General Wesley Clark
In an op-ed in today’s <a
href=”http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/08/17/2009-08-17_obama_must_learn_from_vietnam_gen_wesley_clark_gives_the_president_advice_for_af.html?page=0″>Daily News, General Wesley Clark warns about the growing similarities between Vietnam and Afghanistan. According to polling, our involvement in Afghanistan is now opposed by 54% of respondents. We find ourselves supporting an unpopular, somewhat corrupt regime. What does he propose?
- Our best knowledge is that Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan anymore anyway. Yet he is not suggesting we just leave.
- The danger is that the current government of Afghanistan will fall to the Taliban who will in turn invite Al Qaeda back in.
- The current government, especially with its extraordinary level of corruption, commands little loyalty.
- Rooting out the corruption so that stability no longer depends on thugs like General Dostum requires a much larger commitment: there has to be very strong security to effect the necessary political changes.
Maybe we don’t need to see a perfect democracy in Afghanistan, but a weak kleptocracy does us no favors either.
Had the Bush Administration not abandoned Afghanistan in 2003 for its Iraq improvisation, things might have been a lot better. How are we going to get out of this one?Please share widely!
We should support free and fair elections and let the chips fall where they may. I agree that Iraq took our focus off Afghanistan; for me that was the primary reason for opposing this particular campaign into Iraq. I fear that beating a hasty retreat will leave behind a failed state and we will find ourselves back there in a few years. The question policy makers need to ask is what actions on our part will result in the best combination of democracy and stability that we can be confident will endure.
What if a free and fair election results in a regime uninterested in future free and fair elections?
Your example wouldn’t cut it. Maybe I should have said free, fair, and regular elections. I certainly don’t want to tell another country exactly how frequently to have elections, but if it’s been more than ten years since voters went to the polls I’d definitely start to get concerned. The longer it has been since the most recent election, the less popular legitimacy there is for the government, though there is something to be said for a little stability and long-range visioning as well. There is unfortunately such a thing as illiberal democracy, as oxymoronic as that may sound. Juan Peron in Argentina is an example of someone who was democratically elected, but then showed little respect for other rights that constitute a free society. A modern example would be Hugo Chavez. I agree that it is a fine line at times.
At least in terms of electing a government that may not be terribly friendly to us. They’re relatively new as an elected government so it’s too soon to tell if they’ll oppose elections down the line. I suspect the Palestinians have had enough of a taste of democracy, that they wouldn’t let Hamas get away with cancelling elections. My understanding is that they only prevailed in one region whereas Fatah is still the national government for Palestine. Even so we should recognize their legitimacy, but that doesn’t mean don’t apply diplomatic pressure when warranted.
… I’m not aware of any effort by Hamas to discontinue elections.
The Communists in Italy were the dominant party for decades…it’s only because a cordon sanitaire was enforced around them that they never formed the government.
Tell me again why we care at all about Afghanistan?
<
p>What strategic interests are we protecting, other than pride?
<
p>What do we know that the Soviets didn’t?
<
p>What terrible disaster befalls us if we simply walk away?
Don’t you find training camps for terrorists problematic?
<
p>This war was not fought to protect “strategic interests” like oil or whatever other resources there could be. This was started to destroy Al Qaeda’s ability to train terrorists in the region and destroy the Taliban’s reign of terror which allowed and protected terrorist camps to work and thrive unmolested. The Taliban is still very much a threat to the people in Afghanistan and they are still a major factor to consider when talking about simply walking away.
<
p>Just because a country has been invaded by two seperate nations within a reasonably close time of each other doesn’t mean that they were there for the same reasons. I think you know that. There were/are different players this time around, different governments and different factors for both invading and maintaining our forces there.
<
p>I may be wrong, but it seems as if your of the pacific opinion that since all wars/violence are inherently wrong, walking away is the only logical answer. This is not Iraq and this is not Vietnam. We all seem to like making giant compare/contrast charts comparing one highly complex military and diplomatic venture and another. There are different motives, different players, different international systems at work and different stakes between all three countries. Let’s not oversimplify things to make them more palatable to our ideologies.
“Stopping terrorism” is a strategic interest. Surely we have learned from Iraq — not to mention Vietnam — that waging unilateral war without local invitation or support not only fails, but in fact worsens the situation.
<
p>”Destroying the Taliban’s reign of terror” is not, on the face of it, a strategic interest for the US. If the civilized world agrees, then the US might want to join the effort. Even if so, waging war in Afghanistan is not the answer. If “destroying the Taliban’s reign of terror” was a strategic interest, then we were wrong to aid the Taliban when they opposed the Soviets. Are you arguing that we were mistaken then? If so, then we should make that case.
<
p>I have not said that “all wars/violence are inherently wrong”. I have, instead, said that the war on terror is both the wrong metaphor and the wrong reality. I strongly suspect that waging war in Afghanistan is the wrong immediate expression of this wrong metaphor. I have said that a better metaphor is that terrorism is an auto-immune disease, and that we should treat it as such.
<
p>I suggest that a better approach to stopping terrorism — a goal that we all share — is to use our considerable resources, together with those of the rest of the civilized world — to ameliorate the factors that spawn terror, while treating the immediate symptoms of the disease. Here are some specifics:
<
p>- Excise the disease sites. Yes, the training camps for terrorists are problematic. Yes, someone will have to use force to eliminate them. It is not at all clear to me that the US is the most appropriate source of that force.
<
p>- Treat the factors that create or worsen the disease. If it were cancer, we suggest that the patient stop smoking, because the various carcinogens enhance the creation and growth of cancerous cells. In an auto-immune disease (like HIV), we would look very carefully at the immune response of the patient, recognizing that the harmful effects of the disease are, in fact, dominated by the over-reaction of the patient’s own immune system. Our knee-jerk reaction to 911 — our invasion of Iraq, our eagerness to discard our own constitutional and human rights, our unilateral approach to the rest of the world — all are strikingly similar to an overactive immune response.
<
p>I suggest that both metaphors lead to far more effective responses to terror than the “war” metaphor.
I think the “war on terror” is a campaign slogan helpful to the GOP in 2004 but useless as an analytic tool.
<
p>Even using your disease metaphor, though, quitting smoking after the lung cancer has developed won’t help. Similarly, we have a significant number of Sunnis trying to re-establish the caliphate possibly violently. To the extent Al Qaeda is their organization and the Taliban their enablers, we have a problem.
<
p>I doubt that these Caliphate-enthusiasts are going to drop their world view in the face of improvements in material conditions. Long-term, yes, but the situation seems more acute now, with the danger of more Asian Muslims (think Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India whose populations dwarf the Middle East), taking up this view.
I agree that that some Sunnis are striving to re-establish their caliphate. I agree that AQ is their organization and I agree that the Taliban are enabling them.
<
p>It seems to me that the appeal of the Caliphate to the masses of Asian Muslims that you mention will be significantly impaired by (a) demonstrating that America a is more trustworthy source of improvement than AQ or a Sunni Caliphate (and we must acknowledge that this will take at least a generation, if not longer), (b) an immediate improvement in their material conditions, and (c) demonstrating that the civilized world joins America in this commitment.
<
p>In the scenario I describe, the “Caliphate-enthusiasts” can offer whatever world-view they like — they’ll be increasing ignored. It seems to me that our attempts to squash them only strengthen their credibility in the audience we care about — those Asian masses.
<
p>As they (and AQ) become increasingly marginalized, their individual cells become increasingly easier for local forces to identify and eradicate. The Taliban will live or die according to actions and beliefs of Afghans.
<
p>I might add Pakistan is still very problematic, especially in comparison to India. When we’re choosing allies and picking sides, I’m not at all sure how much weight we should place on Pakistan’s professed attitudes towards the Taliban — particularly given the decided ambiguous reality of their actions.
<
p>In short, it seems to me that the Taliban should be a relatively small part of a much more significant global US foreign policy and strategy. I fear that we are allowing the Taliban tail to wag the US foreign policy dog.
Right now, I tend to think that policy with respect to Pakistan is key, but the politics there are awfully murky. Their previous problematic behavior during the Bush Administration was mostly with Musharraf in power. Return to parliamentary government might make things better — or not. If you recall, Bush gave India a green light on nuclear development which was stupid and destabilizing. Secretary Clinton has her work cut out for her.
<
p>In any case, the situation in western Pakistan, on the border with Afghanistan is alarming, and I don’t think it can be improved with some application of military force by someone.
It should read:
<
p>I don’t think it can be improved without some application of military force by someone.
it surely doesn’t need to be US force.
<
p>A fundamental problem we face with encouraging genuine democracy throughout the Muslim world is that the first two steps a democratically-elected government will take in most of these nations are:
<
p>1) Vote to eliminate Israel, and
2) Vote to expel US military forces
<
p>We have used military force to prop up dictators and tyrants (eg Saudi Arabia) precisely to avoid these two outcomes (among others).
…and it’s too bad. At GWB’s second inagural he spoke eloquently about spreading democracy, but many of us were skeptical to say the least as to whether he’d apply that to places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. As for the potential votes:
<
p>Eliminate Israel – What good does this do? If they act on it we should come to Israel’s aid, but maybe doing what you suggest we should would cause them to back off anyway.
<
p>Expel our troops – Well as a sovereign nation that would be their right, wouldn’t it? Right now we’re in Saudi Arabia by invitation, but if a new government told us to get lost then we should unless we have darn good reason to commence hostile action.
The third step, after the first two I mentioned above, would be to nationalize the petroleum resources currently held by “friendly” interests in the ME.
<
p>We are in the ME in order to preserve our petroleum supply.
<
p>I am quite confident that we would find, invent, or provoke a pretext to use whatever force is required to retain that supply. Our “commitment” to democratic government in the region is far less important than our commitment to cheap petroleum and fat Exxon/Mobil (not to mention Halliburton) profit margins.
I think what you suggest is very possible. After all if Alaska does it, why shouldn’t they? Our commitment to democracy is less than consistent as you point out, but it’s never too late to start. I just wish more Americans knew about our role in overthrowing the Mossedegh(sp?) government in Iran before they wail about why they hate us.
<
p>Personally, I feel that as the nation that declared to the world the right of all mankind to establish a government condusive to their safety and happiness, and on whose soil was fired “the shot heard round the world” should be first in line to promote freely elected governments elsewhere, regardless of other consequences. I believe in the long run it will be better for us too because we would be able to develop good will and it was pointed out in an international politics class I took that democracies almost never go to war with each other and indeed are generally allies rather than enemies.
I have to first point out that I never supported the war in Iraq…there never was a “clear and present danger” from Iraq. But since when does any country need a “local invitation” to send combat troops into an area that does pose a danger to their country? Are you suggesting that after 9/11 that we should have waited for an invitation to attack the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
<
p>Yes, our Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy needs to be recalibrated and General Clark, as always, provides excellent insight. And while we are still waiting for a revamped approached, we are also finally seeing signs of US counter insurgency tactics that are moving us closer to a sane approach. We are trying to figure out who the “good” Taliban are and which factions are closely tied with Al Qaeda. Hopefully we can buy off or otherwise neutralize the “good” Taliban with non violent means and kill the rest. We are attacking their money source by targeting the opium network and, finally, we are focusing on protecting the civilian population, instead of seeing them as collatertal damage (read Tom Ricks’ “The Gamble” for more insight). Yes, we have a lot more work to do, but the ship is slowly moving in the right direction.
<
p>So yes, destroying the Taliban is not the answer, but destroying the factions that are indistinguishable from Al Qaeda is required and depending on who you define as “the civilized world”, the civilized world–NATO–is fighting with us. Your point about our support for the Taliban in the 80’s is silly. Bin Laden was our ally then also, do you live in world that never has shifting friends and enemies–should we stop trading with Japan because they were once our enemy? In you personal life, has the status quo remained the same regarding who your friends and foes have been over the last 30 years?
<
p>I agree that the “war on terror is both the wrong metaphor and the wrong reality” and you don’t see the Obama administration using that metaphor. GWOT is thankfully dead and Obama worked real hard to avoid the harsh language of the Bush era in talking with the Arab and Muslim world (something Bush of course never did-he only lectured them).
<
p>What I can’t comprehend is how you expect other countries to attack training camps that are training people to kill us and the Europeans? Pakistan will only act in their own interests…and finally they are seeing the radical Taliban/Al Qaeda folks as a threat to their security and they are finally fighting them (as opposed to the last 8 years of pretending to make us happy, so they can soak us for billions in aid). What other countries will do the fighting for us?
<
p>I do agree that we can “contain” the ideology that Al Qaeda spouts and over time the movement will die a disgraced death. But today we need to kill the people that practice or implement the ideology. Yes we need to invest in more “soft” approaches and a “stick only” approach will be self defeating, but using 4 civilian airliners are weapons to crash into buildings is a stark reminders of the kinds of people we are dealing with..
<
p>Lastly, I’ve got to come back to this “civilized” world that you mentioned several times. Who are they? Whether it’s a bunch in neighbors in Brookline debating whether a park should be built down the street or nations debating what to do about terrorist bombing cities around the world, we all act in our own self-interests and seldom can that behavior be defined as “civilized”. Was Europe acting “civilized” when they sat on their hands for years while genocide was committed in the Balkans? Or was General Clark and the US acting civilized when he/we bombed the Serbs until they stopped the killing? Unfortunately “civilized” is an exceedingly high level of expectation and depends on subjective interpretation that has very little to do with the situation in Afghanistan.
What are all the critics who blasted Bush for not having enough troops in Afghansitan saying now that there ARE enough troops in Afghanistan? Do we need more troops and if so why won’t Obama send more?
<
p>When will the Globe start publishing the names/addresses/ages of all the brave soldiers dying in Afghanistan?
<
p>Rather than Viet Nam, will Afghanistan become Obama’s Iraq?
<
p>Will the left’s colonoscopy technique used on Bush/Iraq be spared from Obama?
<
p>Will Obama’s failure in Afghanistan effect his success in Healthcare reform and other initiatives?
<
p>How much money are we spending in Afghanistan each month that could be used to employ Americans or spend on Human Service programs here in the USA?
<
p>When Obama was elected I knew he would get scorched by Afghanistan and that scorching hasn’t even started yet.
<
p>And to be consistent, much like Bush’s goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, I support Obama’s efforts to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban today. I just enjoy watching the hypocrisy of the left and BMGers here. BTW… has Obama and the Democratic Senate and House repealed the Patriot Act yet? Surely this Big Brother, intrusively right wing initiative has been short-circuited by Obama… or is it in fact an essential program that Bush and Cheney should be thanked for?
I don’t have any answers, though. But I like the questions.
They all seem like “have you sopped beating your wife” strawmen to me.
<
p>What parts do you like? Seriously (not being snarky).
I could discover the cure for cancer and you would quibble that it only works 98% and what about the poor 2%.
<
p>You are completely void of anything felicitous or anodyne when it comes to me. Didn’t we have a Gentlemen’s agreement that you would simply NOT READ my posts and ignore me???
because it is a blatant appeal for attention that adds nothing to the discussion.
This is at least my second post where I’m rather critical of Obama Administration policy on Afghanistan.* To state it very charitably, it’s odd to suggest that we liberals will be so hypocritical as to avoid criticizing the President in a diary by a liberal criticizing the President.
<
p>Note too, that the exchange between Tom of Brookline and me is an exchange between a liberal critical of Obama and a liberal very critical of Obama.
* And don’t get me started on banking policy.
My issue is that the questions are like a primer on logical fallacies and false equivalencies. Either the premises are premature (e.g. Obama’s failure in Afghanistan) or they’re unsubstantiated smears (e.g. What are all the critics who blasted Bush…). All are knowable, but no facts are provided.
<
p>The whole point appears to be call BMGers hypocrites, despite the fact that this whole diary is critical of Obama and the Afghanistan policy.
<
p>Hence my question.
It said nothing whatever about Afghanistan or Afghanistan policy.
I am very critical of President Obama’s policy towards Afghanistan. I am enthusiastically supportive of President Obama. I simply feel that he, like KBusch, is mistaken about Afghanistan.
<
p>Oh, and I agree with huh’s characterization of JohnD’s “questions”.
“Trying to talk to you is like trying to talk to my dining room table…” BF
<
p>So I’ll remove the pesky questions which make your buttocks twitch and RE-ask a few simple basic ones…
<
p>- What is Obama’s exit strategy for Afghanistan?
<
p>- Bush was criticized for not having enough troops in Afghanistan (currently 62,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan with 6,000 more expected to arrive by the end of the year). Do we need more troops and if so will Obama send more?
Obama’s Afghanistan policy is even backed by John McCain.
If you are such a big McCain fan why didn’t you vote for him?
<
p>Speaking of McCain, here’s an interesting twit…
<
p>OBAMA – October 2008…
<
p>
<
p>BTW… Was that “Healthcare” fear mongering????
<
p>OBAMA – March 2009…
<
p>
<
p>And another BTW, I supported McCain for President but that doesn’t mean I agreed with everything he said. I said above(did you even read it before you gave me the ZERO) that I too support Obama’s increase in troops in Afghanistan but I still want to know the answers to my questions.
<
p>And another surprise, I too support Healthcare reform and many of the items in the House and Senate bills. Why is that opposition to certain aspects of a bill makes me (and others) against the ENTIRE bill and are for the status quo. The status quo (especially Medicare) is going to bankrupt the country. We need change which is why I offered the bill by Sen Coburn. It’s funny that my “whining” about this bill has been met with “So what are your ideas smartass” remarks and yet when I posted this a few days ago, not a single person has commented. I would bet this is exactly what is happening in the House and Senate where Republicans are being characterized as the party of “NO” and happy with the status quo when in fact the reality is their suggestions are simply being ignored.
<
p>Lastly, I also noticed you have given me your obligatory ZERO on the post that YOU RESPONDED TO! Will this MO of yours continue? Do you want a ZERO rating war? IS that productive? Rather than rate it ZERO why don’t you argue as you did by mentioning McCain supports Obama’s plan? I’ll bet McCain supports other Obama initiatives too like increasing benefits to servicemen…
The current unemployment rate amoung heads of households in Afghanistan is over 40%.
<
p>The majority of those bearing arms for the Taliban don’t support the Taliban but are being paid $8.00 a day to fight, which they use to keep their families from starving.
<
p>If the USA/allies paid the same men $9.00 or even $7.00 a day to build roads and bridges, the Taliban would be deserted in droves by these men who consider the Taliban as an “employer of last resort” because their farms are destroyed, factories are destroyed, and food and fuel still cost money and no one is hiring. NPR story that most taliban fighters are only fighting for the money to save their families from starvation
All of you who have been giving each other ‘0’s simply because you dislike another poster or his/her opinions should stop acting like petulant children.
<
p>If it were up to me, I would give all of you a “time out” from posting.
I’ve come to realize that any rating (whether you think it’s appropriate or not), just feeds the troll.
Ratings are less likely to be responded to and continue the cycle. I’ve been called out recently for responding too much so I’ve reverted to giving 3s and 4s. I only give zeroes on the very rare occasions that I feel the comment was egregiously offensive, but never for even the strongest disagreement.
Not sure what to do here.
<
p>At least Afghanistan is a more important problem!
…JD would add little nasty notes to my posts, hoping to bait me into an argument.
<
p>Going to ratings seemed less confrontational, but apparently he takes each one as a personal insult.
<
p>I’d love suggestions.
Since I now know you read all my comments, maybe I should not be so hung up on the ratings since I’ll assume the 97 comments you DID NOT rate were above “WORTHLESS or DELETE” so the implication is those comments just “need work”.
<
p>I know you’re not asking ME for suggestions but here’s one anyway. How about if we agree to not rate each other’s comments? KBusch and others can do your dirty work and you look clean so I can’t complain and display your record.
Rather than blaming this on some great left wing conspiracy, you might want to think about why multiple people rated each of those comments worthless or delete.
<
p>I’m sure it’s convenient for you to think that I just hate you, but how do you explain the dozens of other downratings you’ve received?
<
p>You single out my 16 out of 133, but a quick look at your ratings shows an equal number of 3s and 0s on posts I didn’t rate at all.
<
p>In fact, in your last 200 posts, you only received a handful of rankings above worthless. JoeTS, to take one differently winged example, regularly gets 6s. So do I.
<
p>Why do you think that is?
Maybe I should consider the low ratings as an opportunity to improve greatly. However, when I look at some of my posts which I believe transcended partisanship and were truly constructive and sincere (with no poopy language), I still get slapped. I’m not a psychiatrist but I’m sure KBusch or someone could respond with the syndrome of people getting whipped both when they do the right thing AND do the wrong thing. So maybe I have that?
<
p>I am willing to repeat a quote from Sgt Crowley and say ” I’m only looking forward…”.
<
p>I’d only ask the same from you. Rate my posts in as unbiased way as you can. My ratings were in response to yours. Even when you piss me off I usually don’t give out ZEROS. In fact, if you check your posts prior to the last 2 weeks, you’ll see I give you 6’s often.
<
p>But I will take your advice and do some soul searching (yes, I have one) while on vaca.
You seem to be intent on playing the victim, but I can’t figure out why
<
p>You’ve given me one non-zero rating and that was a 5 on 5 August. You went on to call me “wishy-washy” and a “hypocrite.”
<
p>You might want to think about that.
I suggest ve remove his interlocutor and begin the amalgamation… it’s the only thing. I am glad you don’t respond and I have enjoyed the derth of huh’s comments as well. I have almost pleaded with you and huh to ignore my comments… or as I instruct my 2 youngest… don’t talk TO each other or ABOUT each other.
<
p>I try to have civil discussions and I am obviously not aligned with many here ideologically or politically. The discussions usually start out fine but then writers like you KBusch start to attack and insult but use a well honed skill of doing it on the sly. You don’t call someone a shithead but you reference a movie where someone calls someone a shithead. I use the direct method.
<
p>You wrote this diary about Afghanistan and I asked a bunch of questions. Questions you yourself may have asked George Bush about Iraq a year or 2 ago. I didn’t ask any intellectual questions about the formation of Islam or how many are Twelvers vs. Ismailis. I did ask one question which is “What is Obama’s exit strategy for Afghanistan?”… Sound familiar??
<
p>But you see Huh and others hate me with a passion. The constant ZEROS and THREES are automatic with huh due to a fixation on me. Even when one of BMG’s editors (Bob) replied “Good questions…I don’t have any answers, though. But I like the questions.” I could see huh’s inner soul begin to boil and volcanic lava erupted out her mouth. While Huh probably thought “BOB, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND!!!!” Huh cooly responded “What? blah blah blah”.
<
p>I have had some great conversations on BMG. I started a diary a few weeks ago about hating lawyers and of course many people attacked me. The post was about my frustration in not being able to donate and help families with children’s toys, clothing, furniture and the comments from here were that I wanted kids to eat lead paint, get strangled in dangerous cribs and catch Jarts with their skulls. The good news is we did come to a conclusion that maybe a “limited liability or indemnification” on charities could be a good thing. So even with my zeal and some other people’s lack of understanding or caring, we made some progress.
<
p>So when people like CHristopher want to have meaningful conversations about controversial subjects which we are diametrically opposed on, let it happen. Mind your fucking business if you don’t want to play because you’re so intellectually superior to me. I’ll treat you and Huh with the same ambivalence I have for my first wife (without the alimony) meaning “enjoy your life but I don’t care whether you do or not”. Don’t ruin the joy others get either conversing with me, snarking at me or ridiculing me… maybe I like it. Want to discuss Healthcare reform… read this alternative.
… the 0s all over Kbusch’s comments and figured what’s good for the goose….
…is he (the troll, not HRK) blamed me for your zeros, so randomly marked a few more of my comments.
It is easy enough for people here to check out how you have rated my comments. Here are the last 16 comments from me (the troll) which you have given a rating. Dems the facts. Please stop lying.
<
p>TOTALS ZERO – 7 THREE – 9
<
p>- Boo-fucking-hoo to all three of you. So sensitive. 0 (This was Mr Lynne)
– Do you drink the cherry or the grape Kool Aid? 0
– Civil, are you serious? 3
– True. But I would hope for some compassion from a good liberal for my shortcomings. 3
– Oh bullshit. 0
– Did anyone catch the Rachel Maddow show last night… 0
– Just give them some money and trust in the party. 0
– Tell me this old wise ones on BMG… 0
– Oh please. Stop this bullshit from KBusch and others about “trolls”. 0
– Many of us are also angry because this will create a huge bureaucracy. 3
– Who’s being gullible Charley… 3
– No wonder we have a National Debt that will cripple our children and grand-children. 3
– And the loony left will take votes from anyone they can get it from… that’s how it works. 3
– Americans waiting in line to get something free… which means? 3
– Don’t you remember how John Edwards was excoriated here at BMG… neither do I???? 0
– Ya, right. 3
– I have no idea why you cant find a job but you aren’t he problem… 3
<
p>So, yes you have rated my last 16 comments either “DELETE” or “WORTHLESS”.
[a croupier hands RenaultKBusch a pile of money inappropriate comments from BMGers about JohnD and other they “name call” as “trolls”]
~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~
_______________________
|o/o/o/o/o/o/o/o/o|
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
which is to be expected, I guess.
I may have rated 16 of your comments worthless or delete, but that’s over a period going back to 8 August.
<
p>During that time you published 113 comments!!!.
<
p>And so what?
I said (if you read my comment)
<
p>”Here are the last 16 comments from me (the troll) which you have given a rating.”
<
p>We should stop now. You hate me and your ratings show it. Just go away and stop reading my comments if they are ALL Worthless and should be DELETED! 16 out of last 16 were either ZERO or THREE.
<
p>PS I’m going on vacation tomorrow until Aug 31. I’ll try to login daily but if the weather is nice I’m probably going the beach every day down my Cape house. So please don’t be upset if I don’t get back to you right away.
<
p>PSS Interest rates have dropped significantly and I noticed the Pentagon Federal Credit Union is offering 4.125% on 15 year and 4.5% on 20 year loans so maybe it’s a good time to refinance. I’m refinancing both houses and saving a boatload… hey maybe I’ll buy a boat!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
<
p>|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/|/ |/
I think you got confused as to where your comment would be placed. When I saw this it was vertically the last comment on the thread, which of course has now been superceded by this comment.
I meant this comment.
I try to avoid:
1) Rating a troll’s posts
2) Responding to a troll’s comments
3) Talking about a troll’s comments
4) talking about a troll (more than absolutely necessary).
<
p>For some excellent background, I suggest a google search with the search string “R o b e r t A b i t b o l”. I’ve spelled it out this way in order to avoid adding to the hit-list of this search target — elide the spaces, to form a camel-cased “wiki name”, and search.
Thanks. That search is um, interesting. I like this bit a lot:
<
p>
<
p>I tend to believe the BMG behavior in question is about attention more than anything else. So your advice to not give it to him seems best.
08/22/09 : DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Spc. Justin R. Pellerin, 21, of Boscawen, N.H., died Aug. 20 in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment…
<
p>08/22/09 Guardian: Taliban ”cut off fingers of two Afghan voters”
Taliban militants cut off the ink-stained fingers of two Afghan voters in the militant south during the presidential election, the country”s top election monitoring group said today.
<
p>08/22/09 MoD: Serjeant Paul McAleese and Private Jonathon Young killed in Afghanistan
Serjeant Paul McAleese, of 2nd Battalion the Rifles, and Private Jonathon Young, of The 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (Duke of Wellington”s), were killed in Afghanistan on Thursday 20 August 2009.
<
p>08/21/09 : DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Pfc. Brian M. Wolverton, 21, of Oak Park, Calif., died Aug. 20 in Kunar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with indirect fire. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment…
<
p>08/21/09 : DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Army 1st Sgt. Jose S.N. Crisostomo, 59, of Inarajan, Guam, died Aug. 18 in Kabul, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to International Security Assistance Force Kabul, Kabul, Afg
<
p>08/21/09 AP: Officials Say US Missile Kills 12 in NW Pakistan
A U.S. drone fired a missile Friday into a suspected militant hide-out in Pakistan”s lawless northwest, killing 12 people in an attempt to take out a jihadist commander accused of attacks on Western troops in Afghanistan, intelligence officials said.
<
p>08/21/09 MoD: Two soldiers killed in Afghanistan (2 of 2)
The soldiers died as a result of an explosion that happened whilst on a routine foot patrol, not connected to election security, near Sangin, northern Helmand province, on the morning of Thursday 20 August 2009.
<
p>08/21/09 MoD: Two soldiers killed in Afghanistan (1 of 2)
It is with great sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm that one soldier from 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (Duke of Wellington”s) and one soldier from 2nd Battalion The Rifles have been killed in Afghanistan.
<
p>08/20/09 : DoD Identifies Army Casualties (2 of 2)
Pfc. Morris L. Walker, 23, of Chapel Hill, N.C…died Aug. 18 in Paktika Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle. They were assigned to the 1st Battalion…
<
p>08/20/09 : DoD Identifies Army Casualties (1 of 2)
Staff Sgt. Clayton P. Bowen, 29, of San Antonio, Texas…died Aug. 18 in Paktika Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle. They were assigned to the 1st Battalion…
<
p>08/20/09 : DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Spc. Paul E. Dumont, Jr., 23, of Williamsburg, Va., died Aug. 19 at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 149th Transportation Company, 10th Transportation Battalion, Fort Eustis,
<
p>08/20/09 NATO: U.S. Service Member Killed in Eastern Afghanistan
An International Security Assistance Force service member was killed today as a result of a mortar attack that occurred in eastern Afghanistan…U.S. Press Officer Capt. Jon Stock confirmed the service member was from the United States.
<
p>08/19/09 : DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
Gunnery Sgt. Adam F. Benjamin, 34, of Garfield, Ohio, died Aug. 18 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. He was assigned to 8th Engineer Support Battalion, Combat Logistics Regiment 2, 2nd Marine Logistics Group…
<
p>08/19/09 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills 2 policemwn in Uruzgan province
A roadside bomb killed two police in Uruzgan province, a provincial official said.
<
p>08/19/09 : DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
Lance Cpl. Leopold F. Damas, 26, of Floral Park, N.Y., died Aug. 17 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force…
<
p>08/19/09 CP: 6 US troops die in Afghanistan, militants kill poll workers
The U.S. military said Wednesday six American troops were killed in Afghanistan, as militants killed six election workers amid growing fears on the eve of the presidential election that insurgents would mar the vote.
<
p>08/19/09 : DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Sgt. 1st Class William B. Woods Jr., 31, of Chesapeake, Va., died Aug. 16 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany, of wounds suffered when he was shot Aug. 14 while on patrol in Ghanzi, Afghanistan. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion
<
p>08/19/09 DPA: US airstrike kills 4 Afghan police; district chief killed in blast
An airstrike by US-led coalition forces mistakenly killed four Afghan police in southern Afghanistan, while a district governor, a tribal chief and two US soldiers were killed in roadside blasts in the same region, officials said Wednesday.
<
p>08/19/09 newswatch: Two embedded AP journalists wounded in Afghanistan IED attack
Tuesday”s roadside bomb attack that seriously wounded two Associated Press journalists highlights the dangers journalists face in covering the escalating conflict in Afghanistan, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has said.
<
p>08/19/09 NATO: U.S. Service Member Dies in Southern Afghanistan
An international security force member died from non-battle-related injuries in southern Afghanistan today. A U.S. Press Officer, Captain Jon Stock, confirmed the service member was from the United States.
<
p>08/18/09 NATO: Two ISAF service members killed in eastern Afghanistan
Two International Security Assistance Force service members died and three others were injured after their convoy struck an improvised explosive device in eastern Afghanistan today.
<
p>08/18/09 NYTimes: Several NATO troops killed in suicide car bombing in Kabul
Several NATO troops and civilians were killed in a suicide car bombing in Kabul on Tuesday, and other violence rocked the country in what seemed to be further indications of Afghanistan”s precarious security situation just two days before presidential…
<
p>08/18/09 Xinhua: Roadside bomb kills 3 IEC employees in N Afghanistan
Two employees of Afghan Independent Election Commission (IEC) along with the driver were killed on Tuesday as their car hit a roadside bomb in relatively peaceful Badakhshan province of northern Afghanistan, an official said.
<
p>08/18/09 MoD: Lance Corporal James Fullarton, Fusilier Simon Annis and Fusilier Louis Carter killed in Afghanistan
Lance Corporal James Fullarton, Fusilier Simon Annis and Fusilier Louis Carter, all of 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (2 RRF), were killed…following an explosion while on patrol near Sangin in Helmand province.
<
p>08/17/09 NYTimes: Talking With Taliban Now a Top Issue in Afghan Contest
Whether and how to negotiate peace with the Taliban has become the one issue that no candidate in the Afghan presidential election can avoid taking a stand on. There is broad agreement that the war must end, but debate swirls around…
<
p>08/17/09 NPR: Taliban Gaining Strength In Afghanistan
A draft report by U.S. intelligence agencies says the situation in Afghanistan is in a “downward spiral” as Taliban fighters threaten stability in the region.
<
p>08/17/09 : DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Cpl. Nicholas R. Roush, 22, of Middleville, Mich., died Aug 16 in Herat, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Psychological Operations Battalion…
<
p>08/17/09 : DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, 21, of New Portland, Maine, died Aug. 14 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, I
II Marine Expeditionary Force…
<
p>08/17/09 Reuters: U.S. Soldier killed by roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan. A roadside bomb killed a U.S. soldier working with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in southern Afghanistan, ISAF said.
<
p>08/17/09 AP: US civilian killed in eastern Afghanistan
An American civilian working alongside U.S. troops in eastern Afghanistan has been killed in an insurgent attack. A statement Monday from NATO”s International Security Assistance Force did not provide any other details about the victim…
<
p>08/17/09 MoD: Sergeant Simon Valentine killed in Afghanistan
Sergeant Simon Valentine of 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was killed in Afghanistan…as a result of injuries sustained in an explosion that happened while on a foot patrol near Sangin, northen Helmand province.
<
p>08/17/09 MoD: Private Richard Hunt dies of wounds sustained in Afghanistan
Private Richard Hunt from 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh died at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Selly Oak on Saturday 15 August 2009 from wounds sustained in Helmand province two days previously.
This might be a violation of use and require deletion.
you want to silence this bad news so you recommend deletion. Classic.
<
p>Funny how the MSM (Boston Globe) isn’t publishing our dead soldiers names everyday like they were during the Presidential elections.
<
p>Here’s the source for some interesting reading on our military actions in Afghanistan.
<
p>http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/
I said precisely what I meant. No more and no less.
<
p>Long quotations are violations of fair use.
Adm. Mike Mullen described the situation in Afghanistan as “serious and deteriorating,” but refused to say Sunday whether defeating a resilient enemy would require more than the 68,000 American troops already committed.
<
p>and…
<
p>Top Marine expects more troops to Afghanistan….
<
p>Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, predicts ‘more combat support’ after Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s review.
<
p>They should talk to each other.
<
p>