OT: Obama is Conservative

[bsrsharma]

I don’t think either candidate is really conservative or liberal under any definition. They are tweaking their positions to win. Look at McCain’s position on immigration (for amnesty, before against amnesty, before for amnesty), economy (against taxcuts, before for taxcuts, before against taxcuts) etc., Both would do Kerry “I voted for it, before I voted against it” proud.

[gandalf]

casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.

As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.

[gandalf]

casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.

As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.

[gandalf]

casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.

As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.

[gandalf]

casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.

As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.

[gandalf]

casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.

As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.

[bsrsharma]

al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law)

That is a bit of exaggeration. Their main issue is with US support of Israel, somewhat unconditional mostly. They have lot less interest in Allan from Fallbrook following Sharia. They use this sales pitch for recruitment as it sounds loftier than just saying “let us kill the Americans”.

[bsrsharma]

al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law)

That is a bit of exaggeration. Their main issue is with US support of Israel, somewhat unconditional mostly. They have lot less interest in Allan from Fallbrook following Sharia. They use this sales pitch for recruitment as it sounds loftier than just saying “let us kill the Americans”.

[bsrsharma]

al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law)

That is a bit of exaggeration. Their main issue is with US support of Israel, somewhat unconditional mostly. They have lot less interest in Allan from Fallbrook following Sharia. They use this sales pitch for recruitment as it sounds loftier than just saying “let us kill the Americans”.

[bsrsharma]

al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law)

That is a bit of exaggeration. Their main issue is with US support of Israel, somewhat unconditional mostly. They have lot less interest in Allan from Fallbrook following Sharia. They use this sales pitch for recruitment as it sounds loftier than just saying “let us kill the Americans”.

[bsrsharma]

al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law)

That is a bit of exaggeration. Their main issue is with US support of Israel, somewhat unconditional mostly. They have lot less interest in Allan from Fallbrook following Sharia. They use this sales pitch for recruitment as it sounds loftier than just saying “let us kill the Americans”.

[Arraya]

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

I would help if the US did not sponsor it.

http://www.www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=aearly80madrassas

July 3, 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan
President Carter authorizes covert aid for opponents of the Communist government in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, will state in 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began… after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan… But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.… We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” [LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR (PARIS), 1/15/1998] After Brzezinski’s confession, other US officials who denied US involvement prior to the Soviet invasion will change their story as well. For instance, Charles Cogan, who is head of the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan at this time, will call Carter’s approval on this day a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” [COOLEY, 2002, PP. 10] In fact, even this is not correct because the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before (see 1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8, 1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

The Afghan Mujahedeen of the 1980s have been alleged to be the inspiration for terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia.[64] According to Russian sources, the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 allegedly used a manual allegedly written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives.[65]

The United Kingdom politician Robin Cook, who served as the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons described Al-Qaeda as meaning “the database” and a product of western miscalculation. Cook wrote:
Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[30]

[Arraya]

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

I would help if the US did not sponsor it.

http://www.www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=aearly80madrassas

July 3, 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan
President Carter authorizes covert aid for opponents of the Communist government in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, will state in 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began… after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan… But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.… We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” [LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR (PARIS), 1/15/1998] After Brzezinski’s confession, other US officials who denied US involvement prior to the Soviet invasion will change their story as well. For instance, Charles Cogan, who is head of the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan at this time, will call Carter’s approval on this day a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” [COOLEY, 2002, PP. 10] In fact, even this is not correct because the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before (see 1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8, 1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

The Afghan Mujahedeen of the 1980s have been alleged to be the inspiration for terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia.[64] According to Russian sources, the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 allegedly used a manual allegedly written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives.[65]

The United Kingdom politician Robin Cook, who served as the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons described Al-Qaeda as meaning “the database” and a product of western miscalculation. Cook wrote:
Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[30]

[Arraya]

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

I would help if the US did not sponsor it.

http://www.www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=aearly80madrassas

July 3, 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan
President Carter authorizes covert aid for opponents of the Communist government in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, will state in 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began… after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan… But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.… We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” [LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR (PARIS), 1/15/1998] After Brzezinski’s confession, other US officials who denied US involvement prior to the Soviet invasion will change their story as well. For instance, Charles Cogan, who is head of the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan at this time, will call Carter’s approval on this day a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” [COOLEY, 2002, PP. 10] In fact, even this is not correct because the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before (see 1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8, 1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

The Afghan Mujahedeen of the 1980s have been alleged to be the inspiration for terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia.[64] According to Russian sources, the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 allegedly used a manual allegedly written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives.[65]

The United Kingdom politician Robin Cook, who served as the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons described Al-Qaeda as meaning “the database” and a product of western miscalculation. Cook wrote:
Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[30]

[Arraya]

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

I would help if the US did not sponsor it.

http://www.www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=aearly80madrassas

July 3, 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan
President Carter authorizes covert aid for opponents of the Communist government in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, will state in 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began… after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan… But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.… We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” [LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR (PARIS), 1/15/1998] After Brzezinski’s confession, other US officials who denied US involvement prior to the Soviet invasion will change their story as well. For instance, Charles Cogan, who is head of the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan at this time, will call Carter’s approval on this day a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” [COOLEY, 2002, PP. 10] In fact, even this is not correct because the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before (see 1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8, 1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

The Afghan Mujahedeen of the 1980s have been alleged to be the inspiration for terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia.[64] According to Russian sources, the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 allegedly used a manual allegedly written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives.[65]

The United Kingdom politician Robin Cook, who served as the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons described Al-Qaeda as meaning “the database” and a product of western miscalculation. Cook wrote:
Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[30]

[Author]

Posts