Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Fourth American President to have won it, after Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. TR and Wilson both won while in office.

And this took me by surprise.

But he doesn't have a birth certificate.... he was never born. How could they give the Nobel Prize to someone who was never born?

I believe Kissinger had the same problem.

And yeah I'm surprised by another fact: Gandhi never won the Prize.

Its as ridiculous of a snub as The Stooges, KISS, and Alice Cooper locked out of the Rock Hall of Fame.

Congratulations to Mr. Obama!

The greatest snub in history (IMHO).

I would agree!

Why give it to Obama he hasn't done anything.

Yeah, Dubya is a MUCH better candidate for a PEACE prize, seeing as he started a war with Iraq to get validation from his daddy .

But I do think giving it to Obama was premature. He's only been in office 8 months.

Congratulations to the president of the United States.

Congratulations to Obama, but I'm baffled. While he has begun an initiative that can produce positive change in the world, the results haven't arrived yet. By the way, today he is expected to add another 40,000 troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for accomplishments, not expectation and speculation, but I guess the panel had their reasons.

I support Obama, but I find it puzzling that he receive this prize...at least now.

Why would you mention Bush hell I never even though of him being worthy as well.

To be perfectly honest the whole nobel peace prize award is a joke. No matter who wins it.

I agree with you on that. Jimmy Carter won it and he's done more to divide the Middle East than any President in American history. He's a rabid anti-Semite, and if he could win it, the whole award system is flawed.

Had they waited and given it to him after a couple of years of success in achieving world peace, this prize would have had some meaning. As it is, this is ludicrous.

I do believe (as reported) that Obama was taken aback also. He gave a very nice speech moments ago and said he didn't think he deserved it.

I don't really know who this panel is that chooses this award, but I do know that since Obama's been in office respect for the U.S. has risen significantly. Plus, I think Obama is liked and admired on the world stage for his efforts to regain respect and "reach out" are noticed and appreciated overseas. I don't know what criteria is used, and don't know who should have won, but looking from a foreign perspective, perhaps that has something to do with it. All that being said it does put more pressure on Obama just in terms of expectations.

The righties are going bananas though aren't they? They absolutely can't stand it.

TIS

How is he an anti-semite? He seems so nice, and also he invited a Pro Wrestler to the White House. True Story.

Given your age, you have one of the sharpest political minds I've ever encountered, so I KNOW you're kidding, right?

Lecture me, grandpa.

Also, you still pissed that the subway replaced the carriage in Brooklyn?

But really, for an Anti-Semite, I would think the Camp David Accords backfired by helping Israel out. Then again, that sounds like the Carter Presidency.

Jimmy Carter has sided with terrorists and their allies against Israel, which is America's ally.

He came close to Holocaust denial by leaving the Holocaust out of his book on the conflict between Arabs and Israel.

He holds the Jewish state to a standard that he is unwilling to impose upon the Palestinians.

Rush Limbaugh's head just exploded.

Explain exactly.




Did he explicitely say it never happened and denied its existence? Its one thing to do so as say President Ratface over in Tehran.



You mean a competent functional democracy not run by a gang of armed thugs in a constant power struggle with a fucking corrupt Authority? Or one that allowed gays to openly join its military*? Oh and gave us that chick on N.C.I.S.?

*=Israel: Tougher than America?

and Glenn Beck just had a seizure.

You know after the election last year, I tuned in to watch Sean Hannity's reaction to that victory. It was worth it.

and Glenn Beck just had a seizure.

[/quote]

I'd pay to see that.

What happened to Colmes? Hannity by himself is just plain annoying. At least with the tag team it was sort of interesting.

“In my opinion, Netanyahu brought up several obstacles to peace in his speech that others before him have not placed. He insists on settlement expansion and demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, even though 20% of Israel’s citizens are not Jewish.”

That's what Carter had to say last summer. So, in Jimmy Carter’s world, Israel’s daring to insist that it be recognized as the Jewish homeland is the obstacle to peace, not the Arabs’ refusal to accept it.

That's not a double standard?

Carter deserved the Nobel for the Camp David accords and his post presidency work eradicating river blindness in Africa, establishing the Carter Center for Peace and for his work with Habitat for Humanity.

He began losing it about a decade ago and in 2002 he was supposed to be the referee of the Venezuelan election which was rigged by Hugo Chavez. Rather than challenge Chavez, he announced his wife's birthday was coming up and he did not have any more time to listen to any complaints, and pronounced Chavez the legitimate president. We all know how that worked out. Since then he has taken a very pro Palestinian stance, and while there is nothing wrong with that per se, he has taken some shots at Israel that IMHO have been un called for.

I noticed at Obama's inauguration, and again at Ted Kennedy's funeral that the other ex-preidents and the sitting president were all hugging each other...wives too, chatting amiably...all except the Carters.

IMHO Jimmy is going soft in the head and ought to retire from public life.

Okay, back on topic.

GOP, even some liberals, dismiss Obama peace prize

By CHARLES BABINGTON (AP)

WASHINGTON — Gee, you'd think a U.S. president who won the Nobel Peace Prize might get rave reviews from his party's activists and a polite congrats from top Republicans.

But news of Barack Obama's award Friday drew a rebuke from the Republican Party chairman, ridicule from conservative bloggers, and even gripes from some liberals who think he hasn't done enough to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Top Democrats congratulated Obama, of course, but critics abounded on the left and right.

"What has President Obama actually accomplished?" said Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

"It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights."

There was praise from two Democrats who also have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who won in 2002, called Obama's selection a "bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment."

And former Vice President Al Gore, who won two years ago, said Obama's prize was "extremely well deserved."

"I think that much of what he has accomplished already is going to be far more appreciated in the eyes of history, as it has been by the Nobel committee," Gore said.

But conservative bloggers seethed with astonishment and criticism of the news from Oslo.

Several commentators challenged the value of the Peace Prize, noting that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat shared it in 1994.

"What's Obama done?" asked Rick Moran in his blog on American Thinker, a strong advocate of Israel. "What peace has he negotiated? ... I suppose an organization that thought Yasser Arafat worthy of the same prize can't be taken seriously anyway. But they are."

Erick Erickson, writing on RedState.com, suggested Obama won in part because he is black.

"I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news," Erickson wrote. "There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period."

Obama himself declared in a Rose Garden statement: "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments."

The reaction was only slightly warmer on some liberal Web sites, with some questioning the award because of Obama's role as commander-in-chief of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To be sure, some groups and politicians gave Obama full-throated congratulations.

Global Zero, comprising political and military leaders from around the world, applauded Obama's award, which was "in part based on his leadership to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons."

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, who chairs the Democratic National Committee, called the award "an affirmation of the fact that the United States has returned to its longstanding role as a world leader."

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., chastised the GOP's Steele for his remarks, and noted that conservative activists had cheered when Obama failed last week to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago.

"I find it very very disappointing for the chairman of the Republican Party — after the cheers that went out when America lost the Olympics — to now be attacking our president, everyone's president in our country, at a time when he is being recognized on the world stage," Stabenow said.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
_________________________

YES HE CAN!

It all makes perfect sense.

It's too early in his Presidency (according to the 'lefties) to asses the impact of his administration & policies.

Yet, it's not too early in his Presidency to award him the Nobel Peace Prize.

I understand Jimmy Carter is a little miffed, as he had to suck up for 20+ years to receive the same 'honor' after less than a year as President.

Sen. McCain is quoted as stating the Prize is based upon 'expectations'.

If that is the case, then it will be interesting to monitor Mr. Obama's accomplishments over the next 3 years.

But remember....it's still to early to judge.



Apple

Still quoting the wrong guy, huh?

Frankly, I have to say that I was shocked. I, too, don't think he deserved, at least not yet. Yes, he has done wonderful work smoothing the feathers that were ruffled by the previous administration, but I think that goes under his job description, and not necessarily worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Might he deserve it a few years from now? I would like to think so, based on the ground he is currently laying, but I do think it's a wee premature.

As for saying that he got it because he's black, that is just disgusting.

Whether I agree with giving it to him now or not, I am very proud of our President, and very proud to be an American today.

Bush set the bar so low, now that the US president acts as he should, all are overwhelmed.

I didn't expect him to win this prize so early, but if not he, then who else? No one else was this influential in promoting peace and hope this past year. Congratulations to president Obama, he changed the attitude of the world for the better and inspired hope around the world.

afs - How pissed off you think your President is that that one won?

That alone might just make this worth it.

The deadline for submitting nominations for the 2009 Nobel was Feb. 1. Obama was sworn in to office Jan. 20.

I know. They were basically voting based on wishful thinking. I agree that it's ridiculous .

I think many don't realize just how well received this President is overseas.

I was particularly touched by French President, Zarkozy's remark:

"Finally, [the Nobel Peace Prize] sets the seal on America's return to the heart of all the world's peoples."


TIS

That's true. Unfortunately, he has a higher approval rating overseas than he does here .

In my opinion Dr. Sima Samar is the person who should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

A person should NOT be nominated for an honor such as this based on what they "plan" to or "set out" to do. That nomination should be based on what a person has accomplished, achieved, has done and continues to do.

I'm guessing he won because he is now the coolest chia ever.

He's not the first president to be honored by Chia Pet.

"W" and "HW" had the Chia Bush.

Clinton had the Monica Bush.

Good point.

Somebody give that man a cigar...

This just shows how completely out of touch Al Gore really is. DC stated that the deadline for nominations was 2/1/2009 Obama was sworn in 1/20/2009. After just 12 days in office, he's already done so much to get nominated? Get real no president could ever do that much in 12 days, not even former President Ronald Reagan who is personally my fave president.



Well I'm not proud of our president, nor am I proud to be an american. Usually I am but lets face it people Obama does not deserve it. After being sworn in just 12 days prior to getting the nomination. He's no more worthy than Adolf Hitler. Now I realize that will no doubt upset a lot of the members on this board. And I'm sorry for that but right now it's the way I feel.

Why didn't I win?! Oh...I know...because I'm drunk too many times.......:) ...I'm also now btw...goingto sleep....bye bye...sweet draems!

Well said, Iceman. And whoever happens to get 'upset' by your comparison is completely clueless and still basking in Obama-la-la land.

While I'm always proud to be an American, I am NOT proud of the way this man has represented his country. Yes, the Europeans 'like' Obama. But 'like' and 'respect' are two very different things. He didn't deserve the nomination, and he sure as hell does not deserve the prize. And by awarding it to this rookie, the Nobel Prize committee has done neither him nor the citizens of the United States any favors.

Apple

Now now, don't go against America by going against our President. I know you can't help it because of where you live, but try be a good American.

Holy shit, that felt so good! No wonder you guys used that alot during the last administration. Wow.

Now put down your hate flag, and wave the only flag you should be twirling proudly in this great God-fearing land of ours.

Don't have to.

Our President goes against America almost every time he makes a speech overseas (except of course, when he's sent by Chicago to get the Olympics).

And by going against our President if we feel like it, we are exercizing one of our many rights as Americans.

Just like the Bush haters did (and still do).

Apple

apple can please explain why our president goes against america by making a speech over seas?

Bam - That's why I love appleonya.

She always takes the bait.

Oh, it surely gave me immense satisfaction, as they were really mad about this issue.

They got really furious after the speech Obama gave was translated and they found out that he said something to the effect that he shared this prize with Neda as well as others who labor for peace.

Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.

There ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

Yeah, but the rest of us have to smell something fishy whenever she posts in the political threads.

Nobody cares about what she posts in the political arena except for The Iceman and Don Cardi. And Don Cardi was dropped on his head when he was a baby.

I think Obama deserves the Prize because he got the thin skinned professor and the thick skulled cop together to drink beer at the White House.

man if only MLK jr and gandhi done that

Ghandi was a scotch drinker .

But he drank alone.

At least I have an excuse! What's yours?

Maybe you drank too much Boones Farm Apple Wine when you were a teenager!

DC, your head still hurts?

Not from being dropped.....perhaps from drinking too much Boones farm Apple wine with SC.

Knew I was making a mistake avoiding this thread for several days!!!

So sweet of you, SC to confirm that...means I can feel free to keep posting politics without worrying about annoying anyone!

And I'm not so sure DC actually 'cares', so much as he agrees with a good amount of them...much to his chagrin no doubt!



Apple

I have to admit, Apple. You have a GREAT sense of humor regarding your insanity .

It's the 'insanity' part that feeds the sense of humor!!

You can blame it all on 'Fame' and his 'Ultimiate Comeback' thread.
I had managed to keep away for several months until that irrestible beckoning!!

But wait...let me move over to the Godfather Forum...where people 'care' about what I post!!!



Apple

I'm glad the Hitler comparison, posted in passing, hasn't caused the stir it might have on other days, because frankly, it's completely vacuous and throwaway. To even try and engage with or refute it would be as idiotic as saying it in the first place.

I'm sorry, though: Obama is the commander-in-chief of - proud of it in a patriotic sense or not, which should have no bearing on the objective situation - a country currently active in an escalating illegal imperialist war. Bombing Afghan civilian populations in the manner in which this administration is currently and actively endorsing is by definition a war crime. Being the head of a democracy or "the land of freedom" doesn't change that.

But the prize itself has always been a bit farcical, a representative 'prize' to show international relations and interests. It's been used in the past as a (banal) critique of US foreign policy, and now it's being used as the very opposite. It's been noted in this thread that Obama is popular in Europe, and it's largely true but we should limit his appeal in general to the ruling circles.

What this year's prize shows is a sharp and typically fickle (re)turn towards multilateralism; it's actually the very opposite of a peace prize. Yes: it's a conscious endorsement of further militarism, further serving the interests of various nations' ruling stratums. If Obama is willing to let them, everyone in bourgeois Europe wants to get in bed with him.

It's an absolute fucking travesty.

Yeah blame it all on me, why dont ya! you just needed your 15 minutes of fame, and I gave it to you.

now dont be a smartass and read it as a pun

I wouldn't call armed Taliban "Afghan civilians." And they should be dealt with, there's no question about that, or they WOULD hurt Afghan civilians. You cant sit back and blame what other administrations have left Obama on him. I namely blame Reagan for arming these dangerous extremist to stop USSR invading Afghanistan.

I don't argue that this prize is in fact a travesty for the most part, but the purpose behind it is quite agreeable to me. I don't really see among all the famous people everyone knew last year, anyone more worthy than Obama to get it.

Yes, ends justifying means, always. Read this.

I haven't and don't, hence why I said "escalating illegal war". Sending yet more troops over "in the name of peace" (!!!!) is a continuation of imperialism as a means of serving the political self-interests of those in power. And all vague blanket terms such as "peace" and "freedom" do is maintain enough domestic support for this war - and in doing so, the ruling elite tame any would-be opposition from within. It happens time and time again. Republican, Democrat, Autocrat, Bureaucrat. They're all the fucking same.

The System is bigger than the man, always. Thus: the system must change. Don't be under any illusions that it cannot.

I don't think awards should ever be given out on the grounds of potential or promise. I much prefer concrete evidence of achievement.

This is going to be a humiliation for the Obama regime, in long-term retrospect. Perhaps short-term, too, if people start raising their consciousnesses.

Also, what purpose lies behind the prize that you find "quite agreeable"?

The prize committee comprises five members of the Norwegian parliament. They range from the far-right to the social democrats. Giving Obama the prize just reflects what is emanating politically within Europe at present. It serves to endorse 'him' and the US in general in their further military advancements in the Middle East. "War for peace"?!

This isn't the question, though. I don't even know or care who else was up for the prize, because it's irrelevant. And it's revealing that your answer suggests a stance that is translatable to: "Well, Obama was the best candidate, thus deserved to win it on these grounds." I remind you that he was inaugurated as President just over a week before the nominations deadline. What, in those 11 days, had he done to merit even a suggestion of "peace"? His electoral campaign? Come on; all he needed to do with that was suggest a shift away from Bush, with any vague policies presented strong enough to seem convincing, while remaining strictly and nauseatingly jingoist. ("God bless America!!!!")

This is as much to do with Bush as it is with Obama; anybody of the US Democratic party could have been inaugurated and they would have been a potential candidate and possible/probable winner of the prize, just by not being George Bush.

Which is why the award is farcical and shouldn't be taken seriously. But sadly, whether or not it's taken seriously by us lot doesn't figure, because the prize is a political one made by and for the ruling elites of the bourgeois powers of the world, all wanting their share of the world's energy resources and its money (at the expense of their own populations' welfare, may I add), and seeing in Obama and the US someone who can now lead them all to "prosperity".

Capo, you know the voting was done over the summer, right?

Then again, what do I know? Much of Europe is horribly regressive regarding minority ethnic groups* compared to the United States. Probably one of the reasons why that Nobel Board gave him the prize. On the flip side, they're rather progressive with gay rights. Which begs the question: In Europe, would a North African homosexual cancel oneself out?

*=Translation: They're racist.

Yes. I'm also aware of the fact that Obama was nominated in the first place having only been in office for 11 days.

So all of my previous post stands, and as for the rest of yours, it's the usual proverbial gibberish that belongs in either another thread or another bed. Stop trying to wank me off.

Dr. Sima Samar


Having been in office for only eleven days, I do not see the justification in nominating President Obama based on what he said, at the time, that he would set out to do.

To me that's like some rookie ball player coming up at the start of the baseball season and saying the he is going to lead his team to the world series and then immediately being nominated for the MVP based on what he said that he would set out do.

He's the President of the country that I am proud to live in, but his being nominated only 11 days into office and then winning is purely political as far as I am concerned.

Dr. Sima Simar had done a whole lot more for humanity at that point and therefore, in my opinon, she was more deserving of that prize than my President was.

And would you happen to have any data on how many people were killed by Taliban? Or how were women generally treated? Or what was the standard of living back then? And shouldn't all of us, let alone the US who is directly responsible for what is going on today do something about it? And how exactly are you going to concur bunch of fucking militants? With fucking flowers and butterflies?

I would be the last one to suggest a military solution anywhere in the world. I did not and will not sanction what US did in Iraq. Afghanistan on the other hand is beyond any other sort of peaceful measure to save.



Isn't his getting elected by promoting peace, hope and dedication to dialogue rather than maintaining iron fist toward other countries in the midst of the atmosphere neoconservatives were promoting, by relying on poking the voodoo doll of ENEMY non-stop in the eyes of public a great accomplishment? I would've nominated him for only that and think him worthy of the prize for nothing more.

And how is it irrelevant? This is exactly how any process of that sort works. It is like you complain about the election where you knew nothing about the candidates, or who is up for it! Then what you'd be saying is what is irrelevant!

Behind this prize to Obama, lies hope, at least for me. And that's quite enough to make it agreeable as well.



I strongly disagree with you on that. I couldn't believe Bush got another four years with promoting fear to get elected. Kerry would remain a great example as to how not being Bush was never enough. Again I believe Obama made a great achievement and world was not the same after he managed victory in the '08 US election.

And that's why I said famous people. You could read my opinion in my response to Capo. For me, Mousavi, Karoobi or Khatami had done more than Sima Simar, whom I don't even confess to know well. If the choice was between Obama and her, I'm happy with Obama winning the prize.

Sorry if my words offended you. Really.

Before I answer all of these, I note that none of them falsify what I originally wrote:

"I haven't and don't [blame previous doctrines on Obama], hence why I said "escalating illegal war". Sending yet more troops over "in the name of peace" (!!!!) is a continuation of imperialism as a means of serving the political self-interests of those in power. And all vague blanket terms such as "peace" and "freedom" do is maintain enough domestic support for this war - and in doing so, the ruling elite tame any would-be opposition from within. It happens time and time again. Republican, Democrat, Autocrat, Bureaucrat. They're all the fucking same."

I don't know how many people were killed under the Taliban. Women were treated disgracefully and still are. The Karzai regime, endorsed by the coalition, is a shambles. I'd need to do an extensive amount of research to get the full extent of living standards, but it's fair to say they were atrocious.

So all of this amounts to, at the very most, at the most hopeful: "The imperialist war in Afghanistan is the lesser of two evils."

And what real progress has been made, or is being made, by this war? You can say "But how else do you want to go about it", but that's just a vague apology with no real weight.

So what can we take from any of this? His use of language?

US foreign policy does little to promote "peace" or "hope". It does the very opposite, for me. It continues to be an aggressive, imperialist, jingoist superpower.

How can an imperialist war fought "in peace" suddenly become a thing of "hope"?

It's irrelevant who else was nominated because Obama won it. I don't need to know who else was nominated because whether or not I could or would argue for somebody else winning it more than Obama does not change the symbolic shift it represents in international relations between the bougeois nations of Europe and the US. "Who should have won" might make for an interesting debate, but my issue isn't that Obama beat anybody else, or whether he was a more deserving winner than candidate A or B, it's that he won it all, that he was even considered for it on such wanting evidence of objective achievement.

But you're talking about four years ago when Bush still had enough social sway to remain in office; Obama wouldn't have beat him four years ago. Which goes to show how severely little US politics actually change from party to party; one gets voted in only on the others' failures, and all the old crap accumulates from afresh.

Might we read this international gesture as "A Prize for Not Being Bush"? Yes indeed. It shows the other nations of Europe showing their support for Obama and thus sparking further hope in him on an international scale - "look, even Europe loves him!" But what it really is is a cynical endorsement of further US militarism.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear22-2009oct22,0,2676789.story

Hey Capo, suck it.

First of all, this war is not unilateral. There are many countries involved. So I wouldn't call it exactly an imperialist war. Secondly, doesn't all the choices come down to the lesser of the two evils? So when there's no good options you wouldn't choose if you want to die by being hanged or being shot to death? I'd take what little difference there's between the two evil options, but that's just me.



Well, let's say that's just you. From where I stand, it has already spread hope for change throughout the Middle East. The movements started with each election in the countries here, goes to show how simple words and gestures have affected people of the Middle East.



Okay, that doesn't make any sense. There are candidates X, Y and Z are up for the award. Y won the ward. Show me how X and Z were more deserving candidates to win it. It is as simple as that.



I disagree. Kerry lost in a very close race. Had it been a more charismatic candidate, like Obama, Bush couldn't stand a chance.




I'm not here to change your mind about this. It is your view and you could insist on it all you want. I trust my views must be very clear with all these responses and I have nothing further to say.

Defintiely a very educated and insightful observation on your part Afs! I sincerely mean that! Very well said!

I agree. In 2000 Bush narrowly won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote. Against Kerry the election was only decided late in the night when Bush won in a very close election in Ohio. He never had the mandate that he wanted.

Eh. Thats because he's not their President. lol. But Im just speaking for myself. Im not too fond of him. Give air support to our guys in Afghanistan and then we can talk.
Dont get me wrong though, I dont want to see him fail. Nobody wants to see their President fail.

I have no problem with his taking his time to make a decision on Afghanistan. Too bad we did not take time to make the right decisions about going into Iraq ("Bring 'em on") and the panicked bail out last September (Both parties responsible) because some Wall Street firms were "too big to fail." Unfortunately IMHO there is no good choice in Afghanistan. We can't stay forever and "nation-build," nor can we leave. This will be a defining moment for this administration and to say he is "dithering," as one former official put it, is nonsense.

I have every problem when it comes to Afghanistan. The longer he waits, the worse it is for our troops. I hate to see our guys die out there due to lack of decision making. And trust me, its bad over there. I talk to a few of my Marine friends at least once a week who are deployed in Afghanistan. I agree that we cant leave right away. Theres still plenty of insurgents and whatnot.
Iraq is a different story, its not a hot zone anymore. One of my friends is actually bored over there because theres nothing to do. Just stabilizing the place.

I don't see how any analysis of the situation in Afghanistan legitimately refutes any argument to pull our troops out. The one unanswerable trump card seems to be, "it is our responsibility", which though holding some weight, doesn't really have much rationality, because many people are dying in the misnomer of "freedom", when it's anything but that. No real "progress" is being made. This is a war dictated from the top; it is not in the interests of those at the bottom.

It's absolutely fucking atrocious.

This is a good perspective.

The regime in Kabul is not “seen by the Afghan people as working in their interests” not merely because of its pervasive corruption, brutality and incompetence. It is a regime that has been imposed upon them by foreign occupation. It was created to serve not the interests of the Afghans, but those of US imperialism, which is pursuing the strategic goal of asserting its hegemony over Central Asia and the region’s vast energy resources.

It is in pursuit of these same interests that the Obama administration is preparing to escalate the killing in Afghanistan.

Capo, who was the last foreign power to successfully occupy Afghanistan?

Good question.

The answer: Alexander the Great

I say bring the troops home now.

If wishing only made it so...

Amen. Let them all kill each other. Their animals anyway, let them lose their souls.
I mean, how stupid does it get? We have Karzai's brother, a drug lord and on the CIA payroll, while we lose three DEA agents yesterday in some helicopter crash? Explain that to their families.

So I guess when the US went to Afghanistan for the "War on Terror" there was a big spike in opium production?