Return to: Home | World Affairs | North America

Obama: What the world expects . . .

Published 15 January 2009

He only has to rescue the global economy, solve the crisis in the Middle East and fix the environment . . . In this special report, Alec MacGillis, Patricia J Williams, Will Hutton, Sigrid Rausing, Benjamin Markovits, Katherine Butler and Mark Lynas assess the new president's prospects

Obama (seen here with Senate Leader Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden) will need to address even larger woes than America’s crisis

When Hillary Clinton stunned Barack Obama by snatching the New Hampshire primary, Obama did not have to revise his speech as much as one might imagine. He had planned to meet even a victory that January night with warnings about the challenges ahead, coupled with resolutions to overcome them, to keep his supporters from floating into premature assumptions of winning the nomination after only two contests. So stern was Obama planning to be in victory, that the address, with only a few tweaks, would go on to become one of the best “live to fight another day” speeches ever given, soon enshrined as a song on YouTube.

One year later, on the verge of his inauguration, Obama faces expectations far greater than those he was prepared to ratchet back that foggy night in New Hampshire. This is partly his own doing - at some point, he stopped restraining hopes of easy triumph and started making victory seem assured by, for instance, going on a world tour and moving his convention speech into a football stadium. These theatrics helped voters visualise Barack Hussein Obama as their president, but they also raised expectations that he would be a great one. Raising the bar even higher is the turn the world has taken: this 47-year-old who arrived in Washington from the Illinois legislature four years ago is now asked to do no less than save the country from its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and, in his spare time, attend to a swath of fresh troubles from Gaza to Peshawar.

A case could be made, however, that the current emergency has not only further raised the expectations of Obama but also clarified them - for better and worse. For most of the campaign, the debate over Obama had centred not only on whether he was ready for the job, but on what he planned to do with it. His supporters swarmed to him partly out of a deep identification with his diagnosis - that America had gone off track, no matter what the passable economic data said, and that it would take a new kind of politics and public life, free of petty gamesmanship and selfish rationalisations, to restore balance. The sceptics missed this message, asking aloud: Yes, we can . . . what?

Now, the economic collapse has given Obama's exhortations an abundantly concrete goal; presidents, it is often said, need historic crises on their watch if they want to make history.

But the crisis also threatens to shift Obama's task away from some of the singular strengths and promise he exhibited in the campaign. So much of his appeal lay in his ability to articulate the ills of a country not yet in crisis mode, and to conjure the potential in a country reunited around common values. The crisis, however, has accomplished both: it has laid bare the problem and pulled the country together in its desire to fix it; even many in the "chorus of cynics" that Obama rallied against now wish him well. What is left to Obama is how to wield the will of the people that now lies, with so little effort, at his disposal.

He pledged bipartisanship, but only now will it become clear whether he envisioned simply a new era of cordial and intellectually honest debate, or whether he foresaw making substantive concessions. With his team proposing large business tax cuts to draw heavy Republican support to a stimulus package that could probably pass without it, some Democrats worry that Obama's talk of comity could come at the price of sound policy. And as he begins to gesture at the pension and health-care entitlement reform that his advisers think will be needed down the road to reduce a towering deficit, one recalls that, for all his campaign's emphasis on candour, he prepared voters for relatively little hardship, beyond some calls for buying smaller cars or watching less TV.

When the business cycle eventually turns, some credit will likely accrue to the new president. But one suspects that Obama will not consider his expectations met if he "merely" presides over the recovery from a crisis that did not arrive in full until the final weeks of a 20-month campaign - if he simply brings the country back to where it was when the bottom fell out. Seldom has a candidate's appeal lain so much in the promise of his campaign, rather than his past record. Obama will be judged not only on where the unemployment rate stands in 2012, but on whether he has, along the way, made progress on all the rest - on the planks that risk getting lost in the mix (universal health care, energy reform) and on the more abstract ailments in the body politic that prodded him to run in the first place. As big as today's crisis is, Obama may succeed on his own terms only if he makes solving the crisis part of something even bigger.

Alec MacGillis is a staff writer for the Washington Post

Post this article to

71 comments from readers

Nilsey105
15 January 2009 at 18:09

"...,Obama may succeed on his own terms only if he makes solving the crisis part of something even bigger"

Was he aware four years ago that the crisis was immanent? If he was then he has played a cool game.

But if its no he didnt then the resolution to the economic crisis, whilst being of paramount importance, can only be placed in a second place for his own moral wellbeing.

His policy was thought out prior to the crisis hitting the fan. The belief that America has turned into an ogre, by many of the worlds population, has to be resolved before any creditable acknowledgement can be given to progress being made.

What better oportunity than to admonish and chastise the Israeli government for their wanton acts of cruelty and shameless acts of murder upon the children of Palastine

Nilsey105
15 January 2009 at 20:23

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/15/pentagon-munitio...

maybe he had a hand in this?

writeon
18 January 2009 at 10:10

I've just been through virtually all the Sunday newspapers, and the Obama-mania stuff is just too much for me.

Fawning, juvenile, servile, dutiful, cloying, sentimental, starstruck, doe-eyed, amourous...

It's like the leader writers and journalists are competing with one another to bow deepest, their noses scraping the floor as the bleat their loyalty and willingness to serve our new leader.

The praise they are heaping on Obama is totally unwarented. It's almost like they wilfully set out not to understand how American politics works. After the PR disaster that was George Bush, it was obvious that something had to be done. A re-branding of the USA, like a face-lift for a car model. The establishment are always on the lookout for promissing candidates for leadership, and in recent years 'Black' candidates of ability have been at a premium.

Obama rose from relative obscurity so quickly because his talents were recognised and he received massive backing from influential and most importantly fabulously wealthy circles. It's those that control which candidates the people are allowed to vote for that matter, not the electorate.

Obama represents the new face of America. America has shown it can re-new itself. America still has the power to surprises us...

This is precisely how one re-brands a product in the market-place. But this is only change on the surface. A new style of rhetoric. The substance of the interests of the American Empire will not change. The wars and agression won't stop, they will expand.

If Obama really was everything the press comments say he is, the candidate of real change, he would never have been selected as a serious candidate by those who control and manage the US political system. But this hardly needs saying it's so obvious. Those candidates that realy represent real change, and challenge the power of the ruling elite, never stand a real chance, in such an expensive system, where 'democracy' is rationed by the price mechanism.

writeon
18 January 2009 at 13:06

If we cut through the hyperbole and rhetoric surrounding Obama, which reminds me of cutting-edge marketing techniques, let's just apply a simple test in relation to Obama's message of 'hope' and 'change', not exactly concrete, policies, are they?

OK, will Obama re-establish the United States as a country ruled by laws once more or not? This isn't just a cosmetic change I'm talking about. It's concrete. Will Obama reverse the Bush administrations attacks on civil liberties internally, and human rights and international law externally? Just as importantly, will he, as a trained lawyer, vigerously pursue those in the Bush administration, including Bush himself, for their various and obvious crimes?

There can be no middle ground here. Either one is a nation ruled by laws or one isn't. Everyone, in a democracy should be equal before the law and subject to them, justice must prevail, or justice is compromised as is democracy itself, and a compromised democracy isn't a democracy at all, it's a tainted democracy.

I don't believe Obama will pursue Bush and the cabal for their crimes. Notice he has never called the invasion of Iraq a crime, but only a mistake. He has never called for the laws of the United States to be applied to the criminal gang that usurped power and occupied the White House.

This is a simply, yet crucial test for how much real change Obama hopes to introduce into politics in the United States. The novel idea that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, and the law is sovereign, not men. We are a country of laws, not kings.

antileft
18 January 2009 at 13:42

"I don't believe Obama will pursue Bush and the cabal for their crimes."

So Obama has to:

-Stop a depression.

-Fix Iraq and Afghanistan.

-Close guantanemo.

-Fix social security.

-Fix the health system.

-Fix immigration.

-Make the country environmentally friendly.

-Make the country self sufficient in energy.

-Fix the deficit.

-Repair relations with the rest of the world.

-Keep a working relationship with China, Russia, and the rest.

And... You think that he should spend political capital going after an ex-president?! You think hes going to get the above sorted if he spends his time fighting that battle?! Oh writeon! Are you seriously telling us that in order for you to back the next president hed have to take Bush to court?! That is ridiculous!!! Hes not superman! Are you not aware of how serious the problems in america are right now?? You think theyre easy to solve and he can afford to waste precious political capital on pet projects?!

writeon
18 January 2009 at 17:32

As the late 'n' great Joe Strummer, used to sing, 'Anger can be Power, if you know how to use it!' Joe, Joe, were are you now, when we need you?!

On the other hand anger in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it, turn one into a ranting fool. The flower of passion needs to be nurtured, not wasted.

The important principle that even men of power are not above the rule of our laws, that is there is equality before the law, is central to democracy and its practice, it isn't mere luxury to be despensed with when times are hard, that way lies tyranny and despotism. Holding politicians accountable for breaking the law is a test for Obama. Sure it's expedient and 'pragmatic' to ignore high crimes when they are committed by the powerful, but we aren't talking about vengence here, we are talking about the rule of law and elementary justice. The powerful must be equal before the law, as are those without power, the law must be applied without favour or we don't live in a society of laws, men become more important and above our laws. Power is not Law. It's not fascism, where Dudge Dredd says, 'I am the Law!'

Killing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq in a war based on lies, crime on a vast scale, isn't a mere detail. Mass murderers have to be held accountable for their crimes, or nothing we say about our laws and our democracy is valid or true, it all becomes merely pretty words, a sham.

Letting Bush get away free and the rest of them would be akin to letting leading Nazis go free for there crimes because one didn't have the time or resources to pursue him in the courts.

Obama needs to show that he's willing to make a clean break with the past and show he's serious really about change, change that requires courage. Holding Bush accountable would show that the sacrifice in American lives, 4,000 in Iraq meant something, that it wasn't just a laugh. Bush laughed when asked about WMD's recently, for that alone he should pay.

writeon
18 January 2009 at 17:33

It's odd how my comments and replies keep disappearing into the ether, surely they can't be that controversial?

Cybertiger
18 January 2009 at 20:31

"It's odd how my comments and replies keep disappearing into the ether, surely they can't be that controversial?"

It's the lawless Israeli propaganda machine, machinating arbitrarily.

JimH
19 January 2009 at 00:00

Why would Obama want to take Bush to court? They're on the same side. He wont "reverse" anything, he'll be carrying these things on unabated.He's a hand chosen and elite backed frontman/puppet. The faces change but it's business as usual for AmericaCorp. Same as ever.

Everyone's alarm bells should've started to ring when, after arguably the worst president ever, a black man and a woman were in the running. How very liberal and how very convenient.

Obama: The friendly face of U.S fascism.

antileft
19 January 2009 at 03:27

"Obama: The friendly face of U.S fascism."

What a cynical bunch of lefties. I love how some people are so far to the left that somehow republicans and democrats, and bush and obama, look the same. How far to the left would you have to be?! Theyre far more different than, for example, labour and the tories, or even castro 1 and castro 2.

And it would be nice if admin stopped removing writeon's words- I dont think hes ever written anything controversial in his life.

writeon
19 January 2009 at 07:17

Obama's team, is, effectively, a government of national unity, though this term has slightly worrying connotations, and doesn' sound quite right in a democracy.

If one looks carefully at how the Bush administration has governed over the last two years, since the Baker/Hamilton report, when the posse of wisemen, stepped in to put the breaks on, one can argue that Bush has pursued very 'moderate' policies indeed.

North Korea was pacified, Iran wasn't attacked, Afghanistan was left to stew, there was a 'cease-fire' in Iraq, nobody else was invaded, re-molding the Middle East was abandoned, they didn't go to war with Russia over Georgia.

The last two years have been far less agressive than the previous six. Expansion has been replaced by consolidation. Why? Mostly because Bush had used up all his political capital, both at home and abroad. He was finished. Bush's image was shot to pieces. Obama, on the other hand is a different story. He's the 'anti-war' candidate who actually wants more war in Afghanistan, and has openly threatened Pakistan. Is Obama really arrogant or stupid enough to escalate to an even bigger war in Afghanistan which could easily spill over, as it already is, into Pakistan? Such a war would make Iraq seem like a pinic.

One would hope that he'd have enough on his plate trying to dig the United States out of a deepening, economic depression, so that he'd be less inclined to launch another futile war.

writeon
19 January 2009 at 07:39

What's sort of fascinating about the American system, is that whilst at the grassroots level, among activists, the antipathy between Democrats and Republicans is real, the higher up the hierachy one moves the more they come to resemble each other and the closer their policies become. In relation to foreign policy, which for an empire are of crucial importance, the real, substantive, differences, are almost non-existant, a matter of nuance or style, rather than alternatives.

That Obama was happy to employ leading members of the Bush administration in key positions would appear to support this perspective; it's not so much change as a seamless transition and continuity that characterises the new administration.

Of course the worst excesses and illegalities of the Bush years need to be tempered, as they were both unecessary and counterproductive, more trouble than they were worth. Despite the TV show '24', torture is notoriously unreliable, so why bother?

From a conservative perspective what's shocking about both the Bush and Obama administrations is their fiscal and economic profligacy and how they allowed the state to expand so massively,even dwarfing the Clinton administration. They all seem to believe that simply throwing money at any problem is the answer to everything. That Bush completely abandoned sound conservative economic policies with so little debate is worrying, and Obama seems determined not only to maintain Bush's imprudent policies, but even expand them. So that the state effectively replaces free-market principles with a kind of centrally planned and financed 'socialism.'

antileft
19 January 2009 at 07:41

"Why? Mostly because Bush had used up all his political capital, both at home and abroad. He was finished."

And here you are, recommending that Obama spend his political capital arresting Bush. Yes, great idea.

"Is Obama really arrogant or stupid enough to escalate to an even bigger war in Afghanistan which could easily spill over, as it already is, into Pakistan?"

Obviously, the west MUST win in afghanistan. Surely, you can see that? They had no choice but to invade because they were attacked, and now they have to leave a friendly democracy behind because that your responsibility after you invade. Obama isnt after "more war" in afghanistan. He wants to pacify it so that it can become stable. Is there something wrong with that?! Would you recommend that he simply remove all troops and allow the place to go back to how it was before?? You think that's a good idea, do you?

Honestly, writeon, I sometimes wonder if you just want to dislike obama. No sensible american president would throw away political capital on arresting the one before, even if it is bush (and wed all love to see him in the hague). And no one in their right mind would want to leave afghanistan to civil war unless there is literally no other choice.

antileft
19 January 2009 at 07:42

"From a conservative perspective what's shocking about both the Bush and Obama administrations is their fiscal and economic profligacy and how they allowed the state to expand so massively,even dwarfing the Clinton administration."

amen.

writeon
19 January 2009 at 08:06

In a modern democracy equality under the law is of primary importance, undermine that fundamental principle and one is on the road to tyranny.

Over 4000 Americans gave their lives in Iraq for a monumental lie. That Iraq bristled with weapons of mass destruction, posed a direct threat to the United States, harboured terrorists and destablised the entire region - all of it lies.

In his last press conference when asked about WMDs Bush made a joke about it, he's joked about it before. He thinks it's a joke. 4000 young Americans have died and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, not to mention the vast destruction, and this is somehow funny?! This shows his utter contempt for the sacrifice of these American lives for a lie. It's kinda funny!

For sacrificing 4000 American lives for a lie, for that alone, he should be held legally accountable in a court of law, otherwise our laws and legal system are undermined. Pragmatism and expediency, what's 'easy' can't come before the law, especially when the human cost of breaking the law have been so horrendously bloody.

There's also the question, not only of equality before the law, but of precedent. If the President of the United States is allowed to launch illegal wars based on lies and get away with it, what might some future President not be capable of? Then there's all the domestic laws that have been trampled on. Illegal wiretapping, invasions of privacy, spying, leaks of highly classified information to the press, massive corruption... the list just goes on and on. The Bush administration was probably the most criminal and corrupt in American history. In a democracy where laws, not men are supposed to rule, ignoring systematic criminal activities in the Whitehouse, cannot simply be ignored and the dirt swept under the carpet, keep doing that and the carpet will start to stink and eventually rot.

writeon
19 January 2009 at 08:55

In times like these in America, spending tens of millions of dollars on a lavish and inordinate inaurguration cerimony, seems excessive to me. I wonder how those millions of Americans who are losing their jobs and homes feel about this profligacy paid for with their tax dollars?

But of course left/liberals don't mind spending other peoples money as long as it's in a good cause. It's so easy and convenient to want to party and blame all American's woes on Bush, as if he was responisible for creating a structural crisis in the US economy all on his own. It's this cult surrounding the president that I dislike and consider dangerous, a threat to democracy itself, not the individuals involved.

The cult of personality surrounding Obama is of collosal proportions and suddenly all the left/liberals are ethusiastic again, their candidate has won, he is the saviour, the messiah and everything is going to be alright. It's a new world were building, people, a new world!

writeon
19 January 2009 at 09:11

For the American political system to function properly again it's important that corruption and criminal activities and those reponsible for them are held to account. If high crimes can be committed continually, at the very heart of governmentand, and no one is ever subject to the laws of the land, people who are charged with protecting the constitution and the laws, then one underines the entire system of government and democracy itself.

The Congress merely becomes a talking shop a rubber stamp, for what seem to be an imperial presidency and a massive state apparatus that is above the law. Statism is a threat to democracy. The Democrats like a big state as long as it pays for their pet projects. The Republicans use military spending as a kind of public works programme, so they're happy. Put these together and one has a kind of welfare/warfare state. The state and its power grows and grows, it controls the economy, there is no control over the ammount of tax money it spends, and ordinary people are crushed under its wheels, real democracy whithers, but the state gorged on taxes expands and expands.

antileft
19 January 2009 at 09:18

"For the American political system to function properly again it's important that corruption and criminal activities and those reponsible for them are held to account."

Indeed. And here are some more things which need to happen for the system to function properly:

-Stop a depression.

-Fix Iraq and Afghanistan.

-Close guantanemo.

-Fix social security.

-Fix the health system.

-Fix immigration.

-Make the country environmentally friendly.

-Make the country self sufficient in energy.

-Fix the deficit.

-Repair relations with the rest of the world.

-Keep a working relationship with China, Russia, and the rest.

You think that putting bush in prison is more important than any of these?! Of course it isnt. And it is either/or, because there is too much here to do in one term. So why are you asking for something that you know obama cant deliver?

JimH
19 January 2009 at 10:26

"How far to the left would you have to be?! Theyre far more different than, for example, labour and the tories, or even castro 1 and castro 2"

I agree there, Britain works much the same same as America; it has the vested interests of the elite to look after, and the same applies. The U.S and Britain are two knots in the same piece of rope: the American empire. It's interesting also that you think Afghanistan would be the obvious place to invade after 9/11, even though most (if not all) of the terrorists weren't even from there. There was no evidence that Bin Laden was even there. The only reason America was attacked in the first place is because of it's meddling in middle eastern affairs and it's support of crooked regimes.

"Obama isnt after "more war" in afghanistan. He wants to pacify it so that it can become stable."

Hahaha! Oh, that's a good one! How do you think he's going to pacify it then? Sing it to sleep? Or bomb the crap out of more innocent people? And make the military/industrial complex even more money in the process.

antileft
19 January 2009 at 12:28

Oh dear JimH you really arent very bright are you?

"It's interesting also that you think Afghanistan would be the obvious place to invade after 9/11, even though most (if not all) of the terrorists weren't even from there. There was no evidence that Bin Laden was even there."

Who cares where the terrorists were from?! Its where they are that counts! And you havent seen the evidence so dont pretend to know what youre talking about. All the people who have seen the evidence, including the leaders of France, Germany and Russia all agreed that it was strong (unlike in Iraq). Here's a question for you:

If Bin Laden wasnt in afghanistan, why did the americans invade? Cmon lets hear your conspiracy theory. It should be even more amusing considering Bush and the rest so obviously would have prefered to invade Iraq instead. Let's hear the conspiracy *waiting*

"How do you think he's going to pacify it then?"

Oh dear what a twit. He ll try by using a combination of force and diplomacy. Of course, it may not be possible to pacify it. Who cares?! If it is possible, we must try, mustnt we?! Another question (and I expect you to defend you beliefs by answering these): What would you do about afghanistan? Do you have an idea that doesnt involve troops but involves leaving behind something that isnt a complete mess? Let's hear it- how would you do it? This should be a laugh. Perhaps youll sing it to sleep??

emn4cw
19 January 2009 at 15:36

antileft

I've agreed with what you were saying but for you to be silly wnough to take in the spoonfeeding of what 3 of the most corrupt western nations are saying is showing that YOU are the one that swallows conspiracy theories!

Becuase YOU don't know either. No one knows but at least Jim has the capacity to think for himself and not believe all the scripted and ever so convenient RUBBISH that the government wishes to tell him!

Geez.

The day I will believe what France-who colonised and brutalised half of Africa, pacific Asia and North Africa-or England-who colonised and bruatalised half of Africa, America, Australia and the Middle East-or Germany-erm Holocaust?-or Russia-HA! LOL!, then pigs will fly!!

I'll trust these bastards when they start proving themselves for me to trust and STOP meddling in other countries affairs!

And about Bin Landen. Well antileft, did Blair et al explain to you WHY they trained him in the first place???

Because as much as I wish it could be a sweet old conspiracy theory, mate, unfortunately you can't delete the past! T'is not the 16th century you know! We can't delete documental evidence!

Or can we?

emn4cw
19 January 2009 at 15:48

writeon

"In times like these in America, spending tens of millions of dollars on a lavish and inordinate inaurguration cerimony, seems excessive to me. I wonder how those millions of Americans who are losing their jobs and homes feel about this profligacy paid for with their tax dollars?"

Call me a cynic and I'm not sure that you watched the actual show BUT to me it felt like some record company advertising special.

I know my music and actors-those guys were all either from the same acting agency in LA (there's more then one) or the same record company!

I'm not sure how long you've been following Obama but I have for a really long time and I was suspicous at the lack of musicians and actors who supported BEFORE he was well known and they weren't even there!

What about Oprah? She gave him the idea to run for presidency AND produced 50,000 strong rally for him early last year to announce her official support for him. Why didn't she speak?

What I'm getting at is that they got their returns for the money they spent. I.E

1) they used only HBO as the official channel in the US showing the event-how much was that exclusive deal???

2) These overbearing singers and these small time actors? Why them? I'd bet my mum that their record companies, agencies etc distributed some dollars to the Obama campaign early on....or NOW.

3) Foreign channel distribution, more revenue for the party...

4) The price of entry for the inaugaration of 500,000 people....?

5) I'd bet my mum (again) that they did deals with various and selected Washington hotels, hostels, eateries etc. Again a certain percentage of profits go the the inaugaration....OR they pay before...

6) I'm guessing there was some sort of marketing program that also doubled up as an advertising brochure for companies in Washington that could afford to pay for ad revnue to have their business seen by 1, million plus people..

So what I'm saying is that I think the $150, 000 000 was more then made back.

emn4cw
19 January 2009 at 15:49

I think they made a profit!

antileft
19 January 2009 at 15:52

Oh come on emn4cw! I know the history and I know how lousy western nations often are. Never said that that wasnt the case. I didnt take that side, did I?!

NOW, if there is a reason for western nations to invade afghanistan other than to catch bin laden, tell me what it is. THAT was my question. If you cant answer it then its a pretty weak conspiracy theory, isnt it?! Here's the question which you ignored- I repeat:

"If Bin Laden wasnt in afghanistan, why did the americans invade? Cmon lets hear your conspiracy theory. It should be even more amusing considering Bush and the rest so obviously would have prefered to invade Iraq instead. Let's hear the conspiracy *waiting*"

Go ahead. I know I know its hard to come up with conspiracies when the country doesnt have oil! Go ahead- shoot. *still waiting*

Cybertiger
19 January 2009 at 15:53

Harryantileft asks,

"What would you do about afghanistan?"

I would leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.

antileft
19 January 2009 at 15:58

Thanks for that, Cybertiger. Now get back to eating donuts and watching tv. Youre not bright enough to post here.

JimH
19 January 2009 at 17:30

Antileft,

I don't claim to know why they invaded Afghanistan, it's a very good question. What I do believe is the story governments give for invading places is very seldom the real reason that they have behind closed doors. Laughing any uncomfortable facts off as "conspiracy" is "not very bright".

The main reason America & Britain usually invade anywhere is down to money. I'd give examples but I really shouldn't have to. Why don't you start with Iraq and go backwards, possibly via South America? America/U.K (not just them) have supported crooked regimes for decades, all in the name of the dollar, so are you trying to tell me they've suddenly had a change of heart and it's all for protecting and spreading freedom & democracy?!! If so, you should ask yourself what kind of democracy these people are spreading and who it applies to.

JimH
19 January 2009 at 17:40

Oh, and Bush & co invaded Iraq as well as Afghanistan, in case you hadn't noticed. Both invasions part of the PNAC plan for America's expanding empire.

emn4cw
19 January 2009 at 18:05

antileft

What are you talking about? I have NO conspiracy theories! Re-read my post!

I just said that it was very "un bright" of you to call JimH not so "bright" because he doesn't believe all the pathetically spoon fed information the governments gives us!

So YOU don't know.

And I don't know.

So what do we have there? People in the dark.

Your guess is as good as mine. We are intelligent adults wanting an intelligent debate and the very minute I get a logical reason for the invasion of Afghanistan apart from the stupid and pathetically gullible clap trap reason of finding the 'missing Osama Bin Landen', then I wil listen.

You're the one being dumb.

How can write on these posts knowing full well the past of our governments in colonising and invading for self interest purposes; money, oil, diamonds AND still keep a straight face and say that they wanted to invade Afghanistan just so the can capture lil ol Osama the baddie and save the big bad world from them dirty ol arabs!?

So what are YOU saying?

You are saying despite what the US and UK et al have done to the rest of world in the PAST. They learnt their lesson and NOW they want to save the world. AND finding Osama in Afghanistan was just that....

YOU are saying a leopard can change it's spots huh? Even if they are still working on the premise of the free market concept??

Ok, now who is the naive one antileft.

Bless you petal.

It must be so nice to live in your world of shiny happy all governments are nicey likey.

Carl Jones
19 January 2009 at 20:27

The problem with many of the previous comments, is that the debate is confined to what you`ve been messaged by the MSM.

Bin Laden is a NWO pony...EVERYTHING, that he`s accredited with, has benefited the CFR/Chatham House agenda....verious long term geopolitical ball games, largely aimed at energy, modification of Muslim culture and containing Russia and China.

There is no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to any of the NWO constructs attributed to him. In August 2001, BL was in Saudi having dialysis in a well known hospital. BL and the local CIA station chief had several meetings about buying off the Taliban. The Taliban`s price was too high. I don`t believe this aspect, as 9/11 (NWO War on Terror ignition event) must have been in advanced planning, the rest is NWO history.

Just as the British military were prevented from shooting Hitler in the First World War, Clinton was blocked from assassinating/capturing Bin Laden.

At 4.30 into video.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4

Its the old story of the dog chasing its tail. We are now told that significant numbers of al Qaeda have been killed by bubonic plague and that it might be spreading through their verious camps (untargetted by the NWO)....what a convenient way to try end to the War on Terror. If this is a serious NWO attempt to shut this operation down, it can only be, that THEY have concluded, it has become a liability and that very few people now believe what the MSM are telling us. LOL,LOL,LOL

if we cast our blinkered minds back to the SIS liquid bomb scam...it took the best British brains, in laboratory conditions...17/30 attempts, until they were happy enough with the video, that was used in court...17/30 attempts!!!LOL

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2008/09/propaganda.ht...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/liquid-bomb-terror-plot-collapse...

Who can blame the government[s] and banks for hiding their crimes when they`ve been found out on sham terror. LOL

antileft
20 January 2009 at 03:33

"I don't claim to know why they invaded Afghanistan, it's a very good question."

Indeed. It is a vital question. If you are claiming that they did not invade to catch bin laden, then you have to be able to think of AT LEAST ONE other logical reason for it! Hey, Im open to conspiracy theories! Im sure most of the many you could come up with for iraq are fair and true. But Afghanistan?? Here's the problem for those who disagreed with the Iraq war (and I am one): Idiots on both sides claim that Iraq and afghanistan are the same and equally unreasonable. This TOTALLY invalidates the argument of the people who were against the Iraq war. Because Afghanistan was reasonable and necessary, and TOTALLY different. Learn to distinguish between the two. Because when you cant, you weaken the views of the anti-iraq war movement.

"The main reason America & Britain usually invade anywhere is down to money."

Im not interested in "the main reason"! NOT ALL WARS ARE THE SAME. Some are necessary- some arent. This one has nothing to do with money. Or can you come up with a serious reason how this is somehow down to money?? STILL WAITING.

"I'd give examples but I really shouldn't have to. Why don't you start with Iraq and go backwards, possibly via South America?"

Again- totally irrelevant!!! I know fully well, thank you very much, the errors and immoral tinkering the west has done in the past (and is in the present). NOT ALL WARS ARE THE SAME. Dont try to claim Iraq and Afghanistan are the same. Theyre totally different. Quit weakening the argument of the anti-iraq war movement.

Cybertiger
20 January 2009 at 08:00

"Honestly, you really werent first in line when god was handing out brains, were you?"

And you were certainly at the bottom of the dung heap.

writeon
20 January 2009 at 10:07

I think one needs to introduce a bit calm hear, less emotion, less anger and intemperence. More light, less heat. Joe Strummer once sang, 'Anger can be Power, if you know how to use it!'

This probably futile and I'm opening myself up to more personal abuse, which is tiresome, but here goes. Here's an alternative view of why Afghanistan was invaded and remains occupied.

Geographically, Afghanistan has enormous strategic importance, it's a crossroads. This strategic importance has been recognised for several thousand years going back to Alexander the Great.

Just look where it is on the map and at it's borders.

The Taliban regime had succeeded in more or less restoring order in Afghanistan after years of civil war and occupation. They were people one could do business with. They were in Texas negotiating a deal for a pipeline to transport gas from Central Asia down into Pakistan, bypassing Russia and Iran, this was literally weeks before the invasion. Prior to this the Italians were involved in talks for an Italian finnaced gas pipeline.

The Taliban didn't control all of Afghanistan though, only most of it. Afghanistan is diffficult to control, as it's never really had a strong central government, and it probably never willl.

After 9/11 the Taliban denied that they had anything direcectly to do with the attacks,and this is true. They were too busy re-building the country and consolidating their power to attack the United States.

After 9/11 the Taliban offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden to an international court, some neutral country, for a fair trial, or even towards the end, when invasion seemed a reality, the United States; however, they wanted proof or some evidence that he was, in fact, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. The Americans refused to supply this information, and they never have, not to anyone. Even the FBI doesn't charge him with direct responsibility for the attacks, make of that what you will!

writeon
20 January 2009 at 10:22

The Bush Administration wanted to invade and occupy Afghanistan for pretty much the same reasons they attacked and occupied Iraq - for strategic reasons to do with the projection of American power in the region, a region which is becoming increasingly important in regards to controlling the world's remaining potential energy resources, and controlling these vital resources means both wealth and power.

There was no pressing need to invade and occupy Afghanistan with a huge army, in order to capture Osama Bin Laden.

We have created instability in Afghanistan, and we are losing an unecessary war that we started. We would require over 500,000 soldiers to have even a chance of pacifying Afghanistan, this will never happen, which is why we are losing. Now, are main reason for staying, fighting a losing war, is simply to show that we are not losing, that NATO has a reason to exist and legitimacy, that we are strong and cannot be defeated. That may be true, perhaps, that we cannot really lose,as long as we stay in our forts and the cities, but neither can we win either. We don't have the men and arguably we don't have the money anymore.

So it's an increasingly bloody stalemate, which could continue for decades,and for what? For our pride?

Afghanistan is incredibly corrupt too. Drugs are the only economy that exists. Drug lords are part of the government and Nato is protecting them, how bizarre. Convoys of lorries with drugs cross the borders every day, under the watchful eyes of Nato.

There is no democracy in Afghanistan. It's run by warlords and drug barons. The great danger though is that the war will spread into Pakistan where there is a substantial Pastun population. Destabilising Pakistan is a high price to pay for escalation in Afghanistan. Out of the frying pan into the fire.

antileft
20 January 2009 at 13:34

Oh writeon, the more I read what you say, the more I think youre just a dreamer who spends his time writing poetry in his bedroom. They invaded afghanistan for its "strategic importance"?! Are you serious?? Surely, if they were going to invade a country for "strategic importance", they would have picked one that was more strategically important?? Perhaps they could have done one with oil AND strategic importance? Hmm?? This is so typical of the left- try to find as many reasons as possible to dislike America even when theyre being (uncharacteristically) reasonable.

"After 9/11 the Taliban offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden to an international court, some neutral country, for a fair trial, or even towards the end, when invasion seemed a reality, the United States; however, they wanted proof or some evidence that he was, in fact, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks."

America had more perfectly reasonable requests other than for bin laden:

Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al Qaeda;

Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;

Close immediately every terrorist training camp;

Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;

Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection.

Sounds fair to me. Afghanistan offered, just before the invasion, to "detain" bin laden if presented with evidence. And as you know, bin laden is the head of a very large organisation, which was very strong in afghanistan. HOW IS IT ENOUGH TO OFFER TO DETAIN HIM?? It was never enough. The taliban had to either totally change its culture or be removed. Youd have to be a complete idiot to think otherwise.

And what about my other question, writeon?? What should be done about afghanistan? You dislike obama for saying he ll send in more troops. What would you like him to say? That he ll simply remove the troops and let their weak government take care of itself?? I bet you have a real idiotic answer to this one too...

writeon
20 January 2009 at 16:37

Osama Bin Laden isn't the leader or criminal mastermind behind a very large or powerfull organisation called Al Qaeda. This is a kind of Hollywood narative which bares little resemblance to reality.

If Al Qaeda was a large and powerful organisation it would have been destroyed by now, if the Americans were serious about destroying it , because such organisations leave tracks and cannot really hide very well in the modern world.

Bin Laden's role is one really one of 'spiritual leader.' Al Queda is a weak not a strong organisation. It's 'strength' lies in Bin Laden's ideas. Primarily, that one can and should resist Israeli/American domination of Muslim holy land. This core idea has a lot of traction in the Muslim world.

The 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Al Queda, Afghanistan, or really Bin Laden. The conspiracy was planned in the United States and probably Europe. It was financed with Suadi money and the high-jackers were nearly all Saudi citizens. Bin Laden's role was of minor importance. If anything he perhaps knew in advance and gave his 'blessing' but that's about it.

Afghanistan is strategically important, especially today in relation to the vast energy reserves in the Caspian region, put a pipeline through Afghanistan and one avoids both Russia and Iran. Afghanistan is like a giant castle keep, one can launch attacks in many directions, just look at the map, if one can control it, and that's the problem, the Afghans don't like foreign occupation and never have, especially the largest ethnic group, the Pastuns,who have warrior-culture based on resistance.

Just like the Americans said that Iraq was threat and that Iraq was behind international terrorism, the same distortions and exaggerations were used to justify attacking and occupying Afghanistan. Both countries are really just stepping stones in longer journey.

antileft
20 January 2009 at 17:39

"Just like the Americans said that Iraq was threat and that Iraq was behind international terrorism, the same distortions and exaggerations were used to justify attacking and occupying Afghanistan."

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! QUIT THINKING IN BLACK AND WHITE!

"Osama Bin Laden isn't the leader or criminal mastermind behind a very large or powerfull organisation called Al Qaeda. This is a kind of Hollywood narative which bares little resemblance to reality."

I understand the hollywood nonsense, writeon. And youre right- he isnt in charge of anything anymore. But he was. Before the invasion, he was fairly powerful. He ran training camps and was involved in organising attacks against the west. And yes, he wasnt the only one- many were involved. Which is why they had to invade.

"Bin Laden's role is one really one of 'spiritual leader.'"

Precisely. Now, hes just a figurehead. So it's a good job there was a war.

"The 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Al Queda, Afghanistan, or really Bin Laden."

Oh what a load of crap! You dont know that at all, do you?! YOU DID NOT SEE THE INTELLIGENCE!!! Did you?! So how can you know that?? Youre just making assumptions because it's america. Quit thinking in black and white.

And you idea that afghanistan is "strategically important" because "look at the map!" is totally idiotic. If you want gas, do Iran. No need to do Afghanistan. In Iran you get oil too. Yes, I know they were planning Iran too. But why do Afghanistan for gas if youre going to do Iran anyway?? Answer that question, please, unless you simply havent thought that far ahead. And then answer the other which you conveniently ignored, no doubt because you as usual cant defend your beliefs. Here it is again:

"What should be done about afghanistan? You dislike obama for saying he ll send in more troops. What would you like him to say? That he ll simply remove the troops and let their weak government take care of itself??"

writeon
20 January 2009 at 18:24

The United States didn't have to invade Afghanistan, that was a choice. This was using a cannon to hunt sparrows. There were far more intelligent and effective ways of finding, capturing or killing Bin Laden, if that was necessary.

This has nothing to do with beleifs or likes and dislikes.

Bob Gates recently asked himself a rhetorical question in relation to Bin Landen. 'This is the country that invented public relations, how come we're losing to some guy in a cave?!' That's because millions of hundreds of millions of people think that Bin Laden's message is closer to the truth than the American/Israeli version. Now this is obviously a problem, especially after the 'Rape of Gaza', how does one convince people to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes, and accept an American PR story instead?

From Afghanistan one can potentially launch attacks and keep an eye on a large number of different nations, but most importantly, it's a bridgehead in Asia and close to the gas and oil reserves of the Caspian Basin. It also gives one the option of attacking Iran form the North-East when the time comes.

It's difficult to know what 'to do' about Afghanistan. I woldn't have destroyed it in the first place. Afghanistan has never had a strong central government, the different ethnic groups are far too independent for that. It's like I'm being asked to unmix an omelette, turn time backwards, from a place one shouldn't be!

Obama will make an enormous mistake if he agrees to send thirty or forty thousand extra troops to Afghanistan, especially when everyone knows that if one is to have any chance of 'winning' and imposing a pro-Western regime on Afghanistan one would need to send three or four hundred thousand men. This is, of course, impossible, unless one introduces compulsory military service.

Sending more soldiers into a hopeless war, a war that is lost, is very stupid indeed, especially if the war, which is becoming a war against the Pastun people, spreads into Pakistan.

writeon
20 January 2009 at 18:38

Already the Pastun people don't accept the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which cuts right through their lands. The war will inevitably spread, as it already is, into northern Pakistan, the border, so-called 'tribal areas.' This war is destabilising Pakistan, and the resentment against the continuing attacks into Pakistani territory is building up anti-Western sentiment, on top of what happened in Gaza. Pakistan is a big country with a large population. The West should try to stabilise Pakistan not the opposite.

In the end, when we finally give up and accept that we cannot dictate to the Afghans the type of government they should have, and we leave, after years of war, the Afghans themselves will probably fight among themselves for years, until some group comes out on top and forms some kind of central authority. Or the country disintegrates into a number of different 'states.'

But this will be difficult as Pakistan doesn't want an independent Pastun nation the north with the Pakistan Pastuns joining it, breaking up Pakistan. At the moment India is deeply involved in Afghanistan too. This upsets Pakistan. Iran is also involved. So Afghanistan is being carved up into spheres of influence because of its strategic importance, which of course is why the Americans are there too.

Afghanistan's future is going to be very bloody, chaotic and complex. Americans, who understand so little about the region, as they do about the Middle East and Palestine, should be the last people in the world to involve themselves in Afghanistan. It's a recipe for disaster, with only one outcome, total defeat and humiliation, but at enormous cost to both the Americans and the Afghans.

PeterWJones
20 January 2009 at 20:58

How different the process of electing a US President is to the UK's.

The USA has a leader who submitted himself to his party's and the country's scrutinity before selecton and then election.

Compare that to the way we have Gordon Brown foisted upon us. His arrival at No 10 reminds me of the the "Buggin's Turn" Trade union process of many years ago.

In my opinion one of the reasons for the malaise in the UK - I mean no sense of hope or recovery - is due to the miserable leadership (sic) and truculent behind the scenes behaviour before he grabbed the top job of the present PM.

If he is truly the best politician around then I believe the country is set for decades of misery.

I have always voted Labour but no longer if he remains as leader.

Peter Jones

Carl Jones
20 January 2009 at 21:32

Peter, while I don`t believe in the UK/US democratic constructs...UK subjects do NOT vote for a Prime Minister, they vote for their local MP and his/her parties agenda.

If anyone (YOU) claims they are unhappy with Brown and as you state, "I have always voted Labour but no longer if he [Brown] remains as leader"...clearly, you MUST HAVE BEEN ASLEEP, because there was a VERY high chance that Brown would take over from Blair during this term...get the idea?

I believe "democracy" is a control mechanism for the masses, but If there is one good thing about the British system, Prime Ministers don`t rise through the ranks from NO WHERE (2 years), like Obama. BHO is a TOTALLY manufactured leader and the only real concern he has for ordinary Americans, is their well armed potential for civil unrest, maybe, even civil war. :)

antileft
21 January 2009 at 03:55

"There were far more intelligent and effective ways of finding, capturing or killing Bin Laden, if that was necessary."

Again, writeon, bin laden is not a hollywood baddie. He was one man in a very large, messed up country full of extremists, run by extremists. If america had been able to illiminate bin laden, what good would it have done? Quit thinking of this as a hollywood movie. The whole country had to change. The whole system had to change. Afghanistan is full of islamic training camps and is a major source of extremism, the kind of extremism which lead to september 11th. It had to be pacified. Bin Laden was not enough. It isnt the same as in hollywood.

"'This is the country that invented public relations, how come we're losing to some guy in a cave?!'"

Yes, because of Iraq and Israel and all their other errors. NOT ALL WARS ARE THE SAME- QUIT PRETENDING THEY ARE. The world was very supportive of afghanistan, precisely because no one who knows anything has questioned that bin laden was responsible for september 11th. Quit mixing up your wars.

"It's difficult to know what 'to do' about Afghanistan. I woldn't have destroyed it in the first place."

This is such classic "writeon". Youve criticised obama for saying he ll send in more troops. If you cant think of a better idea, why are you criticising him for that?? I know you wouldnt have gone in in the first place- but obama cant undo history can he? What do you want him to do?? Surely, you should be criticising bush? No?? What do you want obama to say about afghanistan? Answer that question, please.

And you again failed to answer my question:

"But why do Afghanistan for gas if youre going to do Iran anyway??"

Iran is full of gas. It could be invaded- and it is far easier to invade just Iran than first Afghanistan and then use afghanistan as a base to invade iran. Let's hear it. Why Afghanistan instead of Iran??

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:35

I do love your smilie at the end there, Carl. You just love this fantasy, dont you?! Yeah, my failure doesnt matter because we re all gonna die! Wahoo!

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:45

"There were far more intelligent and effective ways of finding, capturing or killing Bin Laden, if that was necessary."

Again, Bin Laden is not a hollywood villain. Afghanistan was full of government approved training camps for various islamists who were hostile to the west. Bin Laden was just one of those at the top. Which is why after september 11th killing bin laden wasnt enough. The whole culture had to change. Isnt that obvious?!

"'This is the country that invented public relations, how come we're losing to some guy in a cave?!'"

The reason is Iraq, Israel, and all the other errors! Practically everyone was very supportive of the war in afghanistan- even arab countries- even russia who you seem to think this war was designed to stop (bizarrely because of a gas pipeline). QUIT MIXING UP YOUR WARS! NOT ALL OF THEM ARE THE SAME! QUIT THINKING IN BLACK AND WHITE!

"It's difficult to know what 'to do' about Afghanistan. I woldn't have destroyed it in the first place."

Oh I do love this, writeon!!! You dislike obama because of his afghanistan policy. But what do you want him to do?? You want him to... Not have invaded in the first place. How is he supposed to please you?! He cant turn back time, writeon. Tell me- what do you want him to say?? Hmm? Let's hear it!!! Or will you concede that you were unreasonable to expect him to do anything else?

"From Afghanistan one can potentially launch attacks and keep an eye on a large number of different nations, but most importantly, it's a bridgehead in Asia and close to the gas and oil reserves of the Caspian Basin."

Then let me ask once again. Why do Afghanistan? Why not Iran? Iran has a lot of gas. Why not just take over Iran? Or do you honestly think that the easiest way to take over iran is to take over afghanistan for the bases, and then do Iran from there?! That really would be idiotic... I think even the last administration isnt that moronic.

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:46

"There were far more intelligent and effective ways of finding, capturing or killing Bin Laden, if that was necessary."

"'This is the country that invented public relations, how come we're losing to some guy in a cave?!'"

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:46

"There were far more intelligent and effective ways of finding, capturing or killing Bin Laden, if that was necessary."

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:47

"'This is the country that invented public relations, how come we're losing to some guy in a cave?!'"

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:47

"'This is the country that invented public relations, how come we're losing to some guy in a cave?!'"

"It's difficult to know what 'to do' about Afghanistan. I woldn't have destroyed it in the first place."

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:49

"'This is the country that invented public relations, how come we're losing to some guy in a cave?!'"

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:50

"'This is the country that invented public relations, how come we're losing to some guy in a cave?!'"

"It's difficult to know what 'to do' about Afghanistan. I woldn't have destroyed it in the first place."

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:51

"'This is the country that invented public relations, how come we're losing to some guy in a cave?!'"

The reason is Iraq, Israel, and all the other errors!

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:53

"It's difficult to know what 'to do' about Afghanistan. I woldn't have destroyed it in the first place."

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:55

"'This is the country that invented public relations, how come we're losing to some guy in a cave?!'"

antileft
21 January 2009 at 08:57

"most importantly, it's a bridgehead in Asia and close to the gas and oil reserves of the Caspian Basin."

writeon
21 January 2009 at 09:30

The 'invasion' of Eurasia, to gain control of its vast resources, vital to our Western lifestyle, had to start somewhere, so obviously one starts with the weakest nations, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran was, and still is far too strong, and as blaming Iran for 9/11 would have been stretching things to snapping point. However, now one has armies in Afghanstan and Iraq and a vast fleet in the Gulf, so Iran is virtually surrounded by American forces,and one is softening-up world opinion with the same, tired old WMD story, so effectively used against Iraq. Bush didn't have enough political capital to attack Iran, arguably Obama could be far more successful.

The occupation of Afghanistan is part of longterm geopolitical strategy to gain access to and eventual control of Eurasia's natural resources. The nation that controls and can exploit these resources will be the world's dominant power in the 21st. century.

However, Iran is in the way, as are Russia and China. Iraq was a country on its knees and easy pickins, a source of oil so vital for strategy of 'colonising' Eurasia, and implementing regime change across the continent. Whether Russia, China and Iran will passively accept US dominance of their countries, without resisting forcefully, is, however, highly debatable.

writeon
21 January 2009 at 09:43

The threat of terrorism, which isn't a real threat at all, is just a made up propaganda story, designed to justify, legitimise and conceal our true intentions and motivations, an excuse to invade weaker nations which have something we want or our desire to control them and their territory for other reasons. Iraq and Afghanistan are almost perfect examples of this strategy.

This is what nations do, what they are for, why they were created them in the first place. To project power and monopolise and legitimise the use of violence, both a home and abroad. Nations, their leaders and their armies, are analogous, to large and poweful, and rival Mafia gangs competing over 'territory' in this case the world. Interestingly the Mafia modelled its internal structure on the Roman model.

"To me, I confess that (countries) are like pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a great game for domination of the world."

Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India,1898.

writeon
21 January 2009 at 09:50

The inaurguration of Obama sounded, looked, was presented and received, more accurately as the coronation of a monarch, not the mere swearing into office of one part of tri-partite political system, where power is separated into three equal parts governing collectively.

The Founders would have turned in their graves if they'ed seen yesterday's spectacle in Washington. It represented almost everything they rejected and despised in the British Empire, specifically, monarchy and power invested in men and not in laws.

Camus
21 January 2009 at 10:06

Writeon, you must have been at a different parade.

Tell us what you would have liked to have seen!

Carl, nice to read you again, even if I think that you are

way off target.

Auntieleft: where are you coming from and where are

you going to with your neo-realism - sounds like

nowhere.

Carl Jones
21 January 2009 at 10:20

Camus, please explain. :)

antileft
21 January 2009 at 10:46

"Iran was, and still is far too strong, and as blaming Iran for 9/11 would have been stretching things to snapping point."

So, just let me get this straight. Youre saying that it is easier to invade Afghanistan THEN Iraq THEN Iran than it is to invade just Iraq THEN Iran. Yes?? Why?! Iraq holds bases too. They have a longer border with Iran. Iran has both oil and gas. Why do afghanistan first?? Iran has one hell of a lot of gas, and you can invade it easily from Iraq. Why afghanistan? *waiting*

"The threat of terrorism, which isn't a real threat at all"

Are you serious? Did you not see what happened in New York? Or London? Or Madrid?? You dont think there's a threat there, writeon?!

Predictably, you failed to answer my other question. Here it is again, with your post before it:

"It's difficult to know what 'to do' about Afghanistan. I woldn't have destroyed it in the first place."

Perhaps youre conceding??

*waiting*

Oh and Camus, if youre not bright enough to debate my points, do something else.

antileft
21 January 2009 at 10:54

Oh and writeon, from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_ga...

"Iran ranks second in the world in natural gas reserves and also second in oil reserves."

Hmm writeon, I dont know where you get your facts from but... According to wikipedia none of the top ten countries with natural gas border afghanistan except Iran... So again, my question- considering they were going to do Iraq (which has a huge border with Iran) anyway, why do afghanistan first? There is NO NEED for a gas pipeline there if youre going to do Iran and Iraq (number 10) anyway.

writeon
21 January 2009 at 15:59

A delegation from the Taliban regime in Afghanistan visited Texas to negotiate a deal to build a pipeline through Afghanistan transporting gas from the Caspian Basin, thereby bypassing both Russian and Iran. This was, if I remember correctly only a couple of weeks before 9/11. The Taliban were also negotiating with an Italian company for the same purpose. This would have supplied the Taliban with much needed transport revenues. The pipeline would then continue down through Pakistan to the coast and Karachi.

9/11 didn't really have anything to do with the government of Afghanistan or Iraq. But obviously Afghanistan was perceived as being even weaker than Iraq, and therefore it was first on the list for regime change. A quick and popular victory in Afghanistan and then turn one's sights on Iraq, the really valuable prize. It was the first domino in the great game. Afghanistan is a strategic bastion and bridgehead for the planned expansion into the Eurasian heartland.

As we are losing in Afghanistan, the various nationalist resistance groups now control around 75% of the country and they are moving closer and closer to Kabul. The war is lost, in the sense that the West, through NATO, will never be able to dictate or create a viable democracy there. As we are eventually going to leave Afghanistan without achieving our impossible goals, why not do it now, and save ourselves a lot of money and dead soldiers, not to mention dead Afghans and the real threat that our actions will destabilize Pakistan so we have to go to war with them too?

The terrorist attacks, London, Madrid, 9/11 had nothing to do with Afghanistan or Iraq, so why send armies to invade them? These attacks were primarily planned and organised inside Britain, Spain, and the USA, so following that weak logic we should have bombed ourselves to prevent further terrorist attacks!

Three successful terror attacks in eight years doesn't sound like a particularly impressive or poweful organisation to me.

Camus
21 January 2009 at 16:35

Carl:

" We are now told that significant numbers of al Qaeda

have been killed by bubonic plague and that it might

be spreading through their verious camps

(untargetted by the NWO)....what a convenient way to

try end to the War on Terror. If this is a serious NWO

attempt to shut this operation down, it can only be, that

THEY have concluded, it has become a liability and

that very few people now believe what the MSM are

telling us."

"I don`t believe in the UK/US democratic constructs."

I construe your remarks to mean that

(a) the "War on Terror" has been instigated in order to

rid the western world of some opponents and that the

media have joined in and play along with what the

leaders tell them is good for us.

(b) The US/UK democracies are cop-outs. My

problem with the first is that I cannot see how 'they'

could be so smart to construct the whole thing as if it

were the plot for a Hollywood blockbuster. They ain't

that smart.

The second - if I interpret you correctly - I can only

quote what one academic said - "we get the politicians

that we deserve." What#s the alternative?

antileft
21 January 2009 at 17:00

You see the way you avoid answering questions, writeon? You do that because your argument is weak and you know it. If you can answer my questions it shows that I cant find fault in your logic. If not, it shows that youre unable to defend your beliefs, probably because theyre wrong. Here are my questions again. Answer them or concede:

"It's difficult to know what 'to do' about Afghanistan. I woldn't have destroyed it in the first place."

You dislike obama because of his afghanistan policy. But what do you want him to do??

and

Youre saying that it is easier to invade Afghanistan THEN Iraq THEN Iran than it is to invade just Iraq THEN Iran. Yes?? Why?! Iraq holds bases too. They have a longer border with Iran. Iran has both oil and gas. Why do afghanistan first?? Iran has one hell of a lot of gas, and you can invade it easily from Iraq. Why afghanistan?

Lets hear it or we simply go backwards and forwards and I never figure out how you fix these holes in your beliefs.

Oh, and "Three successful terror attacks in eight years doesn't sound like a particularly impressive or poweful organisation to me."

And yet they killed more westerners on our own soil than any other army since the second world war. Sounds pretty serious to me, writeon. Theyre attacking us- no one else does that.

writeon
21 January 2009 at 19:08

We should withdraw NATO forces from Afghanistan now rather than later. Let the Afghans sort out their own problems. Are continued presence is only making matters worse and risks destabilising the enter region and especially Pakistan. We don't want to get into a fight Pakistan. We should cut our losses now, before we get drawn into a deeper and deeper quagmire and suffer the same fate as the Russians, Afghanistan isn't worth the risks involved, the vast expense, destruction and loss of life. We are the problem not the solution. If one hasn't a realistic chance of making things better why bother?

Afghanistan was far weaker than Iraq, which was supposedly bristling with WMDs, a threat to the world, a formidable foe, whilst Afghanistan was a country on its knees after decades of war. If one wishes to create a strategic bridgehead in a region one goes for the weakest spot first, not the hardest, this is elementary.

Who are 'they' exactly? We weren't attacked by any army, but by small gangs of criminals or terrorists without any real organisation behind them at all. These attacks didn't really come from the outside, but from the inside. 9/11 was a vicious and spectacular attack, but that was mostly through blind luck. It was seen primarily as a symbolic attack on the Pentagon and Wall Street. The attackers couldn't have know that the Twin Towers would collapse, as everyone was surprised by this unique result.

Seen from the perspective of the high-jackers, the attacks of 9/11 were revenge or payback for the decades of attacks perpetrated by the USA and Israel. Bin Laden himself mentioned the combined Israeli and US bombardment of Lebanon in the 1980s as the trigger that radicalised him, and made him want to hit back for a change. Somewhere between 18 and 20 thousand people were killed in the attack on Beirut. Blood will beget blood.

writeon
21 January 2009 at 19:11

On the other hand, to end this. I was wrong, you are right, as usual. I concede, and bow, humbly, to your superior logical skills, arguments, knowlegde and fluency in the english language. You win. I lose.

writeon
21 January 2009 at 19:16

i can't answer you questions. I've racked my brains to find the answers, but I cannot. My logice and arguments are deeply flawed. I was making all my facts up. Plucking everything out of the blue, in the foolish and vain hope that you wouldn't notice the holes in my arguments, foolish of me. My beliefs have let me down, again. Well, at least you're not fooled and perhaps, just perhaps I might learn something from you and start to think more clearly.

Carl Jones
21 January 2009 at 19:44

Camus

Point "a", you are wrong, the West doesn`t have any significant enemies, apart from the economic threat from Asia and that has been SORTED.

The Cold War was a very conveinent construct, but when it ended, the West was caught out, by the forgotten hero of the 20th centuary...Mikhail Gorbachev, when he broke up the Soviet Bloc in an orderly fashion.

So the UK/US axis needed a new mechanism of control and this was the "War on Terror". MI6 and the CIA used Bin Laden as the focal point of blame and built BL into a living legend which radicalized many young Muslims.

The Cold War and the War on Terror aren`t about winning the war...the War on Terror is about reconditioning the 99% of Muslims, who wouldn`t hurt a flea.

On point "b", governments have very little role in these constructs, governments manage the SOLUTIONS for public viewing. Constructs are formed over years/decades, by the elite, the CFR, Chatham House, Bilderberg and to some extent, the intelligence services. Of course, these long term constructs are subject to change, but most permutations are already known.

Take the present financial crisis; MI6`s brief, is to protect the national interest, so why did THEY let this happen? The fact is, MI6 has its real masters and they are the elite families...the same families who rode out the 30`s and they will ride out the next decade.

You say, "they ain't that smart.", so lets simplify, lets look at it in terms of "good and evil", 95% of all the people on this Earth are GOOD PEOPLE...surely, with sooo much good in the world, the world would be a lovely place, but its not. In simple terms, humans are farmed, they get just soo much, but not enough to be really happy...Britain happens to be one of the worst countries to live in....do YOU really think this is by chance?

antileft
22 January 2009 at 03:26

"On the other hand, to end this. I was wrong, you are right, as usual. I concede, and bow, humbly, to your superior logical skills, arguments, knowlegde and fluency in the english language. You win. I lose."

Why cant you just be mature about this, writeon? Its not about winning or losing- its about finding the truth. If youre wrong, be an adult about it and accept it- dont use sarcasm to hide the facts. The reason you cant answer my perfectly reasonable, clear questions is precisely that- you are wrong. Nothing to be ashamed of. We re all wrong sometimes. Theres no need to be childish about it. Accept it and move on.

antileft
22 January 2009 at 03:41

Writeon, to continue from my last post. Are you not aware of the importance of questions when debating? Did you not debate in university? One of the reasons the debate about Iraq in America was so flawed is because people very rarely asked the president difficult questions (or at least, the public didnt care that he couldnt answer them). That's how it is so easy to get things wrong. If all you want to do is simply give speeches then of course, your views are never really being challenged, are they? If someone asks a question, then you have to be able to explain- if you cannot, youre probably wrong. If you can, then the person asking the question cannot find anything wrong with your logic so its probably correct. Did you not learn this in university? Prime ministers question time would be a lot easier if it was just "prime ministers speeches". But it would be useless, wouldnt it?? Youd be left with soundbites and difficult issues and inconsistancies wouldnt even be mentioned. The holes in the logic would be ignored. So please take questions seriously. If you dont, youre simply avoiding the fact that your logic sometimes has holes in it. If you cant answer my questions, why is that?? You couldnt, per chance, be wrong, could you?

writeon
22 January 2009 at 07:22

I've conceded that I was wrong about the reasons we invaded Afghanistan, and you are right, my facts and arguments don't hold water when examined properly, I was never particularly good at debating at University, probably because I was so imature. I always thought I knew far more than I really did, but was able to hide my intellectual shortcomings for a long time, but in the end ones conceit and pretentions are always revealed when one meets a superior mind. It' like with gunslingers, there is always, someone who is a faster gun.