function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } //SOUND/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Conservative Web Log for iAmericanRight!: <strong>Afghanistan, This is Not What We Fought For.</strong> .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
The Federalist Patriot
You're already here!  Numbskull!  hee..hee

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Afghanistan, This is Not What We Fought For.

Three facts: Man faces death penalty for converting to Christianity,
16 years ago in Pakistan.

Man faced death penalty for supporting a change to the Afghan
Constituion, giving women equal worth, as opposed to the 50% they now
enjoy.

The Heroin trade accounts for one third of the Afghan economy.

This is what I mean by "tepid" when criticising the current adminstration, as a conservative, in the war on terror. Afghanastan was ours. There was no question that the Taliban were to be driven out of power. The replacement government was one, that would ensure that the people had some say in how the government was chosen and run.

However, without basic rights protected by a Constitution, this cannot happen. It would be proper, altho, not palitable, to pass laws that are restrictive (Women only worth 50%). But, in order for a democracy to function, the People must always have regress to change these laws. The Death penalty imposed because someone calls for a law to change is not democracy, but dictatorship.

Freedom of religion is a tennant of any civilized nation. Again, the fact that this man will face death unless he "reconverts" is abhorent enough. That death is also the penalty for calling for the change
of this law, is not democracy.

With all of the resources we have put into the "war on drugs", to have allowed the Poppy Fields to flourish, is unforgiveable. Again, after the combat missions were successfull, it would have taken very little to take out said fields, and impose upon any new government the requirement to ensure that these fields stayed taken out.

The Iraq war is now 3 years old. The War on Terror almost 5 years old. In this same span of time, the United States, acting largely alone, had conqured Nazi German, the Empire of Japan, and liberated all of Western Europe, and non-British Asian in the process.

Despite the magnificient performance of our troops, this war has been conducted with a half baked determination, and relatively no resources. Again, compared to the Second World War, we would have had to commit over 1 trillion dollars, and close to 20 million soldiers to meet the standard we set for ourselves, in those days. We haven't even come close to 10% of that effort. And the War on Terror, as the War on Drugs that proceeded it, will either be lost, or never be resoved one way or the other, and only because a lack of will by our elites.

We will eventually commit the resources and resolve necesarry to win this war, but I fear, only after another catastrophic attack upon our soil. There are many nuclear weapons missing from the old Soviet inventories, as assessed by General Levit in the late '90s. How to make such weapons, has been well known by most Nations, for many years now. And although this administration has made astonishing progress in disrupting and destroying the paths by which Nations sought to acquire the materials needed for Nuclear Weapons Production, on the battle and propaganda fronts, it has been a miserable failure in strategic planning and implementation.

It is a shame, that we shall continue to live, with so many threats to the Republic, when these threats could have been eliminated, had we been only half the men our fore-fathers were.












11 Comments:

At 4:52 PM, Anonymous Doll said...

As I said in my post on this very issue I am interested will Bush still call Islam a "noble faith" should this poor man be executed?

 
At 10:55 PM, Blogger moderator said...

hi doll....the other guy, for women's equal rights, backed down, but I don't think this guy will, as he was converted in Pakistan, and he's been a Christian for 16 years now. So IMHO he is going to get clipped.

As you said, so much for the Religion of Peace. Funny how these governments moan about equal rights in everone elses country but their own.

 
At 5:48 AM, Anonymous Debbie said...

Very interesting post. I too am disturbed at the slow and easy pace at which we are fighting this war on terror. We should have gone in with everything we had right at the beginning. Yes we need to use special forces, spies, undercover agents, whatever it takes to get the info and win the war. "President Bush said at the beginning, if you are not with us, you are against us." Seems he has backed down from that lately.

I have blogrolled you so I will be back.

 
At 4:49 PM, Anonymous Doll said...

Hi Paul and Debbie,

You both make great points. I am truly disappointed and saddened by the recent pull back of support for the war, the silence from the WH and also, that the president has waited two long years to really talk about this war. Those two years would have been better served not allowing the moonbats to pollute the masses with their kool-aid views and thoughts.

 
At 3:31 PM, Anonymous Odysseus160 said...

Debbie wrote "Yes we need to use special forces, spies, undercover agents, whatever it takes to get the info and win the war."

There is only one problem, the usual one in war. The problem is that there is an enemy, and they might not comply. Debbie makes it sound as if the U.S. determines all outcomes. What makes you think "we" can win the war? Because of America the Mighty? You mean, the one that got run out of Lebanon, Somalia, and soon Iraq? It would be much safer if the Washington neocon warmongers, liars, and murderers would pick on small countries such as Grenada. Then victory might be assured.

The Bush crowd and the reactionary cretins who support him are a sort of King Midas in reverse -- everything they touch turns not to gold but to complete and utter sh*t. You reactionaries are a shame on America, they way you have f*cked up everything, from Katrina to Iraq.

 
At 6:32 AM, Anonymous Doll said...

You are a liberal that has no ideas as usual except to call us names and accuse of us of nonsense. When you can come up with a better idea, a better plan, a better way, other than to just give lip service, I am all ears. Til then, get a life!

 
At 1:24 PM, Anonymous Odysseus160 said...

That's the usual, Rove-inspired response: liberals "have no new ideas." Right now I'd settle for "no new ideas" in preference to the bad ideas of the neocon rats and their reactionary claque. On the reactionaries' watch The U.S. has plummeted from a respected nation to a reviled one, and no wonder. The neocon f*ckheads have gotten us mired in Iraq and provided a training ground for terrorists there, caused gas prices to go over $3 a gallon, proved incapable of helping our own people in the wake of Katrina, and have displayed many other indices of incompetence besides jacking up the budget deficit to the stars.

In two things, however, the rat reactionaries have been excellent: first, in pumping up the police-prison state and making the U.S. the world's number one incarcerator, and in the arrogance with which they treated any country that didn't automatically fall in line with the neocons' fantasies of world conquest. In particular, Jonah Goldberg springs to mind, the son of the infamous, treacherous Lucianne. He is the neofascist who penned "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" as an insult to the French when they refused to fall in line with the neocons' happy little shooting war.

What we need now is not so much good new ideas as to stop acting on the bad old ones.

 
At 12:50 AM, Blogger moderator said...

Ah, always nice to here from al queda....

first point...where the left has ruled in the US, things generally go very badly...for example Detroit, 47% adult illiteracy, 50% drop out rate befor 9th grade, appx 40% real unemployment.

As for ideas, your purpose is not to fix things, nor offer debate, but to let off some steam or denigrate the country using the GOP as a whipping boy, to further your own fascist agenda.

The idea that women are only worth 50%, and that anyone expressing opposition to this fact does not seem to bother you, but those trying to liberate said folks, apparently does.

As far as your previous comment, about the might of the US, don't forget to add, the conquest of Nazi Europe, Imperial Japanese Asia, and Imperial Soviet Europe.

In comparrison with the countries you obviously side with, we have reached paradise long ago....

As far as "neocon", you are quite mistaken, as we are the real deal conservatives....which in essence means "reactionairies" to bring you your worst nightmares.

Assuming said reactionary definition means, winning wars, defending the nation against attack, conquering when attacked. Taking power from government and giving it back to the individual.

Interesting, how when TR broke the oil companies, when Bush goes after microsoft, when individual rights are restored and protected, the first ones to scream are you George Sorros types, as your own "G-d Given" power and wealth are then threatened, and you actually have to compete and work for a living as everyone else.

Looking forward to seeing you on the battle field dude.

paul

 
At 1:01 AM, Anonymous Odysseus160 said...

Oh I didn't know that, I mean, that the reactionaries invaded Iraq to liberate the 50% women. I take it all back, then. Churlish me, I thought the invasion was to secure oil sources, put tax money into the pockets of defense contractors and everybody else even remotely connected with the Bushites, and spread the neocon gospel at bomb- and gunpoint. And it was really to liberate the women. Hey, Karl Rove, did you hear that? This dude has found yet another reason for the Iraq invasion! Never mind the WMD and that Saddam Hussein was a mean guy. The really real reason was to liberate the women!

Oh well then, that explains everything. A simple explanation for a simple mind like mine. That's what we strive for in America, simplicity and simple explanations. Drugs are bad. Police is good. Conservatives want smaller government. Liberals are ungodly. Such explanations are smaller even than soundbites, they're soundnibbles. And they are perfect for America. With all the illiteracy and under-education (caused by the liberals, naturally,) a soundnibble is the perfect size to fit into the available memory space between the areas preoccupied with money, sex, and football.

 
At 11:19 AM, Blogger moderator said...

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

First...to liberate. Neo-Cons may relish it. Good for them. A conservative, as far as the Iraq war goes...supported it to crush Ba'ath. Period. (Those that did support it, the liberitarian wing never did support the war) The first of the 146 or so attacks on no-fly zone aircraft was the only legal justification necessary.

Oil is to be secured for the free market. The Iraqi's get the bucks, but no more or less than say Iran, or the Saudi's because, again, they sell at wholesale market price.

That Bush wanted to establish a representative democracy there, was not necesarry, but only a fascist would not have supported the effort.

You are full caliber on charges, ie I assume Haliburton falls in with the rest of the Bushie "corruption", but keep in mind that brother Bill Clinton also used said Haliburton for many exclusive contracts.....As far as money flowing into the pockets of others, I would suggest specific examples of such with references, but don't forget the pockets lined in the UN and World Bank, and some of our left wing freinds here at home by Ba'ath, as well as the Chicoms, Saudi's, and others.

As far as Afghanastan, my criticisms stand as stated. We were attacked, and as far as I am concerned, at that moment Afghanastan ceased to exist as an entitiy. Again, tho, the after-math was our problem as well. That the things that I criticised stand, is unacceptable. Bitch and moan all you want to about it but folks like you who would keep dictators, religious or otherwise, condone murder and concentration camps if they are left wingers is unacceptable.

We are at war. The first sworn duty of our government is to win it. They are not brutal enough, in my opinion to do so with a minimum of casualties. In areas that have been conquered, again in my opinion, the best way to keep our enemies out is not by setting up a left or right wing puppet but give the people a say in how they are to be ruled, via a set of laws that guarantee a foundation of inalienable rights.

You, the socialists, and the GOP country club types are all the same. You get on your oh so noble platforms, condeming the actions of the other, and then are usually worse when you gain power....ie, Clinton and his rich buddies, Feingold and his rich buddies, or Chaffee and his rich buddies are all threats to the republic.

Until you realize this, and can criticize and work for change from your own people, as well as those with whom you disagree, you will be no better than the Stalinist puppet (or Prophet, as Stalin started the structure for the Islamo-Fascists) that you appear to be from your one-sided criticisms lacking any references or fixes.

paul

PS.....an good example of hitting your own, is how conservatives constantly criticise (i mean the liberitarian and right wing constitutional types) the President and his dealings with the Saudi Royal Family. While Al Gore and the chairman of AOL or in Riyhad kissing up to them, and while Harvard and Yale are falling over themselves to take their money, about the only folks you ever hear publicly slamming the Saudis are conservatives....Read some of Coulter's articles on how she feels about their system, and the Presidents relationship with them, and you'll get what I mean.


I am GOP, and conservative. However, I routinely slam dunk the President and wings of my own party much more often than I hit the left. The reason is, that I base my philosophy upon the constitution, the federalist papers ( as supporting documentation), and what has worked as far as the tech aspects of govt. go. Can you say the same about your own statements?

 
At 1:44 PM, Anonymous Odysseus160 said...

"The first of the 146 or so attacks on no-fly zone aircraft was the only legal justification necessary"

See, the more I hang out here the more enlightened I get. Silly me, I thought the no-fly zones were over Iraq, so there was some justification for the Iraqis to try to get rid of the foreign warplanes in their airspace. But now I learn that in doing so, the Iraqis provided the "coalition of the willing" with a casus belli. As the French say, "Cet animal est tres mechant, quand on l'attaque, il se defend" ("This animal is very wicked. When he is attacked he defends himself.) But, what do the French know? As the neofascist Jonah Goldberg wrote, the French are "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and that disqualifies them from everything martial.

"Clinton and his rich buddies, Feingold and his rich buddies, or Chaffee and his rich buddies are all threats to the republic." Absolutely. All venal politicians are threats, I agree.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Blogwise - blog directory
More blogs about news and politics.
Blog Roll

Blogroll Me!
Directories:
The Grand Old Portal Globe of Blogs Blogarama Blog Hop

Increase your back-link numbers and therefore your website's page rank by: 1.Back-links, page rank and keywords ANALYSIS and 2. Back-link rotation exchange rotation system & Google-Bot detection and behavior analysis

Related Website