Obama

[Rhisiart]

Serious intelligence failures led to 9/11 (under Clinton and Bush) and the debacle over alleged Iraqi WMD (under Bush). Perhaps these almighty cock-ups tell us more about an ineffective American Federal Government as a whole than just individual Presidents.

However Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (and Blair in Britain) seemed overly gung-ho about war with Iraq. Their inability to plan for the days, weeks and months after the initial invasion was failure on a truly colossal and unforgivable scale.

However, I am not sure I agree with your entire argument fryke. Afghanistan is different to Iraq. The Taleban are keen sponsors of terror (in the same way that the US were keen sponsors of fascist dictators in Central and South America).

The US may have played a considerable role in allowing the Taleban to flourish in the first place, but the mindless fanaticism of these ultra-Islamic gangsters has no place on this planet, anymore than Hitler's ideologies.

I don't think Afghanistan can be 'won'. However, it can be contained (albeit at great expense). The real issue there for me is to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans.

How about encouraging farmers to grown poppys to produce morphine not heroin? The big pharma companies won't like it, but it can be done.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Rhisiart

Serious intelligence failures led to 9/11 (under Clinton and Bush) and the debacle over alleged Iraqi WMD (under Bush). Perhaps these almighty cock-ups tell us more about an ineffective American Federal Government as a whole than just individual Presidents.

I would agree, however it was a cock-up shared by the French, Russians, Germans, even Iraqi military. It is more of a problem of practicality. I recall critics wondering why the US did not "just take out" Hussein ala James Bond--send in an assassin. Well . . . the guy rather made sure his regime was set up to combat that sort of thing. It also had to do with the practicality of setting up reliable intelligence on the ground in a Stalinist state.

However Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (and Blair in Britain) seemed overly gung-ho about war with Iraq. Their inability to plan for the days, weeks and months after the initial invasion was failure on a truly colossal scale.

"The buck stops here"--I tend to think Rumsfeld bought the "easy war" myth--and many in America did as well. I recall the Liberal Anti-Bush Media [Tm.--Ed.] wondering when the US would invade Syria or Iran as the "next!" The invasion was easy, far easier than many predicted. I rather suspected holding, pacifying, and transforming would have taken more, but that was not the opinion being given.

That being written Bush deserves blame for not recognizing sooner that the plan needed to be changed. He also needed to accept that Rumsfeld had become a toxic presence. Justified or not--I think it was justified--that impression hurt efforts.

The US may have played a considerable role in allowing the Taleban to flourish in the first place, . . .

Not . . . really. I blame Clinton [For everything.--Ed.] Hush! I blame him for ignoring the country. I can recall The Economist writing about the growing regime, what it was doing, et cetera, while it seemed no one in the US had paid attention; they just knew the "mujahadeen" took out the Ruskies so . . . it must be all good!

To be fair, though, what was Clinton and then Bush going to do prior to 9/11? Bomb them? Invade them? They tried negotiation, tried to "soften" them, but we all know how well that went.

I don't think Afghanistan can be 'won'.

Oh I think it can be won--it just takes time. People forget that it took a good 10 years to transform Germany and Japan into democracies--and I never credit the early 1920s as a "democracy" for Germany. However, both countries had to be nearly destroyed in the process. I am not suggesting the same thing for Afghanistan, but the commitment remains heavy. It is a matter of convincing people that the response to opinions you disagree with is NOT shooting the guy! As more than one person jokes whenever a new party takes control of the White House, "no one got hung!"

The real issue there for me there is to pay farmers to grown poppys to produce morphine not heroin. it can be done.

Yup.

But . . . OH NOES!!11!! . . . that means children . . . CHILDREN will use t3h drugs! They will become:



incurably insane!!11! [!--Ed.]

You are completely correct with one of the main problems: poverty. What are they suppose to grow instead? Barley? The choice between $$$ and starving is not much of a choice. To win the "hearts and minds" requires giving the people something practical to live off of.

I do not know . . . maybe it is impractical to do that--use the poppy fields to ultimately produce morphine over the what will still be more lucrative heroine, but I have to wonder if there is a "knee-jerk" opposition to it.

--J.D.

[ora]

I read an article a few years back talking about how buying their poppies would be the best thing to do for Afghanistan. The article said there are a very limited number of places allow to grow opium for morphine production, basically Turkey and India. Both apparently got the deals in the post war/cold war era as sweetners to stay on 'our' side. But now there is a global shortage of painkillers, mostly affecting the third world rather than most people on this forum, but one we could fix partly by buying Afghani opium. For some reason no one has taken up this idea though, despite the fact that I've heard it in the ether a lot the last few years.

Oh JD, on the issue of whether the US helped the Taleban, perhaps not under that name but I saw an ex- cia dep director interviewed on the BBC shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan basically admitting that the lack of human intelligence (humint as opposed to intel from satellites etc ) prior to the invasion was basically because all the guys the US supported against the Russians and used as intel assets were now in the Taleban. So maybe you can't blame Clinton for all of it Not that he is blameless. As Bill Hicks pointed out at the time, he was still screwing people over, he just smiled more when he did it than the Republicans that preceded him.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by ora

For some reason no one has taken up this idea though, despite the fact that I've heard it in the ether a lot the last few years.

This is pure speculation on my part because I have not researched it [Yet he will pontificate extensively upon it.--Ed.], but I would not be surprised if part of the problem with that on the US side is the knee-jerk political reaction against drugs. Believe me, I am not a "legalize all, Dude!" but the US still has a perverse attitude.

Oh JD, on the issue of whether the US helped the Taleban, perhaps not under that name but I saw an ex- cia dep director interviewed on the BBC shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan basically admitting that the lack of human intelligence (humint as opposed to intel from satellites etc ) prior to the invasion was basically because all the guys the US supported against the Russians and used as intel assets were now in the Taleban.

That or in the whatever it was called--"National Alliance?" that the predecessor to Karzi was the leader of. I love to remind 9/11 "Twoofers" that his assassination was timed to the 9/11 attacks. Anyways, I wish I could give credit to whomever stated it, but one of the problems with intelligence in the region is you DO have to rely on the people there rather than your own agents. It is not like you can send Bob Sixpack to Russian-Language school and send him to Moscow. As the guy explained, you almost have to tell prospective intelligence agents: "first, we have to knock all of your teeth out!" Add in the tribalism--everyone "knows" everyone else, gaining intelligence is very difficult.

So maybe you can't blame Clinton for all of it

Did we have SARS before Clinton?! Britany Spears? The evidences are clear!!!1

As Bill Hicks pointed out at the time, he was still screwing people over, he just smiled more when he did it than the Republicans that preceded him.

Would you WANT Newt Gingrich smiling at you?

To tangent a bit, while I like to play the "I Blame Clinton" card against the Rabid Bush Haters [Time Shares Available.--Ed.], if you reversed rolls--had Clinton as a new President after a very close election . . . then had 9/11 . . . you would have PsychoCons claiming he faked it all! Politics is politics! I was "glad" to see the infamous "Clinton Death List"--a supposed list of all of the people he ordered executed over the years, a list that, for some reason, did not include Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, or Hilary--resurface during Hilary's run . . . but this time SHE compiled it!!11!

Meanwhile, on ANOTHER FORUM [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.], I am pounding a "Paultard" who insists that, at any moment, they are going to haul off Obama because he is "not a Natural Born Citizen [Tm.--Ed.]."

It is all politics.

--J.D.

[Rhisiart]

You mentioned Newt Gingrich. He was once asked who was the better President, Carter or Reagan. 'Reagan' he replied, 'because he knew what he didn't know, where as Carter didn't know what he didn't know'.

Maybe Gingrich was not exactly non-partisan, but its an interesting way of looking at leadership.

[Doctor X]

Carter really did not know foreign policy, still does not, and have never "known" that.

--J.D.

[ora]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Did we have SARS before Clinton?! Britany Spears? The evidences are clear!!!1



Would you WANT Newt Gingrich smiling at you?

To the first, you raise an interesting point, though this makes Bush responsible for H5N1 Avian Flu and the abomination that is High School Musical.

To the second, thank you for putting that deeply disturbing image in my head!

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by ora

To the first, you raise an interesting point, though this makes Bush responsible for H5N1 Avian Flu and the abomination that is High School Musical.

All LIBERAL LIES!!!11!!

Okay . . . I have to concede the High School Musical . . . that alone was impeachable.

To the second, thank you for putting that deeply disturbing image in my head!

That is . . . one of the nicest things anyone has ever written to me!

Likes one's parents, we really should never imagine our politicians engaged in . . . Cunjugal Impleasantries.*

--J.D.

*Safe for Work, Home, and most Day Cares