bedrog

Sun, Jan 2, 2011 : 8 p.m.

Just testing ( since several attempts at substantively and non insultingly addressing mr briegel's most recent plaints failed earlier to make it on this thread.) Briegel sarcastically asks "how the knowlegeable and clearheaded" could get us into the " lunacy" of pak/afghanistan. since the 'clearheaded etc ' phrase was used by me i trust a fair moderator will give me yet another whack, ( however futile with this particular individual, the opinion writer and ilk): ummm...david, it was al qaeda and the taliban that got us into the lunacy ( remember 9/11??). And they are perpetuating and escalating it globally,and far more lethally than our drones in the region at issue. also any president of either party ( or any non elected private citizen) is the opposite of knowledeable and clearheaded if they believe a nation and its head of state could ignore the provocation/atrocity of what al qaeda and its taliban supporters pulled off on our soil and elsewhere ( mumbai, madrid, london, attempted times-square etc etc etc.). But please dont let any of this this interfere with your views, (although thank god obama and others in decision making roles dont share them!!)

bedrog

Sun, Jan 2, 2011 : 9:21 a.m.

mr. briegel...there is quite alot of good sense still on thread, particularly as to the grossly exaggerated...and often hysterical... misuse of the term 'innocents'. As to who got us into this 'lunacy' the answer is simple: al qaeda and the taliban who ruled afghanistan at 9/11. As to your Alexander the great reference: he indeed had a rough time with the guerilla tactics of the afghan leaders Bessus and Spitamenes. But he did triumph in his own lifetime through a combination of brutality, bribery, conciliation and one we have not yet tried-- intermarrying his macedonian troops with the natives. His own queen Roxanne was an afghan, (although i dont think Michelle Obama would put up with that!!). Have a happy new year and try to hear other voices that are not 'nattering nabob-y" at all ( and interesting that you,of all people, have adopted a spiro agnew phrase!!) but simply realistic about a very troubled region and larger related issues.

bedrog

Sun, Jan 2, 2011 : 8:40 a.m.

mr briegel...al qaeda and the taliban ( who ruled afghanistan at the time of 9/11) 'got us into this lunacy'. it would have indeed been lunacy for a president and congress of either party to ignore that declaration of war, then or now. And fortunately all have ( however flawed the particular strategy and other aspects of their party doctrine) been clearheaded enough to not ignore this ongoing regional cancer. As to your 'alexander the great reference': yes he had a rough time there, since the bactrian/persian generals spitamenes and bessus led a brutal gurilla campaign against the macedonians. But in his lifetime alexander did get control of the region...and even built cities there..through a combination of corresponding brutality, conciliation, bribery and ( one we might try!!) intermarriage of his troops with the populace. his own queen...roxanne...was an afghan. It all fell apart after his death, but a realistic world...especially in that region...is not an 'end to conflict' but rather longer 'time-outs' between conflicts. And i strongly suspect your longish post was deleted because of its utterly one-sided and factually flawed nature ( ala ms brown's original), as other posters noted, and the moderators seemed to agree. A happy ( er) New year to us all.

David Briegel

Sun, Jan 2, 2011 : 1:14 a.m.

Please explain how "the more knowledgeable and clearheaded" have gotten us into this continuing lunacy? What do "the more knowledgeable and clearheaded" know that Alexander The Great, England and The Soviet Union didn't know? American Exceptionalism? Indeed! To whom and what is jcj referring?

David Briegel

Sun, Jan 2, 2011 : 12:45 a.m.

Stefanie, Your thread now makes no sense since you succumbed to the nattering nabobs by removing my post with no explanation. You could at least reply by stating your objections. You left up the totally senseless post by notfromaroundhere that totally twisted my statements. I don't really try to demean Christianity. Christians accomplish that simply by being less than Christian! Are the innocent victims of our drones less "terrorized" than the victims of terrorists? Are the deaths of innocents more noble when they die for Christian "Democracy"?

bedrog

Sat, Jan 1, 2011 : 5:40 p.m.

jcj..My apologies. We are in substantial agreement. I took your initial post to be a dig at democrats when in fact there is, and should be, considerable bipartisan agreement on the need for ongoing forceful engagement in pak/afghanistan and other such jihadist epicenters,the head in the sand isolationalist ron/rand paulistas being a minority exception--happily-- among our national elected officials, (along with the writer of the present op ed and her cronies who fortunately hold no elective offices). Actually,in the latter case, based on various of her/their posts on this and other local sites, they seem to have no trouble whatsoever weighing in on the meddlesome side of international affairs...but as partisans of jihadist extremists, as other posters here have accurately noted.

jcj

Sat, Jan 1, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.

@bedrog One of my points was intended to be that it does not seem to matter who is in the White House there are certain actions that are required. The other point was that Mr Briegel is always trying to demean Christianity while seldom if ever acknowledging the fact that most of the terror created in the world are of the Muslim persuasion.

bedrog

Sat, Jan 1, 2011 : 10:18 a.m.

jcj...re.clinton: He was faced with the consequences of the decade long brutal soviet occupation of afghanistan ( which began when homegrown afghan communists of the khalq movement made a colossal botch of their coup against the dynasty that had ruled for decades...and itself had experienced an intra dynasty coup in the mid 70's). At the time the best and most humane option for the u.s seemed to be backing the various 'mujahidin' ( jihadist ) factions that were effectively fighting the russians. Most of these were indeed nationalists and 'freedom fighters' in fact,with no plans for global domination. but some..e.g the osama bin laden followers ( mostly arabs, a few afghans and muslims from the balkans and central asia) and those of pashtun warlord gulbuddin hekmatyar had wider extremist aspirations. Pakistan was their safe haven and so we backed that government too, even though it was led by a military dictator with islamist leanings ( and i was there to see alot of this happen!!). At the time it legitimately seemed the best of bad alternatives, which got bad indeed as the extremist factions triumphed and the sons of the mujahidin..raised in fundamentalist funded refugee camps to pray and kill... became the 'taliban' ( students) and osamas followers became 'al qaeda' ( 'the base' including the 'data base' for global terrorist recruitment). When the u.s tried to wash its hands of this rats nest of a region we were then blamed for 'abandoning afghanistan' to the extrmists.....a no win situation for any president of either party. obama seems quite sensible in his factual grasp that some military and intelligence presence is a long-term 'must' for the area (if india doesnt sort it out!!) and that drones are indeed more effective than 'boots on the ground 'in some instances in stopping killers in a lawless region. none of this is remotely as simple as the original writer,her 2 supporters here, and you, have tried to make it. sorry!

jcj

Sat, Jan 1, 2011 : 8:45 a.m.

"Reagan and Bush the Dad loved the Taliban and Osama. Bush the Boy and the Chicken Hawk NEOCONS Cut and Run for their folly in Iraq" You conveniently failed to mention Clinton's position and role. He had to have had one. And what is Obama's position? "Either way there are dead innocents! For one God or another." I agree with this statement to a point. But you always seem to come down on the anti Christian side as opposed to the anti God side.

bedrog

Thu, Dec 30, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.

mr briegel...if you want osama bin laden dead ( along with as many of his active acolytes as possible)you and i ( and obama certainly, and bush too, although misdirecting his efforts a bit) are on the same side. But from her known allies, including one on this thread, i seriously doubt ms. brown shares our sentiments. I here offer her the chance to unqualifiedly condemn jihadist activities ( which are clearly statistically far more against fellow muslims than against infidels, whatever anti- infidel intent may be there)in places like afghanistan, pakistan, sudan, palestinian areas etc. and moderators: you have absolutely no justification to delete this, as you have been doing, per others' comments on the moderation here.

Not from around here

Thu, Dec 30, 2010 : 11:12 a.m.

As does the post above mine, but yet it's still here...

bedrog

Thu, Dec 30, 2010 : 5:31 a.m.

again...dictionaries for supporters ( one in particular) of this utterly naive----indeed amnesiac-- and one sided piece. drones are indeed 'extra judicial asassinations', almost entirely of truly "depraved indifference" killers, in a lawless region...so a necessary ( if not sole)component in a war against terrorists..( not innocents, let alone heros despite the apologetics of the usual posters here.)

Roadman

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 5:55 p.m.

@Snapshot: "However in war, innocents will die." Hoewever if they die due to intentional conduct or depraved indifference to human life of American servicemen, those servicemen may be prosecuted for war crimes. The Geneva Convention bans such activity.

bedrog

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 6:56 p.m.

topcat...perhaps you define the 'inevitable" as a nuclear armed taliban and al qaeda ( which they would be from pakistans's nukes if we were not there at some level). I and most informed others...including others on this thread-- regard this more as 'unthinkable'. And therefore the imperative behind NOT simply "getting out" of the region, even if our continued presence is ONLY on the drone and 'black ops' front, which if anything might plausibly and justifiably be extended to Quetta, the urban pakistani base of the taliban,both in -country and in afghanistan. Obama has been thinking of that...and good on him for doing so!! Again,happily and realistically most of our elected and military leaders are still committed to pragmatic multi-tasking there, from drones to more peaceful activities. In this arduous but necessary task they don't particularly need ill-informed armchair quarterbacks like the 'opinion' writer and her few supporters here.

snapshot

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 11:46 a.m.

I responded to Marina Brown's naive and uninformed opinion earlier and the comment was censured because the information I provided could not be verified. Please go online to the New York Times and just key in "U.S.aid to Pakistan" you will find numerous articles that reveal billions of dollars in military aid to help secure the Pakistan/Afganistan borders from terroists killing American soldiers and then seeking refuge in Pakistan. The billions of dollars are provided by the United States as a means to quell the support that Pakistani officials and in particular the Pakistani Intelligence community give to these terroists. The bribe isn't working and Americans are still dying. The drones are being used to help secure the border from the "hit and run" tactics of attacking in Afganistan and then entering Pakistan where many Pakistani officials are sympathetic to the terroist cause. What Ms. Brown may not realize is that if the "power" of the United States were in the hands of Pakistan, we would be enslaved to do their bidding with no regard for "human rights" or freedoms of any kind. My advice to Ms. Brown is that before you criticise and relenquish your power base, you should be aware that the consequences of weakness is the loss of all you know in the U.S., including your right to crticise government actions. Be careful what you wish for. Additionally, you have selected one small aspect of the war. A war that was initiated by the unprovoked attack on U.S. soil by these terrorists. An attack that killed over 3,000 "innocents" and consequently caused the death and disease of over 13,000 first responders and area residents subjected to the aftermath. You obviously do not fully realize the signifigance of such an act of barberism. It reflects the lack of respect for any life that differs from their own. So while you "drone" on with your naive opinion and critical comments, we have Americans dying to prove that we, as a nation, will not tolerate under any circusmstances the willing killing of innocents. However, in war, innocents will die. If you want the drone attacks to stop, you should be directing your anger at the Pakistani officials who provide cover and support for the terroists that want to destroy your life as you know it. Cry not for a select group of innocents killed by accident but cry for the millions who would be killed without their sacrifice of life.

Top Cat

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 10:40 a.m.

Even with the recent "surge" in American forces, the security situation in Afghanistan deteriorated in 2010. Facts are stubborn things. The fact is that this war is lost. There is nothing further to be gained in protecting our security by staying and prolonging the inevitable. Staying until 2014 as Biden suggests is lunacy. And lest we forget, the 9/11 attacks were planned in Hamburg, Germany and here in the U.S. Time to bring our legions home.

bedrog

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 : 10:41 a.m.

Fortunately the president and a bipartisan majority in congress are more knowledgeable and clearheaded about afghanistan, pakistan, drones and bad and irrelevant mataphors ( chickens, eggs, a crazy neighborhood philadelphia cult that never had international malice or capabilities for such on its agenda etc). And yes, mr Briegel: demistify is correct in calling ms brown to account for her one-sided apologetics and blindness to and wrongheadedness about the complexities of innocence and guilt and sanity in a jihad-crazed region. And it remains a mystery why the moderators persist in deleting hard facts about "freds' blindness to the role that his beloved socialism played in the region ( the brutality of the afghan 'khalq' communist revolution in the 70's that led to a decade of soviet barbarism...that in turn gave birth to the Taliban and al qaeda ( with our well-meaning complicity, sadly).

David Briegel

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.

Either way there are dead innocents! For one God or another. Your chicken and my egg or was it my chicken and your egg. Which came first? Who can remember? Vengance is mine sayeth......Everyone!! War Crimes? Not when WE do it!! We don't recognize any authority that would prosecute an American. Ms Brown did not apologize for evil nor did she cheerlead for anything but sanity.

Roadman

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 10:46 p.m.

@demistify: Remember the uproar and lawsuits when Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode in 1985 had ordered the bombings of rowhouses containing the MOVE radicals in that city and innocent children were killed? It is no different in Afghanistan.

demistify

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 9:29 p.m.

I find selective humanitarian concerns fascinating. Enormously more people have been killed by the terrorists than in military actions against them. A few definitions: Someone who goes around mass-murdering unarmed civilians is a terrorist, not a "combatant". Someone found in the company of a terrorist wearing civilian clothes cannot be presumed to be "innocent"; terrorists rarely wear uniforms. Someone who complains about terrorists being shot at but maintains silence about the victims of the terrorists is not showing concern about the loss of human life in general, just expressing partisanship.

Roadman

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 8:12 p.m.

What is appalling that even American military leaders have expressed dismay that these C.I.A. drones kill many innocent bystanders when their target may be as few as one person. Just fire the drone at a building that U.S. intelligence feels an enemy combatant is located and don't worry if there are dozens of innocent civilians also in the structure. This scenario is a war crime and never mind that it constitutes an "extrajudicial assassination" for the person being targeted.

DFSmith

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 7:47 p.m.

Ms Brown's opinion piece displays incredible ignorance of what is happening in the Indian sub-continent and in Afghanistan. Hence she seems to have become an apologist for, and an ally and a cheer-leader for the Afghani Taliban, the Tehrik-e-Taliban, and al-Qaeda in the NWFP and the FATA.

Not from around here

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 7:43 p.m.

agreed Demystify and Bedrog. Take it from the people who are on the ground in these countries. Muslim Extremist have killed more in Pakastan and Afganisan than our drone attacks. It boggles my mind that the same people who would be clamering for us to take swift and violent action if it was a radical Christian sect torturing children, raping and stoning women as a matter of policy, and forcing others to follow there beliefs are more than willing to let the Taliban do so with impunity. Forget WMD's and terrorism, what they do to women, homosexuals and people of diffent beliefs/cultures should be enough to swing the ann arbor crowd.

bedrog

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 3:01 p.m.

Demistify is totally correct...my substantive response to ms. Brown(and i know the region and its history/current events personally quite well) was evidently itself 'droned' by the moderator due to an unflattering remark i made regarding the naivete of the sentiments expressed in the opinion.... but nevermind. However, a word on "innocents" in contexts of rampant jihadism: recent and reputable polls report that in many such cases ( e.g northern nigeria---currently the site of brutal muslim on christian violence) public support for extremists is a majority: In other cases---pakistan being one-- such support is at large minority levels, and in certain regions no doubt majoritarian. Even where true innocents exist they are often used by jihadists as human shields ( as was done in Gaza and is regularly done in pakistan border areas). Better drones that, albeit imperfectly, target the guilty than " infidel"/ "farinji" ( 'foreigners'...a pan- islamic word derived from "Franks"..i.e. Norman french crusaders of the middle ages) boots on the ground in a quagmire like pakistan whose government is at best ineffective and hopelessly corrupt and at worst ( and quite likely) actively in support,via its intelligence services( ISI) of cross/border and international jihadists like the taliban and Lashkar -i-Taiba ( of Mumbai infamy). Anyway, i think India will eventually sort this all out quite forcefully and the writer won't have the U.s. to kick around anymore.

demistify

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 2:31 p.m.

Marina Brown is upset that those peace-loving al Qaeda terrorists are being killed by unsporting drones in Pakistan. Today's papers report that another suicide-bomber randomly murdered 45 Pakistanis and wounded 100 more. She thinks the Pakistanis should be upset with us for interfering in those benign activities. Yes, there is a war going on. It started with planes crashing into the World Trade Center, which it is an understatement to call a "major breach of international law". It is a strange kind of moral sense that has no unkind word for the terrorists but finds fault with retribution against them.

Fred

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 1:02 p.m.

The military-intelligence apparatus has embraced the drone missile attacks as a technological answer to the problem of waging a war that is opposed by the majority of the American people. They do not involve immediate US casualties, and the human toll they inflict remains largely concealed. Nonetheless, they are sowing the seeds of a far wider military conflagration, which, if it is not stopped, will exact a terrible price on working people in the US and around the world. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/pers-j05.shtml