Friday October 30, 2009, 8:42 pm
"We are fighting a war that is imposed on us. It's not our war. It is your war," journalist Asma Shirazi told Clinton during the women's meeting. "You had one 9-11. We are having daily 9-11s in Pakistan."

Friday October 30, 2009, 11:02 pm
The people of Pakistan, and the non-capitalist media, and anti-imperialist activists like myself, have been saying this to you U.S. people for months or years. But do most of you listen? NOOOOO. You prefer to listen to the capitalist media (owned and controlled by rich first world people) about Pakistan.

IT IS EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING TO SEE THIS ORWELLIAN WARMONGERING NIGHTMARE, AND TRY TO ARGUE AND GET THROUGH PAST THE ORWELLIAN DOUBLE-THINK OF U.S. CITIZENS AND OTHER FIRST WORLD CITIZENS!!!!!

Friday October 30, 2009, 11:04 pm
Good on you for bringing us this news, David :)

And good on you to everyone who spreads these kinds of truths to their fellow citizens of the imperialist first world, to counter the imperialist lies of the first world's capitalist media.

Saturday October 31, 2009, 11:48 am
Ok, before I read things, I've got to say, Now That's Funny! A victim of "circuspants", LOL!

Saturday October 31, 2009, 1:26 pm
I feel that it is incumbent upon me to address this more seriously, now.

We are bullies and can, apparently, not muster proper respect for the peoples of other countries. We just bulldoze our way forward, with little, if any, regard for any and all collateral damages. We talk a good game, but we play dirty. Just plain embarrassing, no it's amoral. Our agenda first and foremost.

But, and yet again, the depths to which our corruption exists will never allow us to be 'victorious'. Which term makes me want to gag anyway. Victory over what? Not anything that will bring peace and prosperity to all. That is not the agenda. For all our humanitarian efforts, they are nothing but a whitewash for our, is the term imperialist?, self image and motivation. We (when I say we I mean them-us) are guilty of being the most powerful pawns in the game, of establishing, which will it be, or an amalgamation? Corporate World Domination, or New World Order. Too bad New World Order can't mean and be a good thing, I hear the potential of a positive statement there, but, alas, it is already 'taken' by 'them'.

The Pakistani people are suffering, and we are responsible, and yet we make plans to send more of our troops in, expendable, just like the Pakistanis. It is vile.

Saturday October 31, 2009, 1:28 pm
Noted and passed on. For all the good it will do!

Saturday October 31, 2009, 1:50 pm
David, you do find the best pictures!

Simon, serious question, what's a "first world citizen" and, yes, I really don't know.

Far as I'm concerned, at this stage, given the world view and that of many Americans, pull out. If Pakistan is harboring people that take inappropriate actions, respond at that time. Til then, sounds like we will be blamed for whatever anyone does.

As to us being considered bullies, we have behaved that way at times but our charitable donations from the public to causes that help other countries, not to mention the aid distributed by the federal gov't, are almost never taken into consideration. That behavior is not consistent with bullying. If it is, pull that too, both the private and the public money.

I'm sure there's an answer to this, one with which I probably won't agree, but why would America be responsible for actions that we aren't taking that cause the suffering of the Pakistani people. We aren't in Pakistan, at least in any official capacity, and I seriously doubt violence will end if, and when, we ignore the region. Violence was in Pakistan long before we got involved in any capacity.

Saturday October 31, 2009, 4:12 pm
Paul, but don't you find...

"One tribesman bluntly told her: "Your presence in the region is not good for peace."

And, "We are fighting a war that is imposed on us. It's not our war. It is your war," journalist Asma Shirazi told Clinton during the women's meeting. "You had one 9-11. We are having daily 9-11s in Pakistan."

AND, (here ya go) "The problem is that we want American dollars but we, as a country, hate Americans," Abida Hussain, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington, told McClatchy. "We're not perfect, but we want the Americans to be perfect." Maybe just a little troubling?

We, as a people, are very generous, a good thing, ..."but our charitable donations from the public to causes that help other countries, not to mention the aid distributed by the federal gov't, are almost never taken into consideration." That doesn't change the fact that our swaggering superiority is not welcomed, it is tolerated because we buy our friends. Anyone who imposes their will, ideologies, and weight, is a bully. Regarding public donations v federal money, totally different animals. I still contend that a great deal of what we call federal 'humanitarian' aid substantially serves as bandaids and tournaquets for our perception that we have some right to dictate, create lies to invade, other governments and peoples, and the damage that we do in the process.

I liked Sarah Siverman's solution, "Sell the Vatican, feed the world." (off point, but related, and I like it!)

Saturday October 31, 2009, 4:19 pm
We were lied to and brought into VietNam....a disaster in our wake, then lied to and brought into Iraq, another disater....what we should of done in Afghanistan, we didn't....those who attacked us on 9-11 are not there, so let us not create another disaster. I can fully understand why Pakistan or any other Country wouldn't want the USA...I wouldn't welcome a tornado either.

Saturday October 31, 2009, 5:08 pm
This is the nexus of political and cultural dynamics that leads to or is the begging of WWIII.

One Nuclear Bomb Can Ruin Your Whole Day for the rest of your life...

So the scenario goes like this: no involvement of the International Community with nuclear weapons or nations developing the capacity to make and deliver nuclear weapons leads to more and easier to use weapons. The U.S. should ONLY BE INVOLVED THROUGH THE U.N. - under control of the U.N., especially any military activity or bases. No U.N. directives, mandate, and approval means the U.S. is guilty of war crimes, which it is for Iraq.

That said, there is no infrastructure that exists today within the U.N. to manage nuclear armed nations. Do we wait till one goes off?

The scenario without U.S. involvement: Pakistan and India build tensions and weapon stockpiles and the destabilization of the region energizes Muslim Fundamentalist Extremists and terrorist truck bombs in cities, trains, and air planes increases. Extremists obtain nuclear weapons and you pick the cities they use them on.

Now we are in the FUTURE ! After 4 cities have been nuked with warheads sold from Pakistan and Russia. What is next? Who does what? Full nuclear exchange occurs between India and Pakistan. Now what?? 750 MILLION have been vaporized.

Now WE ARE IN THE PRESENT ! You know the future. What are you saying the U.S. should do now? Negotiate, provoke diplomacy? Accuse and investigate and send U.N. inspectors to stop weapons development, and send diplomats to talk and diffuse cultural conflicts, disarm and pull back armies before they engage, and hunt down or infiltrate and talk with the Taliban and Al Quaeda before they get stronger and better weapons. I think talking is the key difference Obama brings to the idea of U.S. involvement, but if he just throws bombs and bullets with more troops, that would be stupid and make things worse.

Seriously, how do you stop escalation of things in the M.E. ? Just removing the U.S. is correct with respect to military. The U.N. needs to be empowered to have the support from the U.S. and all participating nations to engage these troubled countries. If military strikes are used, the U.N. is responsible, organizes, and executes them with or without the U.S. ONLY.

Saturday October 31, 2009, 5:15 pm
Don't blame me. I am a conservative and I did NOT vote for Senator John McCain, over Iraq and corrupt defense contractors.

For starters, we can use less petroleum! We can eat meat sparingly and greatly reduce petroleum. We can support public transportation.

The Obama administration is learning being nice to everybody does not work, which we knew decades ago.

Saturday October 31, 2009, 5:30 pm
Past time to get out. There must be an intelligent, capable way of executing mayhem on organizations such as Al Quaeda without destroying countries, communities, and millions of other lives in the process. As to the Taliban...religious extremists have existed in regions of the world for thousands of years...we have religious extremists of all kinds here. So let's not pretend that we know how or even should fight a religious war against the religious extremists in other countries. Nobody wins that kind of war. Even the wealthy corporate interests who want to continue these military endeavors elsewhere have to admit that their profits are losing ground to hatreds that will unleash more terror on us. The problems in Pakistan and that region are complex; the U.S. government and military want to handle it as though it's a simple matter of rooting out insurgents and hunting down international terrorists. Ridiculous.

Saturday October 31, 2009, 5:55 pm
(Sunday) Hillary now condones the expansion of Israeli "settlements" into Palestine...Is Hillary the "would be, if could be" President overstepping the mark and is she doing her "thing" for Obama, or herself (A loose cannon)?

Saturday October 31, 2009, 6:16 pm
Saruna A and Dandelion G, thank you both for answering the questions I posed so thoughtfully. I can't disagree with anything either of you said and you both make very good points. Living in an area with the world's largest naval base, I know quite a few of the brave men and women who serve in our military. They follow their orders to the best of their ability and I have a great respect for them all. We have responded to the attack on our soil, which I personally think was appropriate. Then, continued into Iraq to stabilize oil, which was never fully vetted with the American people. It is time that the vast bulk of our forces be brought home as it is clear that the perception of their purpose in the region is not what it should be. If I were President, I would withdraw them in whatever manner would leave the area as stable as possible. It should be clear to those that created the need for our troops to defend the country that it would be unwise to attack again. My hope is that they will not, but I would support an appropriate response should the need arise Just my opinion, as always, and I appreciate the discussion.

Hadn't heard the suggestion on the Vatican, but given today's real estate prices, perhaps we should wait until prices are at a more appropriate level? Happy Halloween to all!.

Saturday October 31, 2009, 6:38 pm
Nancy, there is not "intelligent gun" to take care of bad boys only. Those bad boys know that very well and hid themselves behind skirts and diapers, be it in Afganistan be it in Palestine. This causes civilian casualties and our grief about them.

Interesting, what would the Pakistani reporter suggest as an answer to those hundreds of their 9/11, other than the very war they are conducting now.

Sunday November 1, 2009, 1:48 am
Thannxxx... I feel to that the US needs to withdrawn.. although this would come with rebounding effects... who knows what would happen with the vacuum that was left behind... time for dialogue and reconcilation..

Sunday November 1, 2009, 2:47 am
NO Iraqi, Iranian, Afghan or Pakistani was in the SLIGHTEST involved in 9/11. As I remember it, there were supposedly some Saudi Arabians and an Egyptian. I say SUPPOSEDLY; making the HUGE and unwarranted assumption, that 9/11 was NOT an Inside Job {as it has all the earmarks that it WAS an Inside Job}. Anyway, we did NOT invade either Saudi Arabia, or Egypt! If a group of Frenchmen bombed a U.S. building complex, we would NOT BOMB AND INVADE FRANCE!

We originally invaded Iraq, with the excuse -- the LIE -- that they had "weapons of mass destruction" that they could reach us with. Then our "reasons" for it kept changing. We are in Afghanistan -- WHY??? We are not in Pakistan "officially" -- but we are THERE, all right! Otherwise, why would they ask us to get OUT? And I suppose all those bombings of Pakistanis -- they came from aliens from outer space, maybe?

"I can fully understand why Pakistan or any other Country wouldn't want the USA...I wouldn't welcome a tornado either." Very well put, Dandelion. We DESTROY any country we invade. The Army is calling this the "Afpak" war. But, no, we're not really really really in Pakistan......And we haven't even DECLARED any of these wars!!! {Or according to the U.S. Constitution, CONGRESS would have to decide.....!}

We are creating "terrorists" much faster than we are killing those who might be identified as "terrorists" {and their women and children and babies and elders and wedding parties....}. Every time a "terrorist", or a civilian, or a "resistance fighter" fighting for his home and family and to get the U.S. OUT of his country -- every time one of "them" is killed, or imprisoned and tortured, by the U.S. -- his family members, his friends, his extended family, his neighbors, his adolescent and pre-adolescent sons.... they ALL start looking for organized means of REVENGE. Voila! Creation of TEN TIMES AS MANY "TERRORISTS"! A HUNDRED TIMES AS MANY! MORE! It grows EXPONENTIALLY. Funny thing, the "terrorists" have NO PROBLEM RECRUITING YOUNG MEN, AT ALL. While OUR Army, has to make up for its recruiting lacks, by ILLEGAL "Stop-Loss" programs....! Makes ya think....

This HUGE ARMY, JUST TO FIND OSAMA BIN LADEN????? That's like mobilizing a huge army, to flush AL CAPONE out of hiding! That is, if Osama bin Laden is still alive, and if he isn't {still!} a CIA operative like he was during the Afghan war against Russia.....

"Terrorism" is a POLICE PROBLEM. Relying on POLICE WORK and Intelligence {something in short supply here, I can't resist saying!}. "Terrorists" DON'T NEED A "BASE" -- they could be ANYWHERE, including, in OREGON {where there was supposedly a "terrorist training camp" found}.
Very, very very SMART, to CREATE MORE & EVER MORE "TERRORISTS" WHO RIGHTLY AND RIGHTEOUSLY OPPOSE US IN ALL THEIR VARIOUS COUNTRIES.

Do the "Terrorists" have a Navy? An Air Force? can they "get" to our shores? if we weren't fighting them "over there"? Can "terrorists" walk on water? Could they defeat our Armies by overwhelming them somehow at our borders???????

It is the IDEA of REVENGE FOR 9/11; that EXCUSES this whole Middle Eastern warfare; that STAMPEDES the unthinking into WAR FEVER.
The IDEA of REVENGE, that MEANEST of motives; has already killed TENS OF THOUSANDS MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL 3000 DEATHS OF 9/11. On ALL sides; including our own.
Do you think we are SCARING THE "TERRORISTS" INTO QUIESCENCE? Do you think there are LESS terrorists now, than last year, or five years ago? Less than there were last MONTH? or MORE terrorists? Do you think we just kill them off, one by one by one, until the few remaining "terrorists" sheepishly surrender? Do you think it works that way?
As in Vietnam, HOW WILL WE KNOW WHEN WE HAVE "WON" IN AFGHANISTAN -- IN AFPAK? What would a "Victory", look like?
Afghanistan defeated army after army, powerful nation after powerful nation.....it's not called "The Graveyard of Empires" for nothing......

Sunday November 1, 2009, 9:41 am
BMutiny, when thugs command regions, Police can't take care of them, only Army can.

Besides, we are not fighting Afganis or Pakistanis - we are fighting FOR them against our common enemies.

Victory means that relatives of bad guys negotiate their surrender and bad guys stop being bad guys and live happily ever after.

Sunday November 1, 2009, 11:14 am
I'm not sure why we think we have to police the entire world - or why we would think we could have "victory" when we are making so many enemies and killing so many people. Who was that who said "we have met the enemy and it is us"?

Sunday November 1, 2009, 12:13 pm
Who are the real terrorists anyway??!!!!

Sunday November 1, 2009, 12:43 pm
the US war machine Anita??!!!!

Sunday November 1, 2009, 1:00 pm
Good question David. If i were living in one of the countries the us is occupying and invading i am sure i would be asking this question.

Sunday November 1, 2009, 1:21 pm
So Abida Hussein said "we are not perfect but expect the US to be perfect". Well, what can an ex-ambassador say to keep the almighty happy? We had eight years of Hillary, we know her.She thought the takeover of Honduras was good. She is not an ambassador and does not have the makeup necessary for any person working this job of Secretary of State.

Sunday November 1, 2009, 3:51 pm
There are 3 THUGS the three branches of the Abrahamic Religions. Christians, Muslims, and Jews are the thugs historically, The word thug is not appropriate because it implies dehumanization and supremacy by the user.

If there were no leverage being made based on religious grounds, there would be no conflict. Territory and coexistence is easy when you don't see you neighbor as a threat to your beliefs, you have dehumanized them philosophically, politically, and psychologically. How can you get along? You Can't!

This is the failure theme of religious conflict and the associated fundamentalist extremists that justify escalation of hostilities.

Defense is not murder and murder of others can not be in your own defense.

Corrupt capitalism driven corporations work for profit from death. Materialism is an outgrowth of "the earth is your domain" religiously making the believer own the territory or resources in the territory of your enemy.

Nobody addressed the issue of what do you do in Afghanistan. Let the countries with nukes do whatever ? Who on an international level should be doing what?

Sunday November 1, 2009, 4:44 pm
Great photo of Hillary the pseudo-Hippy.

The relationship between the US government, the CIA and Pakistani factions including the ISI is such a murky, dirty, under-the-table, backstabbing one. Don't forget General Mahmoud, former ISI chief, whose office wired money to alleged 9-11 mastermind, Atta in the summer of 2001, was having a breakfast meeting with Senate co-intelligence chairmen Brown & Goss on the morning of 9-11. The guy retired quietly thereafter and the "free press" in America refused to even look at the story. It all just reinforces the wisdom of early American leaders such as G. Washington to stay out of foreign entanglements. But I'm sure ol' George, Ben Franklin and Jefferson would be on terrorist watch-lists in today's twisted little society.

Sunday November 1, 2009, 8:45 pm
Casey, Communism is more dangerous than any of the Abrahamic religions.

Monday November 2, 2009, 9:45 am
And communism, even without any religion on the part of the governed or the leaders, produces violence. Violence in communist countries generally doesn't last long though, the gov't just shoots them.

Monday November 2, 2009, 11:03 am
Communism has never been tried, except in the Sioux tribes. They would give meat to anybody who was hungry, even gays or sick old people were well cared for. No country on the planet has really tried "to each according to their needs" or no rich and no poor people. We are not mature enough as a species to avoid corruption. So, the best system is one that regulates by law the pirates who would take like we have seen the investment bankers from Regan's deregulated corrupt capitalism.

We need a new word to indicate freedom of living the way you want as long as you don't exploit others unfairly or to an extreme, and freedom from hunger, to have as much high quality education, health care, and shelter that you need.

There is no difference from the dead of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or Bush, Nixon, or zealots of the 3 Abrahamic Religions that have killed millions over the last centuries. How do the dead feel about capitalism or god or about bush or Hitler? There is no difference because they are dead.

There is NO difference between corrupt communism and corrupt capitalism killing people they are dead either way. World domination by corrupt communism is not going to happen, but it has happened through corrupt capitalism and it ISN'T WORKING ! ! Unless you consider WWIII and nuclear war a winning scenario. How many millions have died since Regan deregulated the banks and corporate laws? Cocaine for arms to Iran is Regan's legacy on top of Corrupt Capitalism with his deregulation that ended with our current multi TRILLION $$$ crisis, yea corrupt capitalism is better than communism, but that is like comparing stinky shoes with stinky socks.

I took the bait. Red baiting ehh... The U.S. shoots them and the U.S. military is more dangerous than the Gestapo was if you live in Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan today. They use drones or robots to kill you and don't even have to watch you die.

It is a stupid argument. Death is death. Religion is the motive and arguing political systems like communism versus religion is arguing apples and tires or rings and boxes... BAITING is what trolls and Flamers like to do ehh, especially on a progressive posting site. Use words like thugs, communists or dehumanize and divide some more are right wing and christian fascist tactics since year 0.

Tuesday November 3, 2009, 2:29 am
Now, David...if you want to see "ME" get all riled up, you run another picture like that of Hillary Clinton, and Ima gonna hafta SHUT YA DOWN!!

Do NOT, I says...do NOT blame Hillary Clinton for doing her job. She could be sitting around playing behind the desk of the president with a cigar had we elected her, but no....Obama stuck her into a thankless position and she's following her boss's orders.

Let's put a picture of OBAMA up, or better yet some of the REAL troublemakers from this country in that picture! I'm offended, I'm hurt, I'm sick of white men pickin'...wait, ALL men picin' on a woman doing her job - esp. one who didn't start the problem.

Call me a feminist, call me an activist, call me a motha.....but leave these nasty articles about my pal, Hillary off your lists!

*kix him in his soft, outta-shape ol' patootie!

Tuesday November 3, 2009, 4:56 am
Casey, Death is death, my point was that it isn't always religion. It often is religion, but sometimes it's economics, greed, or other disputes. Wan't red baiting, agreed with most of your post, particularly deaths caused by Stalin, Mao, etc.

Back on topic, I think Hillary Clinton is doing a good job as Secretary of State. She was a good appointment, but she may demonstrate that she might, and may already, have been the better choice for Commander in Chief.

Tuesday November 3, 2009, 10:37 am
Back on topic, religion orders the way people see the material world and the religious differences between the M.E. and the U.S. are key to greed "the earth is your domain" or economics... Gee you have to be able to think beyond your religious defense because religion is what most people historically guide their lives with.

Islam and Hinduism is the crisis in India and Pakistan. What was Bin Laden's reasons for the 9/11 attacks??? U.S. troops were in Saudi Arabia or the great Muslim holy sight Mecca. After Bin Laden made his religious based demand that the infidels get out of the holy land, we did. Now the presence of our troops and deaths in Islamic lands by Westerners will cause Holy Wars against the Christian and Jewish infidels for generations to come, no matter who is president or what ever economic greed exists...

Tuesday January 26, 2010, 9:11 pm
I think this so-called war on terror has a few aims...removing obstacles to US hegemony in the region, disintegrating the sovereignty of Muslim nations, especially one that has nuclear power, and is a challenge to Israel and world zionism. From what I understand this was one of the main reasons for otherwise totally on-called-for invasion of Iraq, and potential invasion of Iran. This agenda is also supported by the Project for America (can't remember the proper title) which virtually written by the rabid Zionists. Surely surrounding China and Russia is yet another aim. Any leader with an iota of loyalty and gheirat would not allow the US government to have the privileges Pakistan has given them.

buy r4i software