U.S. Presidential Election 2008

this does not lend authority to your argument, I worked in the area of the twin towers, had friends in the area, and my family still lives three miles from the site. I am upset at what happened on 9/11, but I do not understand the (t)reason for the lax security and I do not understand what we are doing in Iraq, I do not understand why the administration has made sooo many mistakes (not once, twice, or so on).


Here I must differ with you and BTC, who otherwise seems a very enlightened fellow. The Soviet Union fought and won the war against Nazi Germany, with help from a nasty winter and imperial overstreach from the German side. The UK could have played a decisive role in 1941/2, but decided not to, gambling that Germany and Russia could knock themselves out and the Brit Empire could pick up the pieces. The USA did swoop in for the endgame, but aside from Saving Private Ryan and some other Hollywood nonsense they did not play a combat role, but rather a white knight to prevent Germany from falling into the hands of the Soviet Union. The Americans fight much better in propaganda films, and sometimes fool themselves into thinking that this is real...how sad. The truth is that military power is not that important anymore, about as effective as hitting your plasma TV on the side to get a better picture...you get the picture?

The Soviet army did indeed play an important part, but only after they had changed sides. Before that only the British Empre stood out against Nazi Terror.

Gimme a break! Are you just jerking my chain or what?

Hey, you forgot France.

It's called "strategery."

By what? Supporting the Spanish Republic? (no) Appeasement by signing away countries that did not belong to the Empire? By supporting the Poles? By giving refuge to wandering Jews?

things that make you go hmm...
Anyway, this should go into a new topic someday, or we can play Russian Front altogether over beers and knives.

If Germany had been able to commit all its resources in men and material to the east, the Soviets would have simply been crushed.


The UK was active on the ground in North Africa, thanks in large part naturally, to American logistical support.


Where on earth did you get that? I don't see how the UK could have "picked up the pieces" in Europe, even if it would have wanted to. By WWII, the British Empire was already falling apart at the seams and far too costly to run. By the way, meddling in continental matters would have been a major about face for the British whose foreign policy, being a maritime power, had revolved for centuries around being active basically anywhere else but continental Europe.

You have got things mixed up with Stalin, who hoped that France and Great Britain would get bogged down in a protracted conflict in the west which would allow him to come in and muscle everyone else around.


That statement is just oozing with ideology. Apart from the Pacific Theater, where the US bore the brunt of the fighting, I am curious as to how you would qualify the US's "swooping in" France, Belgium, Italy, Holland and Germany? Again, this is a reference to the fighting on the ground from 1943-1945 and doesn't include the logistical support provided by the US in Europe, as well as, the bombing raids in Germany.


Shame, wasn't it?


The truth is that knowledge is power and you have displayed that you are left desperately wanting for some in certain areas.

The Brits were done at Dunkerque.

Discussing WWII with Americans is just impossible, "Hogan's Heros" and "Baa Baa Black Sheep" are not documentaries.
History is learned from reading books, and I do not mean Time-Life Hagiographies that are sold along with Soft-Rock compilations.

I pissed my pants at 911, as American friends of mine were caught up in that day of abominable horror.
The World's heart went out to America that day. We were all Americans.

Sadly, a few more cents on the share price of Exxon was more the priority in the White House.

The US was actively involved almost from the outset, merchant navy ran shipments under the soviet flag, boots, ammunition, food to the USSR for example, also escorting convoys to Britain as far as Iceland. This has been discussed elsewhere on TT.

Obama widens lead over McCain: Newsweek poll

Murderous scumbag and ex CIA stooge that he was, I am still waiting to see any evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind the horrors of 911.
Those attacks were carried out by an Islamist organisation (that the CIA had to a large extent created) whereas Hussein although using religion to his own strategic advantage was not religiously motivated.

Yes, and I'm sure without the US having Lend - Lease for the Allies they (Or in your case - only the UK and its empire) could have held off Germany longer , leading to victory

And without the US participating in D-Day the UK could have done it itself.

You want to believe the Americans were their only for the end game - fine. Just realize that if they weren't there for the endgame the outcome would have been much different.

I guess the UK and its neighbors could have looked for a more benevolent country who would have done it for free. Any nations from 1940 come to mind?

Yes, the old, lets blame the CIA for it.

All one has to do is read or listen to the Propaganda from the Islamist organizations - They don't even blame the CIA.

I wouldn't believe the hate filled propoganda of the Islamists any more than I'd believe the imperialist spin out of Washington.
That is going to be a challenge for Obama, if he wins; he will be ultimately responsible for those institutions.

Why? If Islamists believe it, why won't you?

As MT already mentioned, the initial funding for the groups that have now become islamist terrorists did indeed come via the CIA. Millions of dollars were pumped into the Mujahedeen in Pakistan in the mid-80s ostensibly to fight the Afghan government and the USSR. Bin laden and others were net recipients of this cash, much of which was thereafter very carefully invested to make otherwise obscure Wahabi fascists into a worldwide network of islamic terrorist groupings.

Which makes it all the more preposterous when the USA starts fingering countries like Iran as sponsors of terrorism.

Yes, everyone should be able to know the future. It was so obvious that by funding the Mujahedeen that they would turn into Islamic Terrorists 20 years later. Should have, would have, could have.

They did not "turn into Islamic Terrorists 20 years later", ffs. They have been islamic terrorists right from the start.

They (a small group of extremists) blew up two buildings and killed 3000 people.

You (America, the most powerful country in the world) went to Iraq and caused a war which killed over 500,000 people and displaced over 4 million people.

So, who's worse?

"Make it a hundred"

--McCain

americans with infantile thought processes like that exhibited by badbob time and again are what makes america not only dangerous but potentially tragic. how can one boil down such complexities ranging from the presidential election, to the war in iraq, to the existence of xianity, etc, to such ridiculous conclusions? it's a joke, right? unfortunately there are a lot of people who think this way. there's no convincing them, they just have to die out on their own, in the absence of a better solution.

but in the end the joke is on them, because eventually things work out... gay marriage in cali and then a black prez with a name like osama will be perfect insult to injury for the paradigms of such dimwits.

Wishy washy mouthpiece of greeny-liberal Preiß'n it might be, but I read an interesting interview in the Taz today.
Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Gitmo prisoners should go before a regular court of law, the US has to look for options.
Amnesty International is arguing that they cannot be transferred to X states such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for example as they face torture there and that the USA proper should take them in.

And failing that, they should be offered refugee status by a European state with a functioning rule of law and protections for the right of the individual.
Amnesty International is apparently already talking to the German Federal Government...

I lived in Peshawar in 1985 and I can tell you that yes it was obvious that parts of the Mujahedeen were indeed terrorists. They may have been presented as heroic freedom fights in the propaganda we called news ten, but on the ground they were murderous thugs hellbent on recreating the Ummah and winding the world's clock back to the Islamic Middle Ages. Now if that was obvious to me, an 18 year old gap year schoolteacher working with Afghans do you not think the CIA would have noticed too rather than just handing over suitcases of cash to them?

I think that the US should have looked for "options" a long time ago, however one has to also realize that justice systems, regardless of where they are located in the world, mete out justice after a crime has been committed. What do you do when you suspect that someone is a potential mass murderer? Guantanamo may not be the solution, but then what is? Would you feel comfortable with some of these people just roaming our streets?


Why would they face torture there? Hint, hint...

First of all, the Mujahideen were, as far as I know, a potpourri of different groups, each with different political objectives who came together, more or less, to fight the Soviets who had invaded Afghanistan. They may have wanted to, "wind the world's clock back to the Islamic Middle Ages", but I don't think that anyone could have imagined that anything remotely similar to Al-Qaeda would have come out of it. Also, bear in mind that terrorism in the mid-1980s was very different to the kind of terrorism we deal with today. Back then, the "average" terrorist attack was a hijkacking by the PLO or a shoot-out in an airport or public place, nothing remotely similar to the suicide bombings and mass murder which have become common place twenty years later.

The recent total capitulation of the Democrats (Nancy 'Traitor' Pelosi and co.) on wiretapping (they gave total immunity to everyone involved in this illegal enterprise and basically said 'carry on'), has made me realize how very very far we have to go before we fix Washington. It's going to take a lot more than one ethical president; even one such as Obama with a huge activist backing. I so hope he will mobilize his backers effectively to get rid of the republicans posing as democrats in our congress and senate, but right now, they're still the majority, and their votes are paid for in full.

Uhmm... The Democrats have the majority in the House and it's a split in the Senate.

If it was that obvious to you where are your letters to news organizations, published works, television interviews, or any other documentation dated 1985 to support your contention you knew the future?

If not, you are just like someone who after a sports game says if only they would have done this? Or I knew that this would happen?


You have the ability to predict the future and distort history - what a great combination.

There are some difficult questions to be answered for sure.

To what extent should there be preventitive custody?
How long should sentences be for say, conspiacy to commit terrorist acts?
To what extent do we still believe in innocence until the proof of guilt?

Torture and legally dubious extradition to a territory in a legal no mans land for indefinite detention was never acceptable
- and the US Supreme Court has now ruled on it.

The conservative desire to "cage the Ay-rabs at Gitmo and throw away the key" just doesn't wash.

Jules, Kat's talking about the Lieberman Dems. They are absolutely worthless. It doesn't matter who's there, or who voted. Voting to continue and cover up the illegal practices of the current administration is inexcusable. Fire them all.

there were indeed Turkmen and Hazara fighters that came close enough to the idea of 'freedom fighters' and were often the one's presented to the western media for propaganda purposes. But the more sinister side was a well organised cadre of Saudi Arabian, Egyptian and Yemeni Wahabi mercenaries who took advantage of the deeply conservative Pahtuns of the south and Kandahar. The Pashtuns were excercised against the Afghan government largely beacause it required that girls be schooled and women should have access to healthcare - both things that ran entirely counter to the rather repugnantly mysogynist society of the Pahtuns. The Arab Wahabis (inc Osama) oranised as 'relief operations' and instelled themselves in bureaus in University Town, Peshawar, where I was living at the time. In fact as I later found out the bin Laden relief charity was actually two doors along from the house I lived in at the time. These 'relief organisations' were known to be coordinating training camps for Pashtuns that involved the use of radicalising islamofascist indoctrination. They were also the net recipients of very large amounts of cash distributed by various rather obvious CIA fronts in the city. I can only presume that the CIA saw these radicalised groups as a more efficient and disciplined (and less corrupt) route to funding their client war in Afghanistan. But few can have been of any illusions about the malevolent ideologies of these groups.

At that time though they were not antagonistic to US interests - that came later - but they were carrying out very brutal terrorist acts within Afghanistan and also in peshawar against anyone who was deemed to be a liberal moslem, afghan feminist groups, former afghan government officials etc. The most appalling terrorist act I witnessed was the bombing f the PIA tower in Pesharaw killing hundreds of people from the mountains buying tickets to return by air - solely because it opened on a Sabath. Astonishingly only Radio Moscow reported this event - it was not reported at all by VoA or the British World Service. It was hard therefore not to come to the conclusion that the news being reported in the west about what was going on was a wild distortion of the reality.

And then the Russians withdrew and the world abandoned Afghanistan to a maelstrom of warlords fighting for ascendancy. When the Taleban (lterally "students") grouped in the south around Mullah Omar in Kandahar and started to march on Kabul, it seemed to e that these 'students' were the same Pahtuns who had "studied" in the Wahabi camps of the 80s. US links to these groups eant that bizarrely the only two countries in the world that recognised the legitimacy of the Taleban government were the Pakistanis and the USA.

The USA may have thought that these apalling groups could be used to do ther dirty work against communism and maybe did not anticipate that they would one day attack the West. Bu the impetus funding that took the various groups that the media dub "Al Qaeda" off the ground came from the USA almost completely.

I did actually write to various news organisations but post from foreigners like me in Peshawar was routinely censored. It was also a rather surreal experience for an 18 year old like me to be in. There was also pretty much a news blackout on Peshawar at the time so you just never saw journalists at all let alone TV crews. When I came back to the UK and tried to tell people they just didn't believe me especially when my dire predictions did not happen imediately. After a while I just stopped believing t too and imagined that I'd just got it all wrong. I remember my ex emiling me on September 11th to apologise for not believing me previously.

I should stress that at the time I just thought these were nt the sort of people who we should be throwing money at mainly because they were butalising the afghan people. I didn't in any way foresee that they would turn on the west.

BBC: 'When John McCain was my captive'

What are you trying to say? So there is no misunderstanding.

the article does point out that Mr Duyet's account is 'propaganda perfect' and that, though now allied with the USA, the Vietnamese Communist party keeps a very tight rein on what gets said about it.

Still, it points up one thing for me and that is that using past experiences like that repeatedly in a political campaign as if they in some way prove you are more loyal and more trustworthy can and indeed will backfire on you in time.

Looks like the Hanoi Hilton Veterans for Truth will be coming to a TV screen near you (proudly sponsored by moveon.org)...

Considering the well-documented mistreatment meted out to US prisoners of war in Vietnam and the hundreds that are still unaccounted for, I'm disgusted that the BBC has actually interviewed this individual. Too bad they can't interview Amon Göth to get his side of the story while they're at it.

Indeed, time and time again.

PES, it ertainly seems that you are implying that this BBC article contains proof McCain lied about being subjected to torture in Vietnam. As usual, there is less than meets the eye- as the article itself admits the claim is dubious:


After the fall of Saigon in 1975, a large number of former South Vietnamese were imprisoned in "re-education camps" where they faced years of horrifying torture. Are we to simply assume that Duyet's claim is truthful? It would seem to be very foolish. There are also accounts from other US POWs that are more reliable sources than a former POW camp commandant (as if he would openly admit to having tortured anyone).

I find it rather comical that any Obama supporter would think that Obama's biography is more relevant than McCain's. McCain's experience in wartime and the likelihood that he did face torture at the hands of his captors are of great significance given the prominence of the current debate on how to deal with captured terrorists and enemy combatants.

There's no doubt he was tortured. And I don't really see him trumpeting the fact that he was as a political stunt. He was, that's it.

I don't, however, see that his pilot experience (or his ability to cheat death) offers any relevance to current international policy or military action. First off, he was a pilot, with a fairly focused set of tasks that doesn't have anything to do with the world today. And more importantly, he has every intention of following the Bush administration's plans. His experience, and even his true personal views on the "war on terror" are irrelevant. He's just a company man, through and through.

I see. And in your world order presumably the BBC should only be an organ for US propaganda.

The BBC article makes clear the limitations of the interviewee so your "disgust" is misplaced.

altho, this from the BBC gave me pause for thought:

McCain aide regrets terror claim

merely saying something like this gives a red flag for an attack. What was the man thinking?

And Obama's the product of the squeaky clean Chicago political scene...

If you don't see the middle ground between US propaganda and interviewing a concentration camp commander, I don't know what to say.

@BTC: Sometimes it's not okay to state the obvious.

The BBC has published interviews with staffers at Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo. I would have thought that this would balance that up a bit

But seriously, the interview is interesting because it points up that the prison commander says he is supportive of McCain and underlines what may be a pitfall if his wartime experienced is overused onb the campaign trail. In that sense, it is of journalistic merit and in the public interest.

McCain was a critic of Bush with regards to Iraq until the surge- McCain wanted more troops there from 2003 on. Hardly makes him a stooge- in fact, it looks more like Bush came around to McCain's position.

Military experience is never irrelevant for a President. I also wouldn't say that a presidential candidate's views (either those expressed publicly or privately held) on any matter are irrelevant.

Find me a politician that isn't someone's "company man"- those that aren't are rare to nonexistent.

BTC, the BBC is anything but pro-US. Also, while the US has trade and diplomatic relations with Vietnam, it is not accurate to say that the two countries are not "allies".

To those who believe the myth that Obama is somehow magically immune from special interests:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html

Also, BTC, it's über-ridiculous to suggest that some aide's gaffe is going to cause or signal a terror attack. Perhaps it has occurred to you that the terrorists are constantly trying to pull off terror attacks regardless of what some presidential candidate's aide says? Use some common sense.

McCain has spoken out against waterboarding and then voted in February to protect its use. For a man who has been tortured, and for a man who is not a stooge... doesn't make sense.

Why? If you were a high level officer I could maybe see how its relevant - but rank and file military? My grandpa was shot down and put in a Nazi prison camp, I don't think that gave him any special political insight.