Afghanistan Thread--Vietnam comparison and Nobel Peace Prize

[bjorn_skurj]

I think a lot of people (not just in this thread, but in Woodstock, at least) projected a lot of things on Obama, when really he is a centrist and his main selling point was that he was not Hillary Clinton.

[Sir Stewart]

I think a lot of people (not just in this thread, but in Woodstock, at least) projected a lot of things on Obama, when really he is a centrist and his main selling point was that he was not Hillary Clinton.

His main selling point was that he was the polar opposite of W.

[Guest Speed Racer]

You knew, and I knew. Which means he knew. Tis all I am saying.

 

So if we all knew, we were all on the same page and no one was duped.

 

Not keeping a promise where other people's actions effect the outcome of the promise really doesn't feel like a lie or a promise that wasn't kept.

 

What would really, truly anger me is if Obama fails to repeal Don't Ask. He "supports" repealing it, all it takes is him to do it, and there are no fatal, catastrophic outcomes: no one dies[*], no nations are left in turmoil. If he doesn't do it, it will be a true sign that he only gives a crap about how he comes off politically.

 

[*] Barring a handful of hate crimes in the military that I firmly believe would take place with or without the repeal.

[bjorn_skurj]

Letter to the editor in this week's:

 

History proves war doesn’t work

 

I was saddened by our president’s acceptance speech for theNobel Peace Prize. He missed a chance to witness to courage and leadership.True, Mr. Obama was awarded the prize and did not seek it for himself. However,even the Nobel Committee acknowledged that what they were rewarding was achange in direction, more than any concrete achievements for peace. Sadly, thecommittee missed the irony of awarding the prize to a President who is wagingtwo wars.

 

It is nice that Mr. Obama invoked the memories of MohandasK. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. He was right in saying that without theirvision and moral clarity, he would never have been standing at the lectern in Oslo.But he neglected to mention that both sacrificed their lives for taking this stand.This is true leadership.

 

Yes, like our president said, evil does exist in the world.But he was wrong in saying that a nonviolent movement could not have haltedHitler’s armies. It is this thinking that gives nations the right to wage “justwars.” Any kind of war is wrong. There is a much better way. This is why our presidentand all Americans need to understand the power of nonviolence.

 

History has proven this. Due to the patience andperseverance of Gandhi and his many followers, the mighty British Army washalted in its tracks and had to withdraw from India.This came about at a great personal cost to Gandhi. He was beaten, thrown intojail, and went on many hunger strikes which almost killed him.

 

By advocating love, forgiveness and nonviolence, Dr. Kingalso withstood the hatred and viciousness of those who believed in whitesupremacy. He, too, was beaten and imprisoned. He was even stabbed and did notretaliate. Through this he inspired hope and gave millions of people a visionthat transformed our entire society.

 

As a young man, I had the privilege of marching with Dr.King in Selma, where I experiencedfirsthand the nonviolent legacy that King gave to our nation. In the end, bothhe and Gandhi were assassinated for their beliefs. The evening before King waskilled, he said: “I have been to the mountaintop; I have seen the glory of theLord and I am not afraid.”

 

Both Gandhi and King drew their strength from a deep faithin God. Without such a faith, nonviolence will never seem possible. Only withit will we be able to overcome such vicious adversaries as Al-Qaeda and similargroup that abide by no rule or law.

 

Dostoyevsky writes: “Of some thoughts one stands perplexed —especially at the sight of men’s sin — and wonders whether one should use forceor humble love. Always decide to use humble love. If you resolve on that onceand for all, you may subdue the whole world. Loving humility is marvelouslystrong, the strongest of all things, and there is nothing else like it.”

 

Nonviolence is the strongest weapon we can wield to overcomeevil. May God give our President the strength and wisdom to embrace this truth.

 

Johann Christoph Arnold

 

Pastor

 

Woodcrest Community

 

Rifton

 

 

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Letter to the editor in this week's:

 

History proves war doesn’t work

 

But he was wrong in saying that a nonviolent movement could not have haltedHitler’s armies. It is this thinking that gives nations the right to wage “justwars.” Any kind of war is wrong. There is a much better way. This is why our presidentand all Americans need to understand the power of nonviolence.

 

Johann Christoph Arnold

 

Pastor

 

Woodcrest Community

 

Rifton

 

Amazing that such naive belief still finds its roots in America. Hitler and his minions would have used Pastor Arnold's intestines to grease their tank treads.

Not sof far fetched...they made lampshades out of the skin of Jews.

 

And while the picture posted below made a WONDERFUL and inspiring photo...the tanks still rolled and people still died...including the man. "Eyewitness reporter Charlie Cole believes that the man was taken away by secret police and was just one of the many executed in the aftermath of the military crackdown, since the Chinese government was never able to produce him after the photo became public."

 

[bjorn_skurj]

It is interesting, since the Bruderhof (of which Johann is the pastor) started in Germany and fled the Nazi regime or got driven out. They were all fled to England by the time the war started.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

It is interesting, since the Bruderhof (of which Johann is the pastor) started in Germany and fled the Nazi regime or got driven out. They were all fled to England by the time the war started.

 

 

So...WWII was THEIR fault? After all, according to Pastor Arnold's argument, Hitler could have been stopped with some non-violent dissent. They didn't stay and dissent; therefore...

 

Probably the wise choice. Hanging from a meathook by piano wire has a way of ruining your day.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I'm not convinced that non-violent resistance couldn't have stopped Hitler. It would have had to have been at the right time. Most all of the churches fell in line with the Nazis. Of course people would been killed and tortured. Thus

both sacrificed their lives for taking this stand.

 

As it was, plenty of people were killed and tortured.

 

And so instead we fight in Afghanistan against the remnants of the mujahideen, who were funded as part of the cold war, which was a result of World War 2, which was a result of World War 1. And on and on. And yet, surely Obama must be right. Surely if we fight enough good and just wars someday we will have peace.

[M. (hristine]

I guess we still like to believe that our government is a bright shining beacon. We handpicked Karzai. His delightful brother is also on the CIA's payroll.

 

Pakistan and Afghanistan are a dirty business.

[LouieB]

Yeah, poor Obama. He might lose votes either way. Come on, LouieB. That's not what is sad about this.

Yea, you are right...the sad part is we are mired in a conflict no one can seem to see their way out of.

 

His main selling point was that he was the polar opposite of W.

Next stop, after Obama.....President Palin....does anyone think THAT will be better? Our country is mired in so much politics as usual; that is the really upsetting thing about all this.

 

All of this...the slow progress (if any) on health care reform, control of the financial system, global warming, both wars, etc. etc. etc. is all stuck.

 

And as usual the best and most lasting reason to continue Barack in office---Supreme Court appointees. Does anyone want to see Sarah Palin do that in six or seven years from now? Sadly the war in Afganistan is going to drag on for years to come.

 

LouieB

[Panther]

right on brother

[MattZ]

His main selling point was that he was the polar opposite of W.

 

I don't think that's right SirS (and others). I think his main selling point was that he was the polar opposite of both W and Hillary (and yes, at the same time). They were both part of the establishment. He was the guy who was going to talk to us like adults. I never believed any of that hogwash, but I know a lot of people did.

[jakobnicholas]

CHANGE We Can Believe In

[ZenLunatic]

His main selling point was that he was the polar opposite of W.

 

Yet he is just like him. Making all the same mistakes.

[MattZ]

So if we all knew, we were all on the same page and no one was duped.

 

Not keeping a promise where other people's actions effect the outcome of the promise really doesn't feel like a lie or a promise that wasn't kept.

 

What would really, truly anger me is if Obama fails to repeal Don't Ask. He "supports" repealing it, all it takes is him to do it, and there are no fatal, catastrophic outcomes: no one dies[*], no nations are left in turmoil. If he doesn't do it, it will be a true sign that he only gives a crap about how he comes off politically.

 

[*] Barring a handful of hate crimes in the military that I firmly believe would take place with or without the repeal.

 

Speed, I was going to ask you to think about an issue you feel strongly about and substitute it for Afghanistan. Obama was smart enough to know, at the time, that Dont Ask Dont Tell would be difficult to repeal. And yet he campaigned as such anyway. He received votes from people because of it.

 

The bottom line is, I never really believed he'd be able to get us out immediately. But the fact remains that candidates who SAID as such, and who REFUSED to campaign that he/she would/should/could get out of Iraq immediately, lost votes to Obama because he said he'd get us out. And Obama knew at the time that he couldn't. And here we are.

 

If you want to tell me that that isn't a lie, fine, it's all semantics to me. As I said, I voted for the guy, I think he's brilliant. But I just think he is the master politician of our lifetime. He isn't DIFFERENT than Bush or Hillary. He is BETTER.

 

EDIT: I think I've been reading too much Glen Greenwald recently.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I think his main selling point was that he was the polar opposite of both W and Hillary (and yes, at the same time).

 

That was true until he clinched the nomination, at which point he obviously accepted the Clinton influence again. A lot of his campaign to me said, "You were better of ten years ago than you are today," and Hilary started campaigning on his behalf.

 

I don't think he ever stopped talking to voters like they were adults. I'd say a good sign someone's talking to you like an adult is that they allow you to assess the likelihood of their claims and promises yourself.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Speed, I was going to ask you to think about an issue you feel strongly about and substitute it for Afghanistan. Obama was smart enough to know, at the time, that Dont Ask Dont Tell would be difficult to repeal. And yet he campaigned as such anyway. He received votes from people because of it.

 

Don't Ask Don't Tell is difficult to repeal purely because of the hit to his political capital. Iraq is a logistical clusterfuck, in which hundreds or thousands of lives hang in the balance. If he doesn't repeal Don't Ask he's a political whore and a coward, because he is placing his own importance ahead of other people's lives. If he doesn't get us out of Iraq in the time he said he would back when he didn't know all the details, he is someone who assessed a situation incorrectly.

 

Edit: I would MUCH rather he wait until he is militaristically confident that he can pull out of Iraq in the safest way possible than do it when he said he could.

 

I do think he will be the President to get us out of Iraq. I also think it will kill his political career.

[ZenLunatic]

I don't feel hatred for the man Im not that naive but ponder this question, if Barack Obama was a good and decent man at heart why would he wan't to be president

 

 

As much as I criticize Obama and Bush, I don't think they is bad at heart or evil in any way. They just make decisions about America that are too politically driven instead of what is most correct.

[MattZ]

Edit: I would MUCH rather he wait until he is militaristically confident that he can pull out of Iraq in the safest way possible than do it when he said he could.

 

I do think he will be the President to get us out of Iraq. I also think it will kill his political career.

 

I agree with all of this. We only differ on when we think he realized this was the case.

[ZenLunatic]

Edit: I would MUCH rather he wait until he is militaristically confident that he can pull out of Iraq in the safest way possible than do it when he said he could.

 

thats the thing. what if the safe time is years from now or never? hasnt it been too long already? you have to draw lines and dates and do it no matter what. when does the toll get big enough to leave?

[Guest Speed Racer]

We only differ on when we think he realized this was the case.

 

No, I think we agree that he wasn't certain about the possibility of executing the timeline in a, well, timely manner.

 

What you and I disagree on is whether the facts he was given at the time about the present situation there made that timeline a realistic possibility when he said it. We also disagree on whether any reasonable adult (= voter) could discern that the timeline he presented was subject to change based on circumstances in Iraq once he took office.

[MattZ]

No, I think we agree that he wasn't certain about the possibility of executing the timeline in a, well, timely manner.

 

What you and I disagree on is whether the facts he was given at the time about the present situation there made that timeline a realistic possibility when he said it. We also disagree on whether any reasonable adult (= voter) could discern that the timeline he presented was subject to change based on circumstances in Iraq once he took office.

 

This is all semantics to me, SpeedRacer. War is complicated. Again, you and I knew enough to know that any timeframe he suggested was subject to change, and frankly, not realistic. And yet, it wasn't proposed by Obama as such. Instead, it was proposed as a way of differentiating himself, and in the context of talking to as adults. As in, "I am being straight with you -- the other candidates aren't." I dont think he was talking to us as adults, or being straight with us. I think he was making a political calculation, and it paid off. Good for him. But I am going to call him on it.

 

The fact that he blows smoke up my ass, but he and I both know he is doing it, doesn't mean he is talking to me like an adult. It means he is talking to me like W and Hillary. I know when they are blowing smoke up my ass too.

[NightOfJoy]

Pyramid power is our only hope now.

[Lammycat]

Did someone say Ponzi scheme?

[NightOfJoy]

Soylent green is people!