This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
2timspalding
8:08 First, the choice of venue is interesting. Most such presidential speeches have been president-at-desk, with no audience save the TV audience, not in front of soldiers, receiving occasional applause.
4Cole1775
new to this site...the venue is intended to create a sense of urgency ...the Cadets however, I am certain, would rather be about their business as Cadets and not be used as publicity for the POTUS agenda.
5timspalding
As someone on Twitter said, it's pretty amazing to think first-years at W. Point were 10 on 9/11.
6Cole1775
and America's children were robbed of the scheduled "Charlie Brown Christmas" special until next week...
8timspalding
I know. It raises the question: Is Obama really a citizen?
There was a quote in there about not dominating other countries that echoed one of Rumsfeld's. (And I agreed with it.)
There was a quote in there about not dominating other countries that echoed one of Rumsfeld's. (And I agreed with it.)
9timspalding
>7 Cole1775:
10 years old.
> the Cadets however, I am certain, would rather be about their business as Cadets and not be used as publicity for the POTUS agenda.
I am pretty sure they're pleased as punch to be at a presidential speech. They're human. And events like this are memorable, especially when it affects you directly, and you're 20.
Wow. It's over. I figured it would be longer.
10 years old.
> the Cadets however, I am certain, would rather be about their business as Cadets and not be used as publicity for the POTUS agenda.
I am pretty sure they're pleased as punch to be at a presidential speech. They're human. And events like this are memorable, especially when it affects you directly, and you're 20.
Wow. It's over. I figured it would be longer.
14LivelyLady
I think you left a word out of the above sentence ...."former POTUS". The present form of the verb is still appropriate.
17timspalding
NPR just interviewed Bernie Sanders.
18OldSarge
I would have rather watched "A Charlie Brown Christmas", it has more meaning to me. Yeah I know, the guy is my CINC.
But I learned a long time ago to avoid any thing to do with parades, speeches, ceremonies, etc. More important things to do like have a drink or catch up on sleep. Old soldiers know their priorities.
But I learned a long time ago to avoid any thing to do with parades, speeches, ceremonies, etc. More important things to do like have a drink or catch up on sleep. Old soldiers know their priorities.
19marieke54
Very good speech.
In the “Vietnam part” he didn’t mention the most important point: the being absorbed in it.
In the “Vietnam part” he didn’t mention the most important point: the being absorbed in it.
20modalursine
It interesting to contrast Mr Obama's delivery with that of the former president "W".
Mr Obama was eloquent, put his remarks into historical context, and tried to demonstrate his policy's conformity to the "Goldilocks" principal (Full on COIN too hot, "pull the plug" too cold, COIN-on-the cheap .... just right) .
But I'm afraid our friend Cody has something of the right idea about policy continuity with the previous administration, at least when it comes to the wars.
What we heard boiled down to "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, 'We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here' (So help me Hanna! He didn't use those exact words, but thats what he said) and God bless America."
Maybe its groundhog day.
Mr Obama was eloquent, put his remarks into historical context, and tried to demonstrate his policy's conformity to the "Goldilocks" principal (Full on COIN too hot, "pull the plug" too cold, COIN-on-the cheap .... just right) .
But I'm afraid our friend Cody has something of the right idea about policy continuity with the previous administration, at least when it comes to the wars.
What we heard boiled down to "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, 'We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here' (So help me Hanna! He didn't use those exact words, but thats what he said) and God bless America."
Maybe its groundhog day.
21geneg
He's following through on his campaign promise to refocus on Afghanistan. I think this was a promise that was flatly ignored by many of his supporters because it did not fit the preferred liberal storyline. This should not be seen as "selling out" to the military industrial complex. It's something he said he would do. I'm glad to see he is committed to ending this abortion in the foreseeable future.
So, Cole, I gather you are not a fan of Obama. What speech would you rather have heard?
So, Cole, I gather you are not a fan of Obama. What speech would you rather have heard?
22marieke54
Obama’s speech was received with much skepticism in my country. Strongest in his criticism was the director of NGO HealthCare, an organization working with many Afghanis in the warzones. As he put it: “30.000 soldiers means 30.000 extra problems for Afghanistan”. Another criticism: the speech was more based on American political realities than on the Afghan military and civilian situation. It was about the USA!
70% of the Dutch population is against a prolonged stay of our troops in the province of Uruzgan, which would be the second prolongation. A majority of Parliament is against it. The ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence are said to be lobbying for Dutch troops in another province. The secretary of NATO, Rasmussen, has promised 5.000 soldiers plus extra soldiers, with which we think he means (among others): Dutch soldiers.
70% of the Dutch population is against a prolonged stay of our troops in the province of Uruzgan, which would be the second prolongation. A majority of Parliament is against it. The ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence are said to be lobbying for Dutch troops in another province. The secretary of NATO, Rasmussen, has promised 5.000 soldiers plus extra soldiers, with which we think he means (among others): Dutch soldiers.
23Doug1943
Well, when NATO withdraws from Afghanistan and the Taleban take over, this director of NGO Healthcare will, assuming he is allowed to stay, find some
new health problems to deal with.
Now a historical question: did the Allied bombing and shelling and other military operations kill any Dutch civilians in WWII?
If so, should we have left the Nazis in charge of the Netherlands?
new health problems to deal with.
Now a historical question: did the Allied bombing and shelling and other military operations kill any Dutch civilians in WWII?
If so, should we have left the Nazis in charge of the Netherlands?
24marieke54
Malalai Joya, former Afghan MP again:
“There is an alternative: the democratic-minded parties and intellectuals are our hope for the future of Afghanistan.
It will not be easy, but if we have a little bit of peace we will be better able to fight our own internal enemies – Afghans know what to do with our destiny. We are not a backward people, and we are capable of fighting for democracy, human and women's rights in Afghanistan. In fact the only way these values will be achieved is if we struggle for them and win them ourselves.”
“While the government was not responsive, the people of the US did offer me their support. And polls confirm that the US public wants peace, not an escalated war.”
“The UK government has also tried to silence dissent, for instance by arresting Joe Glenton, a British soldier who has refused to return to Afghanistan. I had a chance to meet Glenton when I was in London last summer, and together we spoke out against the war. My message to him is that, in times of great injustice, it is sometimes better to go to jail than be part of committing war crimes.
Facing a difficult choice, Glenton made a courageous decision, while Obama and Brown have chosen to follow the Bush administration. Instead of hope and change, in foreign policy Obama is delivering more of the same. But I still have hope because, as our history teaches, the people of Afghanistan will never accept occupation.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16370
“There is an alternative: the democratic-minded parties and intellectuals are our hope for the future of Afghanistan.
It will not be easy, but if we have a little bit of peace we will be better able to fight our own internal enemies – Afghans know what to do with our destiny. We are not a backward people, and we are capable of fighting for democracy, human and women's rights in Afghanistan. In fact the only way these values will be achieved is if we struggle for them and win them ourselves.”
“While the government was not responsive, the people of the US did offer me their support. And polls confirm that the US public wants peace, not an escalated war.”
“The UK government has also tried to silence dissent, for instance by arresting Joe Glenton, a British soldier who has refused to return to Afghanistan. I had a chance to meet Glenton when I was in London last summer, and together we spoke out against the war. My message to him is that, in times of great injustice, it is sometimes better to go to jail than be part of committing war crimes.
Facing a difficult choice, Glenton made a courageous decision, while Obama and Brown have chosen to follow the Bush administration. Instead of hope and change, in foreign policy Obama is delivering more of the same. But I still have hope because, as our history teaches, the people of Afghanistan will never accept occupation.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16370
25marieke54
> 23
An old friend of mine, as a six year old boy lost his mother, his little brother, a part of his face and his left arm in the Nazi-bombardment of Rotterdam. Hhe would laugh but not so heartily when hearing this question of yours. He would say, "I know this man, I have tasted his kidney's." For he eats people with questions like this one - he eats them raw and cooked.
(O yes, he is very much against these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq)
An old friend of mine, as a six year old boy lost his mother, his little brother, a part of his face and his left arm in the Nazi-bombardment of Rotterdam. Hhe would laugh but not so heartily when hearing this question of yours. He would say, "I know this man, I have tasted his kidney's." For he eats people with questions like this one - he eats them raw and cooked.
(O yes, he is very much against these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq)
26Doug1943
Ok, what would he say to me? Remember, the Allies killed Dutch civilians too, in our war against the Nazis. Would he have rather had "peace" in the Netherlands, by letting the Nazis remain in control?
As for Malalai Joya's idea that the democrats of Afghanistan can defeat the Taleban by themselves... well, why didn't they do it before the US invaded?
Here is what she should say: "We radicals of Afghanistan just cannot accept that Western imperialism is going to be in our country for a long time. We would rather be ruled by indigenous religious fundamentalists. Of course, by "we" I don't mean me. Good gracious, I don't want to walk around inside a tent, or be stoned to death. I'll take up a nice teaching post at a Western University where I can lecture about the evils of Western imperialism and go to the disco."
As for Malalai Joya's idea that the democrats of Afghanistan can defeat the Taleban by themselves... well, why didn't they do it before the US invaded?
Here is what she should say: "We radicals of Afghanistan just cannot accept that Western imperialism is going to be in our country for a long time. We would rather be ruled by indigenous religious fundamentalists. Of course, by "we" I don't mean me. Good gracious, I don't want to walk around inside a tent, or be stoned to death. I'll take up a nice teaching post at a Western University where I can lecture about the evils of Western imperialism and go to the disco."
27marieke54
1. I don’t think my friend would choose to speak to you.
2. Aren’t Marxists and Conservatives all of a kind, in patronizing “the woman on the spot”?
2. Aren’t Marxists and Conservatives all of a kind, in patronizing “the woman on the spot”?
28modalursine
An ABC News report claims that there are on the order of
100 Al Queda in Afghanistan.
With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al Qaeda Fighter
Here's the link
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanist...
By the way, does anyone know how the figure of $1Million per US soldier is derived? To the naive observer it seems awfully high. Are they counting lifetime benefits, retirement, and net present value of every bullet to be expended in the future in there or what?
Oh yes, nearly forgot:
If there are 100 Al-Q in Afghanistan when the Taliban controls 80% of the place, how many would there be if the Taliban controlled 100% of the place?
Scary!
100 Al Queda in Afghanistan.
With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al Qaeda Fighter
Here's the link
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanist...
By the way, does anyone know how the figure of $1Million per US soldier is derived? To the naive observer it seems awfully high. Are they counting lifetime benefits, retirement, and net present value of every bullet to be expended in the future in there or what?
Oh yes, nearly forgot:
If there are 100 Al-Q in Afghanistan when the Taliban controls 80% of the place, how many would there be if the Taliban controlled 100% of the place?
Scary!
29Doug1943
#27: Maybe there is a language problem here. How is your friend going to "eat my kidneys" without talking to me? Or do you mean: to hell with reason, my political views can only be defended with violence?
No, most Marxists today, having no groovy Third World totalitarian heroes like Mao and Che and Ho to cheer for, have to make do with gruesome medievalists like the Taleban and the Khomeni-ites, which they usually (although there are exceptions to this) have to support indirectly.
On the other hand, some Marxists -- not many -- still believe, in the tradition of their inspirer, in human progress. Good for them. And on the third hand, many conservatives do not, and would be perfectly happy to let the Taleban destroy human culture and human beings in Afghanistan, provided they left us alone. In fact, this is probably the default position of American foreign policy: if you're on our side, or at least neutral, do whatever you want to your own people, and we'll even provide the guns. A bad idea in the past and a bad idea now, even some leftists have come around, objectively, to endorsing it.
No, most Marxists today, having no groovy Third World totalitarian heroes like Mao and Che and Ho to cheer for, have to make do with gruesome medievalists like the Taleban and the Khomeni-ites, which they usually (although there are exceptions to this) have to support indirectly.
On the other hand, some Marxists -- not many -- still believe, in the tradition of their inspirer, in human progress. Good for them. And on the third hand, many conservatives do not, and would be perfectly happy to let the Taleban destroy human culture and human beings in Afghanistan, provided they left us alone. In fact, this is probably the default position of American foreign policy: if you're on our side, or at least neutral, do whatever you want to your own people, and we'll even provide the guns. A bad idea in the past and a bad idea now, even some leftists have come around, objectively, to endorsing it.
30timspalding
> "The UK government has also tried to silence dissent, for instance by arresting Joe Glenton, a British soldier who has refused to return to Afghanistan."
Wait, an army arrests a soldier who refuses to deploy—this is silencing dissent?
Wait, an army arrests a soldier who refuses to deploy—this is silencing dissent?
31OldSarge
No. It's more like a soldier who refuses to obey an order and is treated as such under the military legal system.
32Trelew
"If there are 100 Al-Q in Afghanistan when the Taliban controls 80% of the place, how many would there be if the Taliban controlled 100% of the place?"
125?
125?
33krolik
>32 Trelew:
Glad we've cleared that up.
Glad we've cleared that up.
34Essa
modalursine, this is mainly in response to your post 28 and also to your questions in the other thread, i.e. "What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish there?" (And perhaps others will find it of interest also.) I thought this recent column by Fareed Zakaria, whose touchstone doesn't work for some reason, addressed those points and was an interesting read. His emphasis on pragmatism seems sensible to me.
There continues to be a large gap between the goals being outlined by the administration and the means available to achieve them. This gap is best closed not by sending in tens of thousands more troops but rather by understanding the limits of what we can reasonably achieve in Afghanistan ....
A few years from now, we can be sure that Afghanistan will still be poor, corrupt, and dysfunctional. But if we make the right deals, it will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al Qaeda and terrorist groups like it. That's my definition of success.
There continues to be a large gap between the goals being outlined by the administration and the means available to achieve them. This gap is best closed not by sending in tens of thousands more troops but rather by understanding the limits of what we can reasonably achieve in Afghanistan ....
A few years from now, we can be sure that Afghanistan will still be poor, corrupt, and dysfunctional. But if we make the right deals, it will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al Qaeda and terrorist groups like it. That's my definition of success.
35modalursine
ref #34
From Fareed Zakaria's article:
Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan.
Amen. Strikes me as bloody brilliant. Why didn't I think of that? (Trick question, honors for the student who figures it out)
Building a 400,000-strong security force, as some in Congress have proposed, will ... cost ... 300 percent of the country's GDP.
Ain't arithmetic wonderful. Just a few numbers and you see at once what a load of wishful thinking lies behind the official justifications.
Hey everybody, read this guy. He's got at least part of it right, anyway.
From Fareed Zakaria's article:
Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan.
Amen. Strikes me as bloody brilliant. Why didn't I think of that? (Trick question, honors for the student who figures it out)
Building a 400,000-strong security force, as some in Congress have proposed, will ... cost ... 300 percent of the country's GDP.
Ain't arithmetic wonderful. Just a few numbers and you see at once what a load of wishful thinking lies behind the official justifications.
Hey everybody, read this guy. He's got at least part of it right, anyway.
36Essa
Amen. Strikes me as bloody brilliant. Why didn't I think of that? (Trick question, honors for the student who figures it out)
Yes, but you only suggested buying their opium stash, not buying off the Pashtun militants. Actually, if memory serves, I think you may have advocated buying the entire country, but you suggested that it was a real bargain compared to some of the other options. :D
Yes, but you only suggested buying their opium stash, not buying off the Pashtun militants. Actually, if memory serves, I think you may have advocated buying the entire country, but you suggested that it was a real bargain compared to some of the other options. :D
