The other war
If the rhetoric at their political conventions reveals anything, the Republican war is the war on Iraq, and the Democratic war is the war on Afghanistan. These are the two battlefields, both literally and figuratively, upon which the two major U.S. political parties attempt to prove their bonafides on the matter of military retribution. For Democrats, Afghanistan represents the justified alternative to the war on Iraq. The Taliban harbored Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, they argue, and conflict in this region becomes the Democrats' justification for continuing to back the bloated and growing military budget. On the enormous size of this budget (more than half of the overall federal discretionary spending), both parties are in agreement. There is currently no national debate on the subject.When October 7, 2008 arrives, the war on Afghanistan will be seven years old. It will have been seven long years since the U.S. and the U.K. commenced the so-called "War on Terror" with that country as target, and seven years since I replaced the crocheted Afghan wrap resting on my sofa with a more patriotic "Freedom Blanket." The war has lasted almost as long as the Soviet/Afghan war, which stretched from 1979 to 1989.
It's well past time to end that bloody battle. 2008 is already the deadliest year for American servicemen and women in that country-- now outpacing Iraq-- with 113 casualties, steadily rising each year from "only" 30 in both 2002 and 2003. Upon the 7th anniversary of 9/11, there have been 949 coalition deaths in the region. At least 540 Afghan civilians are dead in 2008 alone.
"Afghanistan should be able to rely on its own security within a year," said interior minister Younis Qanooni-- in February of 2002. In the fall of '08, the Taliban is resurgent, their nation's economy is ravaged-- save for the growing production of illegal drugs (Afghanistan provides 92% of the world's opium supply, utilized in the production of heroin), corruption runs rampant, the rule of law is a distant fantasy, and Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan. What's the mission?
---
Here's Ron Paul and Ralph Nader on Wednesday appearing jointly on "The Situation Room" (stupid name) on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. What a newt that Blitzer is. Pure horserace B-S despite the candidates' best efforts to talk about their key positions.
---
An extraordinary political independence movement has mushroomed this year behind a collection of notable leaders and shared national principals. Here's video (posted chronologically) from Wednesday's joint press conference featuring Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin (of the Constitution Party), and Cynthia McKinney (You go, girl), followed by questions. The combined runtime of the links is about 43 minutes. Vote your values.
---
Gina Gershon has posted a video online channeling Sarah Palin.
---
A Florida newspaper tracks down a transplanted resident of Wasilla, Alaska.
---
How "The Big Lebowski" impacts our lives today.
posted by CM @ 3:14 PM
1 Comments:
I love the attention Ron Paul is getting on this blog!
The phrase “War on Terror” should be an indication to us that it will be fought indefinitely with no real effort for a victory. Just like the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Poverty.”
The government easily tricks the population by placing the words war and on in front of tools the government needs that injure the people. The government conveniently uses poverty, drugs, and terror to further their agenda while convincing the people that they are working to eliminate these things. Drug money fuels CIA operations, poverty keeps labor rates lower, and terror inflates military spending.
TA
Post a Comment
<< Home