38 thoughts on “Tell Congress: Stop the Afghanistan Escalation”

  1. I’ll probably send in my 2 cents, though it’s probably not even worth that much to my “representatives.” I remember doing so for the original bailout last Fall. As I recall, a supermajority were with me in denouncing the theft. It didn’t do much good then, and I doubt this effort will be any different.

    Face facts: President Obama is an elected dictator. He can do whatever he wants without even a hint of opposition in Congress from his own party. They won’t vote against him, for that would show that it isn’t a unified front. Can’t have that! And, by all means, they would never even consider the prospect of impeachment. If Pelosi, Ried & Co. wouldn’t do it for Bush and Cheney, they won’t for their own man.

    Meanwhile, we’ll send another 17,000 troops into the Afghanistan meat grinder without even knowing what the objective is! This is beyond moronic. What is Obama thinking? Why won’t anyone stop him?

  2. Have you noticed how the republicans now are denouncing the uncheckd power of the president when they were the ones who put that in effect and opposed any restrection when they in control of the whole system,the prsidency,the congress,and the supreme court?At that time they cared not at all.

  4. I respect your good intentions, but what you are proposing is futile. It is simply untrue that Congress in anyway represents the American people or that it would respond in any positive manner to a widespread public demand for the withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan. As proof of this statement I offer up the example of Iraq. The Democrats won control of congress largely by taking the position that they would get the troops out of Iraq. Obama won the Presidency largly because he was percieved (incorrectly as it turns out) as the peace candidate and that he would get the troops out of Iraq. Now the Democrats control congress and Obama is President and there is an “Iraq withdrawal plan” that would leave 50,000 troops in Iraq forever and a day. Political action is futile. Letter writing campaigns are futilte. The only hope for an end to the imperial policies of the United States government is for the whole rotten edifice to collapse as the result of the stupid and ridiculous economic policies being adopted by that very same government. After the collapse, then hopefully the adults can take charge, and the American civilization can be rebuilt on the sound basis of Austrian economics and peace.

      1. I too was hoping that the present economic crisis would have a crippling effect upon our rampant militarism, but it now appears that no one else in the world wants to step up and lead the world. Everyone has an excuse – Europe has their poor relatives (Poland, Hungary, etc) to take care of, Japan has a terminal case of stinginess, China needs to “catch its breath” and so forth. So, the whole world has decided to let America spend like fools again, bringing a measure of prosperity to them and most assuredly eventual ruin to us. The world will buy our Treasury notes for awile longer (even knowing that they will become worthless), and our troops will continue their heroic missions to make the world safe for Zionism. The bright spot is that you and I have a little longer to prepare for the Big Collapse

        1. I agree with most of what you say Richard. I would substitute “police the world” for lead the world. As far as the world “letting” America play the patsy by spending like fools it is actually “us” that are doing this. You are certainly right about the Zionism part. Don’t forget China, Japan and Europe don’t have an AIPAC pulling their strings.

        2. Andy,
          I believe that the U S Dept of the Treasury checks “its credit score” with country’s who have money to lend before it tells the rest of the U S Government to go ahead with spending plans involving big defecit spending. We are like the “big shot” who wants to order another round for the house but has to have the innkeeper agree to take his marker first. Countries like Japan, Saudi Arabia, and China who have large personal savings are giving us the green light to rack up more debt. As part of the deal, America will redeem some of that financial garbage our Wall Street slicksters hung on them. Also we will break kneecaps of those who threaten our creditors, being as we are in the tough guy business. Too bad, these country didn’t cut us off. They would have done us an enormous favor.

        3. I believe most of the rest of the world is content to amusedly sit back and watch us destroy ourselves…’we’ being the arrogant bully in the global schoolyard for so long. It wouldn’t be surprising if our creditors were ultimately to simply write off their losses just to see us go down…especially if our economic crash precludes us from continuing to buy their products. The Germans have a word for it. “schadenfreude.”

      2. Precisely, Andy. Economic collapse is the ONLY thing that will stop our meddling abroad, in Afghanistan or anywhere else. Writing one’s “Representatives” to demand a pullout is a foolish waste of time and energy. One might as well stand on the edge of Niagra Falls and demand at the top of one’s lung that the water stop flowing.

        1. Google “what does one trillion dollars look like”. Then reflect that the war in Iraq alone will probably cost us three of those.

  5. I will send in my 2 cents but it will only be worth 1 cent by the time they read it due to our debasement of our currency.

  6. The empirial project must continue no matter what.Congress has proved itself to be part of the problem.

    1. Don’t forget Eisenhower originally meant to call it, “the military-industrial-CONGRESSIONAL complex”.

  7. Most comments prove that new Terrorist and Exterminator in chief has succeeded beyond lobby’s wildest dreams.
    The percentage of turned off “voters” will hit record numbers come next “elections”.
    Congress is there to represent INTERESTS of those who PAY them, citizenry is a burden for them!

  8. Yes, by all means, don’t escalate the war in Afghanistan! Pull our troops out completly so that the Taliban can regain control and Al-Quida can have free reign to set up bases and training camps throughtout the countryside so they can better plan their next round of terrorist attacks.

    Not only that, let’s pull out totally so that the women of Afghanistan will no longer be allowed to vote, they will have to cover up their body from their toes to their eyeballs and if they happen to fall in love before marriage and the father does not approve he can have free reign to just kill the daughter. Not only that, let’s pull out so we bring back the “good old days” of the Taliban when ancient statues and artifacts were destroyed by these Islamo Fascists because they somehow “insulted Islam.” Let’s bring back the good old days when terrorists set up their bases and gay people were stoned to death for being gay. Yes, sir! Those were the good old days. Let’s pull ALL of our troops out right now so that the ones who died will have died in vain and we can go back to the good old days.

    2. Out of all the reasons you mentioned only terrorist camps that are a threat to America are a justification for military intervention. And an intervention is NOT an occupation.

    3. If you are so concerned, why aren’t you over there serving in the military or performing foreign service to help these poor individuals, many of whom have been made destitute by the very policies that you advocate. Quick crying crocodile tears and step up to the plate and do something yourself. Stop expecting others to do it for you. You could care less about any of these people and you know it. You are the most disingenuous person this blog has ever seen. No one in their right mind believes anything you write but you continue to write it like some evil character from the novel 1984.

      You want to bring back the “good old days”, huh ? You mean like they have in Gaza ?

      1. Let’s see how much has the US cared about humane rights,free elections,democracy,free elections,support for democratically elected presidents,prime minsiters,and governments in last 50 yaers which would need several pages to cover:

        On orders from U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem. Upon hearing that a coup d’etat was being designed by ARVN generals led by General DÆ°Æ¡ng Văn Minh, the United States gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. DÆ°Æ¡ng Văn Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government on November 1, 1963.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

        Mosaddeq was removed from power on 19 August 1953, in a coup d’état, supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments and led by General Fazlollah Zahedi. [4] The American operation came to be known as Operation Ajax in America, [5] after its CIA cryptonym, and as the “28 Mordad 1332” coup in Iran, after its date on the Iranian calendar. [6] Mosaddeq was imprisoned for three years and subsequently put under house arrest until his death.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mossadegh

        In the list below only successful changes of government are listed. Many attempts have failed. Cuba is the best example of this.

        Year Country Reason Given Actual Reason
        1949 Syria Communism Elected government against USA political interests and pro-Palestinian.
        1949 Greece Communism Elected government against USA political and economic interests.
        1952 Cuba None Elected government against USA business interests.
        1953 Iran None Elected government against USA oil interests.
        1953 British Guyana None Access to sugar and bauxite.
        1954 Guatemala Communism Elected government against USA business interests.
        1955 South Vietnam Communism French backed leader replaced by USA backed leader.
        1957 Haiti Haiti is near the USA Previous government against USA business interests.
        1958 Laos None Pro-USA government wanted.
        1959 Laos None Pro-USA government wanted.
        1960 South Korea Communism Previous leader not strong enough for USA.
        1960 Laos None Pro-USA government wanted.
        1960 Ecuador Communism Previous government too independent in foreign policy.
        1963 Dominican Republic Business Interests Elected government against USA business interests.
        1963 South Vietnam None Previous leader’s policies led to televised suicides.
        1963 Honduras Communism Pro-USA government and access to resources.
        1963 Guatemala Communism Military government was about to allow elections.
        1963 Ecuador None Elected government too independent.
        1964 Brazil Communism Access to resources and cheap labour.
        1964 Bolivia Communism Previous government too independent in foreign policy.
        1965 Zaire None Access to cobalt, copper and diamonds.
        1966 Ghana None Previous government too independent in foreign policy.
        1967 Greece None Military bases.
        1970 Cambodia None Previous king against USA political interests.
        1970 Bolivia None Country took ownership of its oil and tin.
        1972 El Salvador Communism Elected leader against USA business interests.
        1973 Chile Communism Elected government against USA business interests.
        1975 Australia None Elected government had unsuitable foreign policy.
        1979 South Korea None Pro-USA government wanted.
        1980 Liberia Democracy Pro-USA government wanted.
        1982 Chad None Pro-USA government wanted.
        1983 Grenada Democracy Pro-USA government wanted.
        1987 Fiji Democracy Previous elected government supported nuclear-free Pacific.
        2002 Venezuela None Disagreed with foreign policy of elected government.
        2004 Haiti Fraudulent elections Disagreed with economic policy of elected government.

        http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html

        Add to that the reactions to the outcome of the Palestinian election.

    4. Our troops who died in Afghanistan have already died in vain, their lives thrown carelessly away by idiot politicians, while people like you cheered. And now you want more to die so that you feel vindicated.

    5. “Not only that, let’s pull out totally so that the women of Afghanistan will no longer be allowed to vote, ”

      Afghansitan used to have a progressive democratic(ish) goverment that allowed women to work and vote. The disgusting US saw it as “socialist” and undermined it, funding the very Al Q you latterly despise, Mr R. They even made a movie (Rambo 3) about how heroic those “mujahadeen” freedom fighters were, though not as muscled and heroic as the American character, natch.

  9. Tim,
    Here you go again!In fraudulent way,you pertend to care about the people of Afghnistan,the women of Afghnistan,or the children of Afghnistan in the same fashion many like you have pretended to care so much about the people of Iraq when the lies of Bush and company were exposed!

    The occupation of Iraq and Afghnistan has never been about democracy,liberty,women rights nor humane rights for that matter,nor about fighting terrorism.Iraq under Sadam,and Afghanistan under the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

    1. Lear K,

      “Afghanistan under the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11?”
      By that logic, the Japanese had nothing to do with World War II.
      The Taliban not only supported Al Quida but they gave them safe harbor and allowed them to use the country as a base to plan their attacks. In criminal law, at the very least that would be called “aiding and abetting”

      1. The invasion of Afghnistan,as well as that of Iraq,was planned well in advance of 9/11 and has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.Great percentage of US citizens supported ,approved of,and stood silent while the US waged its war and mantained its brutal sanctions that killed hundeerdof thousands of Iraqis!

        The Talibans offered to hand over Al Quida if the provided evidence of their guilt.They US refused to provide any shred of evidence to its allegations ,since war was what it wanted all along.It is the same governement that made so much allegations about Iraq weapons of mass destructions in order to invade that poor country.

        “The Taliban not only supported Al Quida but they gave them safe harbor and allowed them to use the country as a base to plan their attacks. In criminal law, at the very least that would be called “aiding and abetting”

        By this logic Cuba ,Chile,and many other countries have the rights to attack the US for harboring,aiding ,and abiting known terrorists who planned and carried terrorist attacks against those countries!

        The Taliban and bin Laden

        Another major problem with the attack on Afghanistan was the one that most U.S. presidents and, alas, most Americans, have chosen to ignore for the past several decades: that the U.S. Constitution requires the president to secure a congressional declaration of war from Congress before waging war against another country. Bush failed to do that.

        Why did Bush order an invasion of Afghanistan? Not because he believed that the Taliban had conspired with al-Qaeda to commit the 9/11 attacks and not because he felt that the Taliban had committed some act of war against the United States by knowingly “harboring” a known fugitive.

        Instead, Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan for one reason: the Taliban government refused to comply with his demand to unconditionally deliver bin Laden to the United States. He always made it clear that if the Taliban delivered bin Laden to the United States, such action would spare Afghanistan from a U.S. invasion. The “offer” that he made to the Taliban was not significantly different from that made to Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharraf, a close friend of the Taliban, after 9/11: play ball with us and you stay in power; refuse to do so, and you’re history.

        So why did the Taliban refuse to turn over bin Laden? For one thing, there wasn’t any extradition agreement between Afghanistan and the United States. And there is a long tradition in Muslim countries to treat foreign visitors as guests. Nevertheless, the Taliban did express a willingness to deliver bin Laden over to the United States or to a third country if U.S. officials provided convincing evidence that bin Laden had, in fact, been complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Was the demand unreasonable? Well, it would be nothing more than any government, including the United States, would expect in any extradition proceeding.

        Bush’s response was that U.S. officials would not furnish any such evidence to the Taliban government. The Taliban simply needed to follow U.S. orders and turn bin Laden over to the United States, with no guarantees of what would happen to him once he was in U.S. custody. That is, there were no assurances that bin Laden would be brought back to the United States for trial for terrorism in federal district court instead of being turned over to the CIA for torture and execution.

        The Taliban refused to accede to Bush’s unconditional demand. The result was the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the ouster of the Taliban from power, the installation of a U.S.-approved regime, a nation ruled by regional warlords, the deaths of countless Afghanis, the failure to capture bin Laden, and an ever-growing terrorist movement generated by ever-deepening anger and hatred against the United States.

        Moreover, Bush’s conflation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda into one amorphous “terrorist” group, when each group obviously had its own reasons for resisting the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, ultimately set the stage for his “enemy-combatant” doctrine in the “war on terror” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq as part of the “war on terror,” which would later be used to justify the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, Abu Ghraib, rendition, torture, and the military power to indefinitely incarcerate Americans and foreigners.

        Did the United States have the legal and moral right to invade Afghanistan upon the Taliban’s refusal to turn bin Laden over to the United States? Many Americans would undoubtedly respond, “Yes, absolutely. When a country experiences a terrorist attack, it has the legal and moral right to attack and invade a sovereign and independent country that refuses to comply with an unconditional demand to give up the suspected perpetrators.”

        http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger136.html

        1. I doubt the Taliban would have come to power without support from the United States in the first place.

  10. “Tristan Anderson from California USA, 37 years old, has been taken to Israeli hospital Tel Hashomer, near Tel Aviv. Anderson is unconscious and has been bleeding heavily from the nose and mouth. He sustained a large hole in his forehead where he was struck by the canister. He is currently being operated on.

    Tristan was shot by the new tear-gas canisters that can be shot up to 500m. I ran over as I saw someone had been shot, while the Israeli forces continued to fire tear-gas at us. When an ambulance came, the Israeli soldiers refused to allow the ambulance through the checkpoint just outside the village. After 5 minutes of arguing with the soldiers, the ambulance passed.
    – Teah Lunqvist (Sweden) – International Solidarity Movement

    http://palsolidarity.org/2009/03/5324

    Rachel Corrie:

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4pex9_rachel-corrie_news

  13. subHuman,
    It would be nice if it were so straightforward – we could just outbid outfits like AIPAC for Congressional favor. But there are a lot of wild cards, e.g. true idiots like Sens Jim Bunning, Inhofe, and Kyl. These gentlemen are either crazy or stupid beyond reason – they are the anti-science guys believing in Noah’s Ark as a literal fact. To them, Arabs are natural born enemies of America – God tells them so on a regular basis. Then there are the true Zionists like Sens. Liebermann and Schumer; they need no bribes to favor Israeli interests over American interests.
    It is going to take a train wreck to stop the insanity.

  14. Send The Marines

    © by Tom Lehrer (USA songwriter)
    When someone makes a move
    Of which we don’t approve,
    Who is it that always intervenes?
    UN and OAS,
    They have their place, I guess,
    But first send the Marines!
    We’ll send them all we’ve got,
    John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
    Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
    To the shores of Tripoli,
    But not to Mississippoli,

    What do we do? We send the Marines!
    For might makes right,
    And till they’ve seen the light,
    They’ve got to be protected,
    All their rights respected,
    ‘Till somebody we like can be elected.

    Members of the corps
    All hate the thought of war,
    They’d rather kill them off by peaceful means.
    Stop calling it aggression,
    O we hate that expression.
    We only want the world to know
    That we support the status quo.
    They love us everywhere we go,
    So when in doubt,
    Send the Marines!

    http://www.krysstal.com/sendthemarines.html

  15. E 'mio grande piacere di visitare il vostro sito e per godervi il vostro ottimo post qui. Mi piace molto. Sento che hai pagato molta attenzione per quegli articoli, come tutti loro un senso e sono molto utili. Grazie mille per la condivisione. Posso essere ottimo lettore e ascoltatore, se siete alla ricerca stessa per tutti di essere buono. Apprezzate per il tuo tempo! Buon giorno!

  16. Très bon post. Je viens de tombé sur votre blog et je voulais vous dire que j'ai vraiment apprécié la lecture de votre blog. De toute façon je vais vous abonnant à votre flux, et j'espère que vous publiez à nouveau bientôt.

  17. Ceci est ma première fois que je visite ici. J'ai trouvé tellement de choses intéressantesdans votre blog, en particulier sa discussion. Du tonnes de commentaires sur vos articles,je suppose que je ne suis pas le seul à avoir tout le plaisir ici! Continuez votre excellent travail.

  18. Costume outfit de marin, comme la tentation, couleurs éclatantes et intervalle blanc, haut profil élément homosexual strain stimuler vos glandes surrénales. Ralph lauren Printemps 2012 Exposition Mme maillots de bain, du coup de maître à l'aquarelle de l'inspiration, l'utilisation de couleurs solubles dans l'eau apparaissent l'ensemble des effets magiques, strain être imprimé sur the maillot de bain, mis sur elle, peu importe où vous êtes à la recherche strain la mise au factor.

Comments are closed.