Displaying 18,511 To 18,540 Of 19,504 Comments BTW, nice to see you around The Planet! » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 9:10 pm KQuark is one gifted artist! » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 9:08 pm Well said PeaceKitten and welcome back to The Planet, missed you! That’s why we started this site, the downward trajectory of HuffPo has been clear for a while and there needs to be a place for true freedom of expression. The jolt is when it becomes stone cold clear that they really don’t care about Progressive values such as freedom of speech, they are just a corporate investment vehicle masquerading as a liberal blog. If AIG or Morgan Stanley owned a “Progressive” blog, would we expect anything different from what HuffPo is today? » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 9:05 pm Heh! I thought HuffPo was a Rogues Gallery! » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 8:57 pm My point and the proposition by some with expertise on Al Qaeda is that they have evolved as an organization, having learned their lesson from their near collapse when we attacked them in Afghanistan. The lesson learned from both the 9/11 attack and our response was that it was a mistake to concentrate themselves in a defenseless state like Afghanistan. Consider how easy it would be to devastate Al Qaeda again if they gathered in Afghanistan again. They are spread out around the globe, connected by the Internet. 9/11 proved that they don’t need to be a gathered army to carry out their agenda. In the minds of some, the conventional thinking about Al Qaeda is in essence trying to fight the last “war”, just as all the asinine airport security measures are trying to prevent previous attacks or attempts from being exactly duplicated. The problem with such a situation is that instead of properly anticipating what an adversary is doing and will do and attacking them in the most effective way, valuable resources and time can be wasted trying to fight the past. I tend to agree with the arguments that Al Qaeda would not go back to being how they were in Afghanistan before 9/11 and our staying there for that reason would be misguided. That’s not to say there aren’t other achievable and closed ended missions we shouldn’t pursue in Afghanistan but one must accept the possibility that the assumption and prediction that if we eventually pull out of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda will become a greatly increased threat to us, could be incorrect. As for Pakistan, appreciate your explanation on how it was sanctioned to become a nuclear power. My point was that the so-called standards for what countries should or shouldn’t have nuclear weapons is bullshit since Pakistan is as much a danger as Iran as a nuclear power. » Posted By AdLib On November 25, 2009 @ 7:30 am Hey Kev! Disagree with you on this, Israel is a nation-sized Green Zone and represents the same kind of target you describe Green Zones in Afghanistan would be for terrorists. It would take the same kind of tight security and vigilence but it is proven to be doable. As for being a ghetto, I would argue just the opposite as evidenced by the Green Zone in Iraq which is where the most jobs are concentrated for citizens and the standard of living is highest. Hell, I would go for a Green Zone in L.A. right about now! » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 8:53 pm First, thank you so much for your enlightened and informed voice on Afghanistan! Second, please let your guest know we would consider it an honor and enormously valuable to have him share his thoughts, perspective and experience on all of this. Some thoughts on your points: a.My issue here is that if pushed to the wall, the Taliban can adapt out of desperation. Information and organizing through technology is not a silver bullet, as we unfortunately learned when Bush marched us towards war in Iraq, it didn’t help us stop him. It is definitely a strength but when families are faced with a Taliban threatening their lives at their door, they are still as vulnerable. b.I’ve heard theories on this and one theory is that it would be suicidal for Al Qaeda to concentrate again in Afghanistan because they could be decimated with another U.S. attack by being centralized. What I’ve heard and what makes sense strategically is that in the future, they would operate in small cells that are spread out. And truly, if Al Qaeda is foolish enough to congregate again back in Afghanistan, then we should indeed take them out quickly, we know the country a lot better now. Very good to hear that the Afghan Army is respected, that is very positive. c. It’s sad to consider the religious prejudice that partitioned India into two states but the cause and ramifications of that is evident in Pakistan today. What is hard to understand is why a nation like Pakistan was and is allowed to have nuclear weapons when it is unthinkable for Iran or North Korea to have them. Pakistan is less stable and has more fervant ideologues than Iran. d. I don’t agree with this argument. There is no evidence that we are preventing 9/11s by being at war in Afghanistan. Actually, since we are agreed that Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, if they wanted to attack again, our continued fighting in Afghanistan would not affect them at all. There is a financial reality, we can’t afford to sustain these wars indefinitely. Our country is falling apart and if we collapse, we can’t afford to help anywhere. It’s a terrible choice but if it means the economic hobbling of America for generations, do we keep spending on these wars? e. Right. f. I’m with you about not being in Pakistan but I’m thinking that we should be in southern Afghanistan and coordinate with the Pakistan Army to attack along the border from both sides. Putting policy issues aside, I have enormous respect for who you are and what you’re doing and am grateful to have your insight and perspective here at The Planet. A happy Thanksgiving to you, your family and your remarkable guest! » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 8:46 pm By rebuttal to your well presented points: a. I don’t know if history would agree with the long term ability of containing fighters in Afghanistan (see: Soviet Union). Also, even if they could, such a containment would need to be maintained meaning we would be in Afghanistan year after year, billions and billions and American lives being spent with no end in sight. b.Agree with all you say here except regarding containment strategy, see my answer above. c. Indeed, though with the Taliban taking over lots of towns even near the capitol and a huge sympathetic population, things could change very quickly in Pakistan. We do need to strengthen our presence there since the billions we gave them to fight the Taliban, they stole and used towards defending themselves from India. d.Agreed. e. Yep, we really can’t afford to operate that way anymore with the way our place in the world economy has changed. We simply can’t afford to keep financing occupying forces after wars. f. I think our troops should coordinate with the Pakistan Army from the Afghanistan side of the border, to truly go after the people who attacked our country and are trying to take over Pakistan. Catch them in a squeeze from both sides. Appreciate your focus too on the humanitarian issues of our simply packing up and leaving. I do think my proposal, maybe in a substantially different form, is viable and addresses many of these issues…along with providing an actual exit strategy. » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 8:13 pm Thanks escribacat! It’s like Wack a Mole, pound them in Afghanistan, they pop up in Pakistan. If they’re driven out of Pakistan, they’ll pop up elsewhere, maybe Indonesia. This is a conceptual problem for the linear thinkers, you can’t succeed with linear thinking. You have to think outside of the box. You can’t use force to stop a group that is not an army but a coalition of loosely affiliated hateful people around the world. They need to be stopped by cutting off their supplies of hopeless desperate recruits and tacit acceptance by others who resent the U.S.. The gun will never solve this problem. » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 7:58 pm Agreed on all counts! When an accounting of all the evils that came from the Bush Admin is made, what must be in the first tier (which is very crowded)is Bush’s handing Afghanistan over to the Taliban and Al Qaeda…and not getting Bin Laden when he was cornered in Tora Bora. There can’t be a president to compare with how destructive Bush was to America and the world. » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 7:48 pm Basically, I agree with you. The cost of UC tuition rocketed up 35% overnight, pricing out many students from being able to afford an education. We simply can’t afford to continue paying billions for endless wars while our nation declines. At the same time, we’ve blown up lots of Afghanistan and Bush virtually rolled out the red carpet for The Taliban to return to power when he drained the military from there to fight his bullshit war in Iraq. So, we do have some responsibility for the damage their and for Bush installing Karzai as dictator. That’s why I think we should do something towards helping them have some kind of stability, even if it’s just a start. » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 7:36 pm Great minds think alike. Want to run with me in 2016? I do think the solution can’t be a focus on military but on stability. And creating a working, thriving community would be a great antidote to the vicious cycle of poverty and violence. » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 7:23 pm But I can’t even see Russia from my window! » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 7:18 pm I haven’t heard of anything like that being discussed. Obama is in a squeeze, if he doesn’t send in troops he will be slandered as losing the war by Republicans. So, reason is walled off politically. Sad state of affairs. » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 7:17 pm You’re right on the money…literally. Proof that the Republicans are frauds on controlling spending. They only want spending controlled on issues they don’t support. Wars however, we can afford to give tax cuts in addition to billions a month in war spending. Make Republicans have to pay for war and we’d have peace. » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 7:14 pm Thanks escribacat! Will be working on it! » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 9:30 am Wow, what a piece, Pepe! I’ll probably write some snarky joke later but just wanted to say in my serious voice how pleased we are to have you blogging here at The Planet. Cheers! » Posted By AdLib On November 23, 2009 @ 9:34 pm Senate of Kings: Can voters ever really claim their democratic power? Fantastic article Nellie! I agree that the Senate is not only incredibly undemocratic but due to the wrong-headed way it is structured, it is a permanent obstacle to real progress. Yes, I’m claiming the Founders screwed up with the structure of the Senate. It was a necessary compromise some of them no doubt figured would one day be corrected by future generations. Since States and States Rights were the powers at the time, it was no doubt a must to attract each state into the union by assuring that no other state would have more federal control over them. Thus, two Senators from every state no matter how small. Though the populations of some states in the late 1700’s varied substantially, it was not a case like today of having 36 million people in one state and 500,000 in another. It is not democratic for a small minority of the country’s population to have equal or more power than a majority but that is the case in our democracy. This will never change, which is too bad, but if it was possible, I would suggest a redistribution of senatorial seats among states, only guaranteeing 1 seat per state. Thus, Wyoming might have only one Senator while California might have 4. Then, the will of the majority, aka Democracy, would actually be reflected in our government. Or make it 100 Senators with each state being guaranteed 2 and the others distributed by state population. With so many Senate seats, it would at least be a setback to the corporations trying to buy seats, there would be too many to buy them all. And a sudden new influx of Senators could allow for some grass roots types to get in. Still, I know this will never happen, the smaller states would never agree to give up their disproportionate power and 2/3 of states would need to want and vote for such a Constitutional change. So we, the American people and true fans of Democracy must accept that we will never have a true democracy in this country, we will always have to battle to get the will of the majority respected in the Senate. » Posted By AdLib On November 23, 2009 @ 11:05 am Hi, I’m Rob-S, and I’m a Moderatorholic Once one considers the motive and goal, it all makes sense. The more conflict and hostility at the site, the more people become emotionally driven to spend more time there to visit, click, attack, protest, defend Obama, whack trolls, etc. Bottom line, HuffPo is a cynical corporate venture that has a bottom line to improve every quarter and does so by manipulating the progressive bloggers there like lab rats. » Posted By AdLib On December 6, 2009 @ 5:52 pm I was saving that name for when we become a religion. Oh well… » Posted By AdLib On November 23, 2009 @ 7:35 pm Well done FM! Hope you and your many socks are pointing folk at HuffPo to this article, they will be rolling in the aisles! » Posted By AdLib On November 23, 2009 @ 5:50 pm Welcome the The Planet, Gretel1or2! Might take a bit of getting used to here, not self-censoring to avoid mods or the word filter but I think you’ll get the hang of it. WELCOME! » Posted By AdLib On November 23, 2009 @ 5:48 pm Unfortunately, she used the site’s contact form and didn’t leave her actual email or user name, I don’t know if she is or isn’t a member and have no way to contact her. Would like to, always like to prove my word is my bond and that The Planet is an open and welcoming place. » Posted By AdLib On November 23, 2009 @ 2:30 pm Sssh! Yes! And the secret password to get into the VIP section is “swordfish”. Keep this just between you and me, don’t tell anyone! » Posted By AdLib On November 23, 2009 @ 2:27 pm FYI, I got an anonymous email from a blogger at HuffPo who shares many of our members’ sensibilities about what the problem is over there with cliques but seems to be concerned that it is happening over here too. She expressed that she felt The Planet needs to be more open and more welcoming to people. Maybe I’m in an Admin bubble but I was really bewildered by this. The Planet is wide open to anyone to join and we have an unspoken policy here that I see members practicing all the time, of welcoming new members to the site. Though I disagree with her perception of The Planet, cliques at blogs suck and have no home here. Just a good reminder for all of us to always be welcoming and treat all members as respected peers, as well as guard against cliques ever taking root here. We will always be inclusive, not exclusive here…afterall we’re all on the same Planet together. » Posted By AdLib On November 23, 2009 @ 12:33 pm Destroying Religion: The Essential Task at Hand? What seems totally bewildering to me is that discussing politics or religion might lead to conflicts. Now if we were debating “Cats or Dogs, which is better?” I could understand but things as fluffy as politics and religion? Oh well, you learn new things every day. K7 and Kalima, I think you’ve both made your points with each other. Personalization on disagreements is a debate that has no winners…let’s move on past that. Thanks! » Posted By AdLib On November 23, 2009 @ 10:41 am Welcome to The Planet, FrankenPC! » Posted By AdLib On November 22, 2009 @ 12:29 pm If what you believe makes you try a little harder to be a little better, than terrific. If what you believe causes you to feel superior, or much worse » Posted By AdLib On November 22, 2009 @ 9:38 am Just give him the link to the FAQ (at the top of the page), it gives the whole rundown on using and navigating the site, posting and commenting, etc.! Here it is: » Posted By AdLib On November 24, 2009 @ 9:57 pm Thanks for your very appreciated props about this being the place to be for yesterday’s Senate debate, very appreciated! Great suggestions too! So, as for the letter to The Editor or petitions we can sign and send, perhaps you were thinking of something like this: https://planetpov.com/2009/11/22/test-of-letter-to-editor/ Is that service or what? Heh, actually, I’ve had this function since the outset, it was always part of the plan to give a strong and activist voice to this community on issues. As to the other features you suggested, really like them. Let’s discuss how to implement them. » Posted By AdLib On November 22, 2009 @ 10:22 amComments Posted By AdLib
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats