![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 18:09:44
This is very good.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/seesaw-of-american-hot-spots-20090313-8xtz.html?page=-1
Posted by fayeroe on March 13, 2009, at 20:43:31
In reply to War on two fronts, posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 18:09:44
"The war in Afghanistan will either be reversed during 2009 to 2010," the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies' Anthony Cordesman ventured in a recent analysis, "or it will be lost".
Very informative article. I've been talking to people and reading everything I can find and it feels to me that Americans don't view Afghanistan as being a "real war".....might just be my imagination.
We saw millions of words written about it when Pat Tillman was killed and after the discussion of that ended Afghanistan was forgotten.
Posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 21:11:25
In reply to Re: War on two fronts » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on March 13, 2009, at 20:43:31
Hearing President Obama on Afghanistan made me aware of how novel an experience it has been for politicians to engage with reality.
It has a narcoleptic effect on me and I lose interest, as I do with our new PM.
Posted by fayeroe on March 13, 2009, at 21:19:24
In reply to Re: War on two fronts » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 21:11:25
> Hearing President Obama on Afghanistan made me aware of how novel an experience it has been for politicians to engage with reality.
>
> It has a narcoleptic effect on me and I lose interest, as I do with our new PM.I believe that some politicians are going to be forced to deal in reality during this administration. They can holler and cry all they want and it won't change the fact that a new kid is in town.......
Your new PM is an interesting dude..
Posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 21:26:04
In reply to Re: War on two fronts » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on March 13, 2009, at 21:19:24
In an effort to keep myself awake I shall explore Sean Hannity's web site.
Posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 21:32:37
In reply to Re: War on two fronts » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 21:26:04
I like the line of his jaw and the confident gaze.
Posted by Sigismund on March 14, 2009, at 0:28:02
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 21:32:37
This, from William Dalrymple, says heaps about real world constraints.
>Today, seven years after 9/11, Mullah Omar and the original Afghan Taliban Shura still live in Baluchistan province. Afghan and Pakistani Taliban leaders live on further north, in FATA, as do the militias of Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hikmetyar. Al Qaeda has a safe haven in FATA, and along with them reside a plethora of Asian and Arab terrorist groups who are now expanding their reach into Europe and the United States.
> The foot-dragging response of Zardari to the attacks on Bombay last November shows the degree to which the two-faced dual-track policy of courting both the US and the various jihadi groups remains effectively in place with the Pakistani military. For the last decade Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, has been allowed to operate from Muridke, near Lahore. Although, in reaction to US pressure after September 11, Lashkar has officially been banned, in reality it continues to function under the name of Jamaat-ud Daawa, while Saeed continues openly to incite attacks on India and Western targets. The speeches quoted by Rashid show how easily such attacks could have been anticipated, and how they should have been stopped: "The powerful Western world is terrorizing Muslims," Saeed told an Islamabad conference in 2003. "We are being invaded, humiliated, manipulated and looted.... We must fight against the evil trio, America, Israel and India. Suicide missions are in accordance with Islam. In fact a suicide attack is the best form of jihad."
> Even now, after the mass murder in Bombay, although Saeed is himself now under house arrest for masterminding the attacks (an accusation that he denies), his organization's madrasas and facilities remain open and appear to benefit from patronage offered by Pakistan's authorities. Only this year the Zardari government cleared the purchase of a bulletproof Land Cruiser for him. Zardari does indeed seem to be in what the Indian foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, calls "a state of denial" about the involvement of Pakistani jihadi groups in the Bombay massacres.
Posted by Neal on March 14, 2009, at 1:04:49
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by Sigismund on March 14, 2009, at 0:28:02
Speaking of two fronts. The reason the U.S. is in both Iraq and Afganistan becomes apparent if you look at a map of the region. Between Afganistan and Iraq is one country the US is very interested in - Iran. It would be very easy to invade Iran from either side, or both, or do some air bombardment, leading to loss of nuclear capability for Iran.
Posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2009, at 9:29:30
In reply to Re: War on two fronts » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 21:26:04
Posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2009, at 9:31:06
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 21:32:37
Elizabeth Hasselbeck has him on speed dial.(You can read all about her visit to the White House, poopy diaper and all.....).
Posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2009, at 9:42:54
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by Sigismund on March 14, 2009, at 0:28:02
> This, from William Dalrymple, says heaps about real world constraints.
I must read more.....
>
> >Today, seven years after 9/11, Mullah Omar and the original Afghan Taliban Shura still live in Baluchistan province. Afghan and Pakistani Taliban leaders live on further north, in FATA, as do the militias of Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hikmetyar. Al Qaeda has a safe haven in FATA, and along with them reside a plethora of Asian and Arab terrorist groups who are now expanding their reach into Europe and the United States.
>
Plethora is a very scary word when it applies to Al Qaeda.....> > The foot-dragging response of Zardari to the attacks on Bombay last November shows the degree to which the two-faced dual-track policy of courting both the US and the various jihadi groups remains effectively in place with the Pakistani military. For the last decade Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, has been allowed to operate from Muridke, near Lahore. Although, in reaction to US pressure after September 11, Lashkar has officially been banned, in reality it continues to function under the name of Jamaat-ud Daawa, while Saeed continues openly to incite attacks on India and Western targets. The speeches quoted by Rashid show how easily such attacks could have been anticipated, and how they should have been stopped: "The powerful Western world is terrorizing Muslims," Saeed told an Islamabad conference in 2003. "We are being invaded, humiliated, manipulated and looted.... We must fight against the evil trio, America, Israel and India. Suicide missions are in accordance with Islam. In fact a suicide attack is the best form of jihad."
"Surprise" attacks, against America, aren't difficult if chain-saw brush cutting wins out over warnings.."
>
> > Even now, after the mass murder in Bombay, although Saeed is himself now under house arrest for masterminding the attacks (an accusation that he denies), his organization's madrasas and facilities remain open and appear to benefit from patronage offered by Pakistan's authorities. Only this year the Zardari government cleared the purchase of a bulletproof Land Cruiser for him. Zardari does indeed seem to be in what the Indian foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, calls "a state of denial" about the involvement of Pakistani jihadi groups in the Bombay massacres.
>>We must fight against the evil trio, America, Israel and India. Suicide missions are in accordance with Islam. In fact a suicide attack is the best form of jihad."<< (I "know" this and reading it here makes it all the more scarier)
Well, I am a bit speechless, ( I am on my first cup of coffee) but it isn't anything that I can't work out.....The ranch is just up the road. I'm sure I can discuss all of this with the village idiot.
Posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2009, at 9:45:14
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by Neal on March 14, 2009, at 1:04:49
It is good to see you, Neal! Sometimes Sigismund and I are only the lonely..
I agree with you about Iran. I can't forget that we had someone running for public office who sang "bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb Iran".....
Posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2009, at 9:53:32
In reply to War on two fronts, posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 18:09:44
Under the wire......I received this in an email this morning...I thought you might be interested in reading it..it came to me through a MoveOn.org acquaintance....I've never heard of this group.
>>>>>The appointment and subsequent withdrawal of Charles Freeman from a senior national intelligence post this week is just the latest example of Israel policy as political football.
J Street stayed out of this fight. First, we - probably like many of those who did comment - did not know enough about Freeman or his positions to really take a stand. Further, on principle, we objected to making our government's intelligence apparatus a political battlefield. Remember, it was politicized intelligence that helped mislead the U.S. into Iraq.
Now, however, in the aftermath of the battle and Freeman's withdrawal, many are interpreting the incident as a victory for those who would make their view of what it means to be pro-Israel a standard for service in the U.S. government.
To that I personally - and we at J Street - object.
The principle at stake here is critical: It cannot be a litmus test for service in the American government that you have never criticized Israel or its policies publicly.
This really isn't about Charles Freeman or the statements he's made. Again, we took no position on his nomination.
It's about the kind of politics we practice when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.
Some are strutting proudly today at the personal destruction of someone who - in their view - is a real foe of Israel. In their view, intimidating those who would otherwise speak their mind on Israel is the ultimate service to protect and defend the state of Israel.
They're wrong. Israel's no better off with only meek friends in positions of power in the United States. Frankly, all friends, Israel included, need to hear the hard truth sometimes.
Others are clamoring that the failed appointment is the death knell of hope that President Obama may engage in meaningful diplomacy and conflict resolution in the Middle East.
They're wrong, too. President Obama has already shown his determination to bring about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He's appointed George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace and lived up to his promise to engage from Day One in resolving the conflict.
What is important to me is that the Obama team not draw the lesson from this episode that they simply need to be more careful vetting of appointees to make sure they've never criticized Israel.
I support Israel. I believe in its right to exist safely and securely, and I value the special relationship between the United States and Israel. I also feel strongly that if I see Israel or the United States following a misguided path, it's not simply my right, but my obligation to speak out. Does that mean that I will never again be able to be in public service?
Neither Israel nor the United States is served when free discussion and debate about foreign policy is stifled because people fear for the impact on their career of speaking openly.
Presidents and our country are best served by public officials willing to look critically at all sides of an issue that impacts the United States. In particular, those charged with gathering and sorting through intelligence to guide our foreign policy must be able to look at all sides of an issue.
I hope that the President and his team will ensure that subsequent choices for this and other sensitive intelligence and foreign policy positions have impeccable credentials and real independence. I further hope they choose people with the guts to speak truth to power and to force uncomfortable facts into foreign policy debates too often guided by political agendas.
Finally, I would say to friends of Israel that a litmus test for public service that rules out all those who have ever publicly questioned a policy or action of the government of Israel is of no service to the country you love. Without a hard look at the facts and the clock, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland, is at grave risk.<<<<<
- Jeremy
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Executive Director
J Street
Posted by Sigismund on March 14, 2009, at 17:45:03
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by Neal on March 14, 2009, at 1:04:49
I know so little about Iran. It is always said that invasion of Iran would be an entirely different matter to invasion of Iraq. It is also said that Iran is a nation of poets, which kinda surprised me. Thankfully no provocations involving US ships disguised as Iranian ones occurred. Presumably their nuclear arrangements, whatever their stage of development, are dispersed. In geoplolitical terms an attack by Israel on Iran might suit the Iran regime very nicely. It's an interesting area, from Beirut (Hizbullah) to Gaza (Hamas) [Iranian sympathisers, if not clients?] through Iraq (Shias) to the complicated situation in Afghanistan and then Pakistan.
It is, without question, a debacle for US policy in the region.
Posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2009, at 18:16:40
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by Sigismund on March 14, 2009, at 17:45:03
My impression of Iran (political) is that their leader is an absolute crazy man and could snap at any time......he scares me. I hope I don't come off as being uncivil in this post. Hopefully whatshisname won't read this.
Posted by Sigismund on March 14, 2009, at 18:23:20
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2009, at 18:16:40
>Hopefully whatshisname won't read this
I can't imagine you mean (and here I will not cheat. I will do my best guess) Ahmeninaddjad (which can't be right with Ahmen in the beginning).
Sensible policy in the region would be to encourage moderate Muslims.
I can't remember about Khatami(sp?). He was moderate (though without power), and there seemed to be the perception that there was no profit in that type of moderation.
In the last 50 years the entire region has been radicalised.
Posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2009, at 18:31:25
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by Sigismund on March 14, 2009, at 18:23:20
> >Hopefully whatshisname won't read this
>
> I can't imagine you mean (and here I will not cheat. I will do my best guess) Ahmeninaddjad (which can't be right with Ahmen in the beginning).David Letterman practiced his name on air for at least two weeks before he visited the U.S. It was hilarious. You didn't spell it correctly but I am of no help getting it right. I just know how it looks. :-)
>
> Sensible policy in the region would be to encourage moderate Muslims.Yes.
>
> I can't remember about Khatami(sp?). He was moderate (though without power), and there seemed to be the perception that there was no profit in that type of moderation.Having just escaped from an administration that wouldn't know moderation if it bit them in the *ss..I can assure you people here are ready for moderation.
>
> In the last 50 years the entire region has been radicalised.YES...
footnote......have you kept up with Jon Stewart's eviseration (gutting) of CNBC? It is wonderful!
Posted by Sigismund on March 14, 2009, at 19:52:22
In reply to Re: War on two fronts » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2009, at 18:31:25
One positive in this situation is Obama's offer of a new start with the Muslim world. As well, I found this in Rashid's book about Joe Biden, from around 2002, about the reliance the US was placing in the warlords in Afghanistan...
>Some legislators realised the the great dangers posed by Rumsfeld's policy. Joe Biden warned 'America has replaced the Taliban with the warlords. Warlords are still on the US payroll but that hasn't brought a cessation of violence. Not only is the US failing to rein in the warlords, we are actually making them the centrepiece of our strategy. Why does the Administration steadfastly resist any expansion of the International Security Assistance Force when everyone has called for an expansion of the ISAF?'
Rumsfeld, for his part infuriated Biden and other senators, and the Afghans, by saying the warlords would share power with the government.>footnote......have you kept up with Jon Stewart's eviseration (gutting) of CNBC? It is wonderful!
Nope, I don't know anything about it. I hardly know what CNBC is. A media network?
Posted by fayeroe on March 15, 2009, at 1:22:07
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by Sigismund on March 14, 2009, at 19:52:22
Jon Stewart has a show "The Daily Show" on The Comedy Channel. CNBC is a "news" cable channel and Cramer is a "stock analyst" that pretty much screwed up what was going to happen in the markets......and banks, etc. Jon Stewart called him out on it and they've been going at it for about two weeks. If you can get The Comedy Channel, I highly recommend watching him.
Rumsfeld should be tied out nekkid and covered with honey on a fireant hill. Warlords my *ss!
Biden knows his foreign stuff.I really like him.
Gotta go to bed, P
Posted by fayeroe on March 15, 2009, at 1:33:04
In reply to Re: War on two fronts, posted by Sigismund on March 14, 2009, at 19:52:22
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/13/jim-cramer-on-daily-show_n_174558.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2009, at 4:34:29
In reply to Re: War on two fronts » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2009, at 18:31:25
> an administration that wouldn't know moderation if it bit them in the *ss..
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others (such as those who voted for the previous administration).
But please don't take this personally. This doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person. And I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself are/is in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 15 weeks
severity: 2 (default)
block length = 1.65 rounded = 2 weeks
Posted by Sigismund on March 25, 2009, at 3:17:17
In reply to Re: War on two fronts » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on March 15, 2009, at 1:22:07
>Rumsfeld should be tied out nekkid and covered with honey on a fireant hill.
We are only just getting our fire ants here, so I'm not really sure.
The Nuremburg Tribunals held that waging aggressive war was an offence.
Does Iraq fits within that?
There are adjectives other than 'aggressive' one might use, but I doubt that even those would fit within the civility rules.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.