. An unspoken > >>> mantra remains in effect: When in doubt, keep killing. The knotty > >>> question is: Exactly who and how? > > >>> News accounts are filled with stories about options that mix > >>> "counterinsurgency" with "counterterrorism." The thicker the jargon in > >>> Washington, the louder the erudite tunes from the latest best and > >>> brightest -- whistling past graveyards, to be filled by people far > >>> away. > > >>> In the White House, there's no indication of a pane that's facing the > >>> pain in Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, where > >>> the U.S. government continues to bring gifts: a dollar's worth of > >>> warfare for a dime's worth of everything else… > > >>> For the rest of the story, > >>> see:http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/4000 > > >>> Again, one small vignette about a few people, humanity and the lack > >>> thereof as well as what feeds insurgency. The USSR had it right… > >>> retreat. > > >>> On Oct 6, 12:44 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > "Truth..."http://video.google.com/videosearch?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1ACGWCENUS3... > > >>> > All clear now? ;-) > > >>> > On Oct 5, 5:29 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > Perhaps the recession is a depression after all. It seems Chris was > >>> > > approached to lend his ear in traditional manner so we could have a > >>> > > basis for a just war (the second war of another Jenkins' Ear) and > >>> > > refused on the moral grounds that he was not offered enough money and > >>> > > exclusion from the draft. In place of this, the powers that be are > >>> > > ramping up Afghanistan, where we can fight a just war on behalf of the > >>> > > new tradition of protecting unfairly elected governments and a > >>> > > necessary search for WDM there (weak, democratic malcontents). In > >>> > > once smoke filled rooms, our foreign policy analysts and > >>> > > econometricians have decided we need a war, any old war, to recover > >>> > > from the recession. The first stage will be a draft of 50,000 new > >>> > > troops to protect a run off election between Khazi and Abdullah > >>> > > Abdullah (votes for him will only count half). In my view, these > >>> > > battalions should consist only of unarmed bwankers parachuted in at > >>> > > random and led by Rumsfeld espousing that a sensible strategy must > >>> > > make no sense at all to the enemy and that all must remain silent on > >>> > > it on pain of death. There is no shortage of recruits to kick him out > >>> > > of the plane first to further protect the strategy. > > >>> > > Any more sensible suggestions on what we are doing in this country?- > >>> > > Hide quoted text - > > >>> > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
