Comments on: Updated: Lackeys On The Left (‘Olby’)

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:15:20 +0000

War is one of the Liberals stock in trade. If it’s the other team’s war, you have something to use against the other guy, if your side has the war, now you can promote ‘nation building’ Win-win.

By: Michel Cloutier

Michel Cloutier — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:23:50 +0000

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the ‘War on terror’ represented the ideal enemy with which to justify a vast military-industrial establishment. One can only go so far inflating the threat from powerhouses like North Korea. Also, you can’t have an ennemy whom you trade with, or depend on for vital resources. So here is a foe that doesn’t really exist, so he can never really harm you (unlike the Soviet Union), and is always there handy since he can never really be defeated. Problem is, even bogus ennemies costs a lot to fight, way too much for what the US can now afford. Soon it will be time to declare victory and bring back to boys.

By: Bob Harrison

Bob Harrison — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:20:33 +0000

As barbaric as the Pashtun are, they aren’t stupid. They have the power of patience on their side. They have internet connections, they know whats going on in the United States. They don’t want modernity or westernization, they want to be isolated, poor, and free. They know all they have to do is wait until our economy collapses from the cost of war, and if it takes more than one generation, so be it. Isn’t that how they succeeded against the Soviets? Our “allies” in the north of the country are the Tajik and Uzbek drug lords, the same ones the Soviets backed. But of course, any comparison between the US and the Soviet Union is just unthinkable!

By: Barbara Grant

Barbara Grant — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:06:13 +0000

Unfortunately, we Americans have little grasp of history, and that includes the history of the British Empire in locations such as Mesopotamia and Afghanistan. Do folks realize that the first “plebiscite” in Iraq was promoted after WWI to bring Faisal (an ally of T. E. Lawrence) to power there, with no regard whatsoever for the fact that the tribal peoples had no experience at all with “democracy” as western people understand it, and was also merely a charade to convince the French in Syria and the English public back home that individuals in the region really did desire that this king be crowned? (He was soon overthrown.)

It might be wise to reconsider whether “elections” in far-off countries with no history of “democracy” are just put up for “good results” attributed to those who have military power (that’s us!) with a desire to convince gullible citizens back home that things are “working to plan.”

By: Roy Bleckert

Roy Bleckert — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:53:34 +0000

MP makes an important point

” Wars are NOT FOOTBALL GAMES to be “won”. They should ONLY be undertaken for national survival.”

We should only engage a act of War to support and defend the United States and it’s Constitution ,against all enemies foreign and domestic and use whatever it necessary to defend the US and when the threat is no longer there we rescind the act of War and come home.

To do anything else is not only unconstitutional, it is uncivilized.

By: Vic Jones

Vic Jones — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:44:17 +0000

If the U.S. stays in Iraq and Afghanistan for a considerable length of time, I believe it will be instructive to hear the political reasons why we must stay involved there. It will be a good opportunity for us to hear how the State explains itself. Given Obama’s campaign rhetoric, I can’t imagine what he can say about maintaining our military presence in these two countries that will not be an appalling self-contradiction. But then how does bombing Kosovo mesh with the proclaimed values of “progressive liberalism”? I’m sure explanations for maintaining our presence in these regions will have something to do with -“Well Bush got us there.” True, but a non sequitur for staying there. And it will have something to do with our vital interests and our own good. And it may even be a way that Obama can prove he’s a “tough guy” and serious about combating terrorism. But it makes sense when one understands Statism to some degree. The “War on Terror”, the “War on Drugs”, and the “War on Poverty” all maintain the State’s existence. And all these “wars” are nothing more than aggression on other people’s liberty.

By: George Pal

George Pal — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:55:45 +0000

Keith Olbermann is the Unitarians’ most famous contribution to the show business since P. T. Barnum (200 years ago next year). Wasn’t it PTB who said “There’s a sucker born every minute”?

For whatever its worth – coming from me – Andrew Bacevich is right.

By: Gringo Malo

Gringo Malo — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:51:12 +0000

The Revolution Was contains a paragraph: "So, what the New Deal really intended to do, ... , was to reorganize and control the 'whole economic and therefore the whole social structure of the country.' And therein lay the meaning — the only consistent meaning — of a series of acts touching money, banking and credit which, debated as monetary policy, made no sense whatever." Nothing that the government has done in its prosecution of the "War on Terror" makes any sense debated as military policy or civil defense policy. For example, it made no sense to invade either Iraq or Afghanistan, to declare that Saudi Arabia is our ally, or to continue admitting ever increasing numbers of Middle Eastern Muslims to this country. It's easy to dismiss the architects of the "War on Terror" as fools, but they might be more clever than anyone suspects. Their motives are beyond my comprehension.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:43:13 +0000

In physics, one learns about matter and anti-matter – just as an electron orbits a proton in the hydrogen atom, a positron will orbit an anti-proton in the anti-hydrogen atom but both atoms have the same behaviors. The LEFTist Welfare-Warfare state where Olbermann orbits Obama is the mirror image of the RIGHTist Warfare-Welfare state where Limbaugh orbits Bush.

A fascinating read is the series by David Rhode of the New York Times who spent seven months as a “guest” of the Taliban which was operating in the open in Pakistan with the acquiescence of the Pakistani military:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/world/asia/20hostage.html

Wars are NOT FOOTBALL GAMES to be “won”. They should ONLY be undertaken for national survival. Unlike Kristol and the neocon chicken hawks, Bacevich served and lost a son. He’s a Vietnam vet who understands the nature of war.
A colleague of mine was murdered by the “friendly” Iraqis when he tried to expose their corruption:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/…/0506.roston.html

and a Marine tragically took his own and his brother’s life – from PTSD:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/…/080929fa_fact_finnegan

and they don’t even COUNT among the 4000+ dead.

The barbarian Islamic world will NOT BECOME CIVILIZED by endless search and destroy patrols, foreign aid, or Reaper drones! Leave Iraq!