Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Michael Moore on Afghanistan and ObamaFollow

#1 Dec 01 2009 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Quote:
Dear President Obama,
Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea -- "Let's invade Afghanistan!" Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.

There's a reason they don't call Afghanistan the "Garden State" (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan's nickname is the "Graveyard of Empires." If you don't believe it, give the British a call. I'd have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number. I do have Gorbachev's number though. It's + 41 22 789 1662. I'm sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you're about to commit.

With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the "war president." Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line -- and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds.

Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn't have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.

I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan! A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush's Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it.

Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you're doing it so you can "end the war") will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you've said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone -- and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout "tea bag!"

Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of "landslide victory" don't you understand?

Don't be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn't be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can't change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can't be won over by abandoning the rest of us.

President Obama, it's time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, "No, we don't need health care, we don't need jobs, we don't need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, 'cause we don't need them, either."

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that's what they'd do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights, invading nations who had not attacked us, blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam "might" be in (but never was), slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan. We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish -- the full terror of which we scarcely know.

When we elected you we didn't expect miracles. We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn't even function as a nation and never, ever has.

Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God's sake, stop.
Tonight we still have hope.

Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON'T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother's son.

We're counting on you.

Yours,
Michael Moore


Couple of thoughts:

1. Where is Moore getting the idea that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda Taliban fighters in Afghanistan? It's the first I have heard of it.
2. I do agree with the quote:
Quote:
You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn't be happy.

but I think Obama is not sending in additional troops to Afghanistan to win popularity.
3.
Quote:
What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do?

They wouldn't be the freaking PotUS, obviously.
4. Some of the comments are hilarious, especially the ones saying "RON PAUL WOULD HAVE STOPPED THIS!" Yeah. Ron Paul is also INSANE.
5. Michael Moore is still more of a liability than an asset to liberals, and while some of his rants might have truth in them, his presentation does more harm than good overall. All my own opinion, of course.

Edited, Dec 1st 2009 1:49pm by LockeColeMA
#2 Dec 01 2009 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
1. Where is Moore getting the idea that there are less than 100 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan? It's the first I have heard of it.

No idea either way, but Moore said "Al Qaeda," not Taliban.

#3 Dec 01 2009 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
I am completely at a loss to suggest what we should do in Afghanistan. I am so glad I'm not in Obama's shoes right now, as no matter what he decides, he will get completely lambasted for it.

I heard one night, probably on NPR, someone suggesting that maybe we should try talking to the Taliban. Try to help them learn how to mine for gold (I think it was...?) instead of growing poppies to make money. Apparently their current mining technique obliterates the precious metals and yields very little, where the equipment and techniques we can teach them are much more reliable.

At the risk of being tarred and feathered, I have to ask, why do we hate the Taliban? I'm not asking because I think we shouldn't, necessarily. But for years, I have equated the Taliban with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and I don't think that's necessarily accurate. Is it how they treat women? Or just their drug trade? Why is Afghanistan considered the “right” war while Iraq is “wrong?” I mean, I have my own opinions on why the Iraq war is “wrong,” but in comparison to Afghanistan, it seems like people approved of one but not the other. I always thought we went to Afghanistan because Osama was there.
#4 Dec 01 2009 at 12:46 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
trickybeck wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
1. Where is Moore getting the idea that there are less than 100 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan? It's the first I have heard of it.

No idea either way, but Moore said "Al Qaeda," not Taliban.


True, my bad. Changed.
#5 Dec 01 2009 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
The US tried to teach farmers how to grow food crops and not opium, but the soil isn't suited for a lot of the best producing grain crops, and the money from food crops is not as much as they get from a field of poppies. Even with the US giving them the seed grain, farmers still lose money compared to the opium trade.

So the current plan is to try to make the opium trade as unprofitable as possible, by disrupting trade routes and cracking down on the cartels from the top down. And those are still run by the Taliban.
#6 Dec 01 2009 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
why do we hate the Taliban? I'm not asking because I think we shouldn't, necessarily. But for years, I have equated the Taliban with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and I don't think that's necessarily accurate.

Well, there's the whole fundamentalist theocracy that oppresses its people but Afghanistan isn't the only one of those. The tipping point was them willingly harboring Al'Qaeda and refusing to turn them over to the US following 9/11. Essentially, the Taliban was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Which is also why the world was all "Yay Afghanistan" and not "Yay Iraq". It was globally accepted that the Taliban had culpability.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Dec 01 2009 at 1:12 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, and regarding the OP, M. Moore can go pound sand. Was he sleeping in the run up to the election?
Obama's old campaign website wrote:
To end the war in Iraq, Barack Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to begin a phased withdrawal of combat troops out of Iraq. A drawdown in Iraq will not only free American troops from policing a civil war, it will also free up desperately needed military resources for the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was from the soil of Afghanistan that al Qaeda planned and trained for the mass murder of September 11. We fight there alongside 36 other nations committed to the cause. The people of Afghanistan also still want us there. Obama will deploy at least an additional two brigades (7,000 personnel) of rested, trained American troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts to fight the Taliban. He will also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

Obama never promised any swift withdrawal from Afghanistan. He actually said the opposite -- withdrawing from Iraq would allow the US to send more troops to Afghanistan.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Dec 01 2009 at 1:16 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
why do we hate the Taliban? I'm not asking because I think we shouldn't, necessarily. But for years, I have equated the Taliban with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and I don't think that's necessarily accurate.

Well, there's the whole fundamentalist theocracy that oppresses its people but Afghanistan isn't the only one of those. The tipping point was them willingly harboring Al'Qaeda and refusing to turn them over to the US following 9/11. Essentially, the Taliban was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Which is also why the world was all "Yay Afghanistan" and not "Yay Iraq". It was globally accepted that the Taliban had culpability.


Ahhh. So I'm not totally wrong in my Taliban = Al Qaeda thought process. Thanks, it's good to know I didn't just make that up in my head.
#9 Dec 01 2009 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
M Moore is a douche.


There, thread over.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#10 Dec 01 2009 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
Yeah, Moore posted that letter over on Daily Kos, and was attacked by some Kossacks because he was angry at Obama for upholding a campaign promise.

The infighting over on Dkos is quite interesting. People are pissed at Obama on the liberal side, because they feel he's not being progressive enough. The more centrist, sensible Kossacks point out that he ran as a moderate Dem, not a progressive Dem, and we elected him to do moderate Dem things, so attacking him for following his campaign platform is pointless.

It's actually similar to the ideological purging that goes on at conservative forums, only with better spelling and grammar.
#11 Dec 01 2009 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I disagree, catwho. I think it's interesting that the right portrays Obama as a far left politician because he's such a moderate and often frustratingly so. I like Obama in general but his lukewarm record on lgbt rights and some of his choices regarding healthcare has left me disappointed. As democrats, I'd hope that we'd be comfortable about people in our own ranks questioning the president--it'd make us unlike the republicans who'd defend the republican president regardless of what he does.

An anti-war democrat rightfully is going to be frustrated with Obama and like any good citizen, will question his policies when they interfere with his ideology.

I'd hope that the democrats-- a really pretty large tent party, would actually be able to disagree amongst ourselves in an open way and the party coalition could still withstand it. I'm not sure that what happens at the DailyKos represents in anyway the alienation and effective ouster of moderates from the GOP.



Edited, Dec 1st 2009 3:12pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#12 Dec 01 2009 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
I heard one night, probably on NPR, someone suggesting that maybe we should try talking to the Taliban. Try to help them learn how to mine for gold (I think it was...?) instead of growing poppies to make money. Apparently their current mining technique obliterates the precious metals and yields very little, where the equipment and techniques we can teach them are much more reliable.


It's tough really to have a higher profit crop than opium in the developing world. Mining and farming also take place on pretty diverse regions geologically speaking.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#13 Dec 01 2009 at 2:45 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
I have equated the Taliban with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and I don't think that's necessarily accurate. Is it how they treat women? Or just their drug trade?


I think you'll find that opium production just before before the US invasion was tiny compared to what it is now. Mullah Omar pronounced it un-islamic and production fell 94% in one year, 2001.

Screenshot


Quote:
Implemented in 2000-2001, the Taliban's drug eradication program led to a 94 percent decline in opium cultivation. In 2001, according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels.

The Vienna based UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that the 2006 harvest will be of the order of 6,100 tonnes, 33 times its production levels in 2001 under the Taliban government (3200 % increase in 5 years).


Link.

How they treat their women??? No worse than the Saudis. Or the Somalis. Or the Yemenis. Or any number of other places in the world....


And as far as Al Qeada training and launching their attacks from Afghanistan..Really? I thought most of their planning was done in Europe (you know where there are things like telephones and Internetz), and the training was mostly done in the USA.

The US administration isn't present in Afghanistan because of 'terrorists' or opium. That is merely marketing.

Marketing that seems to be remarkably succesful.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#14 Dec 01 2009 at 2:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
According to CNN by way of lolWiki, there were 120+ al'Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan & Pakistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks. There's also the small matter of the Taliban harboring that Osama bin Laden guy at the time. Also from lolWiki...
Quote:
After the Sudanese made it clear that bin Laden would never be welcome to return, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan—with previously established connections between the groups, administered with a shared militancy, and largely isolated from American political influence and military power—provided a perfect location for al-Qaeda to establish its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

They actually were (are?) pretty well tied into the Taliban.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Dec 01 2009 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:

How they treat their women??? No worse than the Saudis. Or the Somalis. Or the Yemenis. Or any number of other places in the world....


Do you think we should do human rights comparisons between Somalia and the Taliban? That's like deciding whether Thief X or Varrus is the bigger intellectual.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#16 Dec 01 2009 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
Mullar Omar pronounced it unIslamic, and it fell 94% in one year . . . did the threaten to kill people for violating sha'ria, I wonder?
#17 Dec 01 2009 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
Do you think we should do human rights comparisons between Somalia and the Taliban?


No. Of course not. But it seems to be one of the most common reasons given for the US to remain in Afghanistan. The others being, 'we must finish the job', tho what the job is, isnt clearly stated, and who decided that the job should be assigned to the US? Oh yeah, it was the US. I don't think the Afghanis were consulted at all.

Another reason is 'to bring stability to Afghanistan and the region'. Well that isn't working out very well, judging by the situation in Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan is becoming more unstable by the day and Iran is getting (understandably) more paranoid as it finds itself surrounded by the US military on all sides and more and more under threat from nuclear armed Israel. I fail to see how escalating in the region is going to bring stability.

Another. 'To support the fledgling Afghan govt'. The govt of Karzai is one of the most openly corrupt and incompetant govts in the world. Its bloody good at producing and distributing opium, but Im pretty sure thats not helping anyone much. Anyone really think that supporting them with US (and others) lives and money is a good idea??

When all is said and done, really, what is Obama doing? What will escalation achieve? If Bush was doing the escalating would people be seeing it differently?
Sending thousands more troops to kill and be killed into the country known as the 'Empire Killer'?

To what end?

Really?

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#18 Dec 01 2009 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I think the US is making the same mistake we've always made--basically thinking that military involvement and installing regimes will improve our relationships with Middle Eastern countries.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#19 Dec 01 2009 at 9:37 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,909 posts
It works like this.

- Following the Soviet collapse, the mujahideen who had made a career out of shooting American RPGs at Russians collapsed into a civil war over how to run the country. In 1996, the Taliban wins and everybody loses because the Taliban are an association of motherfucking psychopaths.
- America got involved in Afghanistan because they were afraid that Taliban radicalism would spread to nuclear-armed Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden was icing, really. America had been planning to put troops in Afghanistan way before 9/11.
- America realised that they can't do sh*t in Afghanistan because guys, people are complicated.
- America's stuck. If they stay there, the region gets worse. If they pull out, it looks like the Big Bad Empire has been beaten by the ewoks. The Taliban get credibility for fighting off the American aggressors and whichever administration gives the order can kiss goodbye to their collective political careers. Their only real option is to apply more force in the hopes that the weight of enough tanks will cause a breach in the fabric of space and time so they can go back to the 19th century and stop the British from getting involved and fucking the region over in the first place. Which is what started all this, really.

In closing, I blame Kavekk for 9/11 and make a motion to ban Britain. From everywhere.

Edited, Dec 2nd 2009 3:40am by zepoodle
#20 Dec 01 2009 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
I think the US is making the same mistake we've always made--basically thinking that military involvement and installing regimes will improve our relationships with Middle Eastern countries.


Agreed. We should go back to nukes.
#21 Dec 01 2009 at 10:16 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
I think the US is making the same mistake we've always made--basically thinking that military involvement and installing regimes will improve our relationships with Middle Eastern countries.


Agreed. We should go back to nukes.


We should support pro-American (or potentially pro-American) regimes, even if they are motherfuckers like Saudi Arabia.

Edited, Dec 1st 2009 11:19pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#22 Dec 01 2009 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
I think the US is making the same mistake we've always made--basically thinking that military involvement and installing regimes will improve our relationships with Middle Eastern countries.


Agreed. We should go back to nukes.


Well, I guess you guys are the experts Smiley: rolleyes

Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
We should support pro-American (or potentially pro-American) regimes, even if they are ************* like Saudi Arabia.


Seriously? Isn't that what got you into this mess in the first place?? Smiley: confused
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#23 Dec 01 2009 at 10:34 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
paulsol wrote:
Seriously? Isn't that what got you into this mess in the first place?? Smiley: confused


woosh

Edited, Dec 2nd 2009 4:36am by zepoodle
#24 Dec 01 2009 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:


Seriously? Isn't that what got you into this mess in the first place??


I guess I should be more clear--we should not be so focused on empire and nation building--just try to make allies where we can find them, not pull **** like we did in Iran in the 50s.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#25 Dec 01 2009 at 10:52 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:


we should not be so focused on empire


That. Right there.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#26 Dec 01 2009 at 10:55 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Quote:


Seriously? Isn't that what got you into this mess in the first place??


I guess I should be more clear--we should not be so focused on empire and nation building--just try to make allies where we can find them, not pull sh*t like we did in Iran in the 50s.


Oh. I thought you were being sarcastic.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (42)