Amy Goodman: 'Have we learned nothing from Iraq?'

[bigtree]

Wednesday, February 11, 2009


"Have we learned nothing from Iraq? "When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the president on another tried-and-failed policy." That was Sen. Barack Obama in January 2007. With his Joint Chiefs now apparently gunning for more fighting and less talk in Afghanistan, Obama needs to be reminded of his own words."


full article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/11/EDKB15RJTF.DTL&hw=amy+goodman&sn=001&sc=1000

[ixion]

1. we didn't learn from Korea or Vietnam

so I don't know why we'd start now. War hawk fascists will always find some place for their dirty, little wars.

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[sandnsea]

3. The terrorists weren't in Iraq

they are in Afghanistan.

Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq.

Did the left not listen to reasons it gave for getting out of Iraq? Do they suddenly think people will just forget that they said we were focusing on the wrong target? What the hell did they think would happen when people began to focus on the right targets?

:crazy:

[bigtree]

5. The 'terrorists' we're fighting in Afghanistan are mostly products of resistance

. . . to our invasion and occupation. There is the same type of self-generating conflict in Afghanistan that our invasion and occupation of Iraq produced.

The original authorization for the use of military force in Afghanistan may well allow for the nation-building which has sparked and animated the myriad elements of resistance and ages-old rivalries to violence. But that original authorization (correctly supported by 'liberals' and others) is specifically targeted toward pursuit and apprehension of the original 9-11 suspects and their accomplices.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The 'left' has always argued for a narrowed, criminal pursuit of the terrorists, instead of regime-change and the declaration of a world-wide 'war on terror'. It's clear that the approach of the last administration has 'fueled' and fostered' even more individuals who are inclined to violent acts of resistance to the 'shock and awe' of our military across their sovereign borders.

The attitude of some is that this occupation and defense of Kabul is the only way to deal with the fugitive terrorists. The 'left' has insisted throughout that we need to do more than flail our military at the resistant effects of our own blundering attacks on the Afghan population.

Can you name and verify a 'right target' that our military has attacked in Afghanistan? Rhetoric like that is what keeps folks believing that every exercise of our imperialistic invading forces is in line with retaliation against those responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

More often than not, our militarism in Afghanistan has been a failing defense of our own military occupation against Afghan resistance - not anything at all in line with the original authorization to use military force. I suspect that's what the 'left' objects to, as do I.

[sandnsea]

7. You can't argue that we're fighting the wrong war

for 5 years and then turn around and pretend it's all a bunch of freedom fighters in Afghanistan now too.

That's why the left gets ignored.

[bigtree]

9. That type of criticism is an attempt to narrow the debate

The 'left' did NOT argue in favor of the defense of KABUL and the opportunistic, collateral attacks on the Afghan communities the military determined were resisting our regime-changing occupation.

We argued (correctly) that Bush had diverted from the pursuit of the 9-11 terror suspects. The occupation of Afghanistan has been more about nation-building than about that original pursuit. The result has been a deepening of resistance and opposition to our military presence.

Make your own argument and I'll make mine. Don't think you can narrow my opposition to Bush's opportunistic diversion into Iraq into a support of every boneheaded move by the military in Afghanistan. THAT petty effort of yours certainly deserves ignoring.

[On the Road]

4. I Don't Think Obama's Intent

is to have more fighting and less talk. I belive it's to have more fighting and more talk.

[mmonk]

6. Short answer: no. Amy knows it.

Thanks for posting.

[azul]

8. The results of brainwashing the cowardly lion, and the realities of empire.

When big-business still holds Washington's puppet strings, and goose-steps with military flourishes.

Big BroUncle Sam presently dances to the martial mash.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

12. you mean the violence that our opportunistic invasion and occupation 'fueled and fostered'?

Violence is down against our forces, but Iraqis are still subject to intolerable levels of violence. Ironically, the reduction in that violence against our forces is the result of intervention from Iran in influencing Sadr's followers to a cease-fire and the mere fact that most of the offensive actions which saw the high levels of U.S. deaths have subsided. Not much action hunkered down inside of the green zone.

[Life Long Dem]

11. Welcome to the Obama administration!

The millions that fled Iraq now need to be controlled before they take over a country.

[yellowwood]

13. Amy Goodman--Right onTarget

I totally respect President Barack Obama. Let nothing I say be considered a negative of him.

However, my priority reason for supporting him was because of his anti-war stance. I understand that he has so much to deal with, that he might not have looked at the war situation lately.

So, yes, these costly wars are still my priority issues. We are now building a 200 million addition to our embassy in Afghanistan. Sounds like long-term commitment to me. (Couldn't our infrastructure use this money?) The ones who attacked us are in Afghanistan? That was so long ago; who knows where they are now. And do we have to exact revenge? How many do we have to kill in order to get the right ones? What is our interest there?

Then there's Gaza. We paid for that. If we hadn't backed it, it wouldn't have happened.

The end of our militaristic attitude would save us so much money that could help our economic situation. We should be talking about it.

[bigtree]

14. right. rather than just tweaking and doubling down on the Afghan occupation

We should be formulating policy which makes clear that these types of military interventions are counter-productive to the original impetus for the authorization to use military force. Instead, it looks like the Pentagon is content to try and prove their relevance with these strikes and skirmishes against the resistance to their imperialistic advance.

Too bad the debate is still centralized between the White House and the Pentagon, without a peep from Congress.

[bigtree]

15. .

[20score]

16. I'll always K&R something from Amy Goodman. (Wish her show was on main stream television.)

[Solly Mack]

17. Nope