Afghanistan and Hillary

[Pops In]

"He is going to announce his intentions. I am going to let him do that but I am encouraged at the direction that the situation is moving," Clinton told reporters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN1939227320091019
Yes, those are the words I heard her say on a tv news video. Does the president of Afghanistan require Mrs Clinton's permission? It may be a turn of phrase, but it sounded bloody arrogant to me.

[holychicken]

Yes, those are the words I heard her say on a tv news video. Does the president of Afghanistan require Mrs Clinton's permission? It may be a turn of phrase, but it sounded bloody arrogant to me.
Sounds to me like someone asked her what his intentions were. Instead of speaking for him, she was saying that he should speak for himself but just preemptively approving of what he was about to say.

[Pops In]

"I am going to let him do that...". Makes her look the supreme being there, the Emperor. Bad choice of words, or is that the situation? "We are the conquerors with the occupying forces. You move when we say"?

[eva]

The emphasis was probably on "I'm going to let HIM do that" (as in, not me)

[Raven]

I think it was a poorly constructed phrase, but I agree with HC that she only meant she would defer to him to announce his own plans rather than her announcing them for him.

[Pops In]

The emphasis was probably on "I'm going to let HIM do that" (as in, not me)No it wasn't, not how I heard it. She looks imperious to me, anyway. Maybe that's it.

[Pops In]

Hamid Karzai (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/hamid-karzai), the Afghan president, will bow to international pressure today and concede that he did not win a clear *majority in Afghanistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan)'s bitterly contested election, and also accept there should be a second round of voting.
Senior officials in Kabul said Karzai would resolve the political crisis that has developed over the widespread fraud in the August presidential election, after a frantic round of diplomatic manoeuvring led by John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate foreign affairs committee.
Grauniad. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/19/afghanistan-karzai-election-runoff)

"...led by John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate foreign affairs committee".

Looks pretty imperial to me.

[E Mutz]

"...led by John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate foreign affairs committee".

Looks pretty imperial to me.

International pressure sounds imperial to you?

The UN and IEC are the agencies spurring the fraud investigation. The US (and other countries diplomats mind you) are acting on the recommendations of these agencies.

Ordinarily I would be delighted to join in a little Hillary bashing as my personal feelings for her are less than charitable. I am also not a fan of the Lurch-like Kerry. My own political leanings aside however I do not believe that this is a case of imperialism or political wrangling. Success in Afghanistan hinges on the establishment of a just government the people can believe in. The people are key to the war in Afghanistan. If the people have a just government as an alternative to Taliban rule they will be empowered to act. Given a milquetoast corruption-ridden government the people will be less likely to oppose the actions of the Taliban and the Taliban will continue to build strength in the region.

The Afghan people deserve a leader free of the taint of corruption and fraud. It is in the interest of Afghanistan and the region for this election to truly reflect the will of the people. There have been accusations made that Karzai is a puppet of the US. How then can this be so if the US joins the other nations of the UN in urging that the election process be fair and representative?

[Raven]

She looks imperious to me, anyway. Maybe that's it. That I won't disagree with :lol:

[Raven]

"...led by John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate foreign affairs committee".

Looks pretty imperial to me.

Had the elections there NOT been a complete fraud, I might agree with you. Biut I don't see how an international censure of a fraudulent vote is American Imperialism.

That said, had an international committee of anything tried to step in after Bush's appointment, I expect a lot of Americans would have been crying foul too :P

[Pops In]

International pressure sounds imperial to you?

The UN and IEC are the agencies spurring the fraud investigation. The US (and other countries diplomats mind you) are acting on the recommendations of these agencies.

Ordinarily I would be delighted to join in a little Hillary bashing as my personal feelings for her are less than charitable. I am also not a fan of the Lurch-like Kerry. My own political leanings aside however I do not believe that this is a case of imperialism or political wrangling. Success in Afghanistan hinges on the establishment of a just government the people can believe in. The people are key to the war in Afghanistan. If the people have a just government as an alternative to Taliban rule they will be empowered to act. Given a milquetoast corruption-ridden government the people will be less likely to oppose the actions of the Taliban and the Taliban will continue to build strength in the region.

The Afghan people deserve a leader free of the taint of corruption and fraud. It is in the interest of Afghanistan and the region for this election to truly reflect the will of the people. There have been accusations made that Karzai is a puppet of the US. How then can this be so if the US joins the other nations of the UN in urging that the election process be fair and representative?
That is a matter for the Afghan electorate, surely, not the occupying powers who claim to have given freedom. I recall there was dissatisfaction with, if not moves to unseat Karzai well before the election and well before the US presidential election, by US administration. Forgive my scepticism.

[E Mutz]

That is a matter for the Afghan electorate, surely, not the occupying powers who claim to have given freedom. I recall there was dissatisfaction with, if not moves to unseat Karzai well before the election and well before the US presidential election, by US administration. Forgive my scepticism.

Tread lightly my skeptical friend. You are talking to one of those "occupiers" who chances to be quite more familiar with the country at issue. I will forgive your skepticism but you would do well to steer away from the term occupier when refering to the soldiers I command whose blood has filtered into the soil so that others may have a better life. We come not as occupiers but as liberators. We give of ourselves, our fortunes, and our futures so that others who we have never met may have a better life. Since I have been here we have treated the sick, fed the dispossessed, and built schools so that the people may have hope.

Occupier my friend is not appropriate as we are not conquerors. We come not to conquer but to build. We are here at the behest of the Afghanistan government and a people who have known only war for a quarter of a century. There is literally no strategic value in this land. There are very little natural resources. There is only an oppressed population who deserves far better than the past and present. We are not here to devalue the land or to cart of Afghanistan's riches.

This country is so desperately poor and it's people so bereft of wealth and possession as to make me ashamed for what I have. It would do you all good to come here, to see how the people live, to see the desperate situation. Yet for all their deprivation the Afghan people are hearty and hospitable. They are a people with a proud and noble heritage. Where they fall far behind the west in wealth they far surpass it in family and friendship.

My Afghan friends weep with me over lost comrades. They come to me with tears in their eyes apologizing for our losses. They are most profuse in their thanks for us being here. They beg me not to go because they fear the Taliban will return and decimate their farms and families as they did before. Theirs is not the response to a conquering force. Theirs is the embrace of friends and comrades united in a common goal to rid this country of the scourge of oppression.

[Pops In]

"Occupying powers", of course, refers to the political masters not the admirable forces doing a sterling job under difficult conditions.

[E Mutz]

"Occupying powers", of course, refers to the political masters not the admirable forces doing a sterling job under difficult conditions.

I had the visual of a chap in a lavatory with the sign turned to "occupied".

I suppose I am an occupier in the sense that an individual occupies a lavatory without the express intent of pillaging it and remaining indefinitely.

I hope I leave Afghanistan in better shape than a chap leaving a lavatory. And don't quote this sentence without the above paragraph dammit!

[Pops In]

Karzai reckons he's being cheated of the election, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102001071.html?wpisrc=newsletter). Well I don't know but the US, the main occupying power, has by accounts certainly put pressure on him, in an imperial fashion it seems, for a runoff election... Which ties in with Mrs Clinton's "I am going to let him"...

[E Mutz]

Karzai reckons he's being cheated of the election, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102001071.html?wpisrc=newsletter). Well I don't know but the US, the main occupying power, has by accounts certainly put pressure on him, in an imperial fashion it seems, for a runoff election... Which ties in with Mrs Clinton's "I am going to let him"...

Karzai is entitled to his own opinion but the International (Not US) Election Committee and United Nations (not States) have been the driving force in calling for a runoff as the plurality of votes do not secure a Karzai victory. Constitutionally he must achieve 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff. That he initially appeared to have achieved this margin does nothing to erase the problems of voter fraud which the IEC has identified.

But alas, you want imperialism and will find it where'r ye look it seems.

Funny, you were just this week championing Obama's Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at promoting peace. Now he is an agent of imperialism?

Curious.

[Pops In]

Karzai is entitled to his own opinion but the International (Not US) Election Committee and United Nations (not States) have been the driving force in calling for a runoff as the plurality of votes do not secure a Karzai victory. Constitutionally he must achieve 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff. That he initially appeared to have achieved this margin does nothing to erase the problems of voter fraud which the IEC has identified.

But alas, you want imperialism and will find it where'r ye look it seems.

Funny, you were just this week championing Obama's Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at promoting peace. Now he is an agent of imperialism?

Curious.
Reading the WP article, link previously posted, John Kerry, a figure in the US administration I believe, appears to have been in Afghanistan badgering, if not demanding of Mr Karzai to hold a runoff. That and Hillary's graciously allowing Karzai to make a statement seems damned imperial to me. The UN, in this case, appears to be a US lackey, and Obama's Peace Prize is a separate issue from him having apparently taken the laurel wreath from the previous emperor.

[Pops In]

Had the elections there NOT been a complete fraud, I might agree with you.
A complete fraud according to the occupying powers, dominant amongst them the USA. Are you confusing this with the Iran election?

[E Mutz]

Reading the WP article, link previously posted, John Kerry, a figure in the US administration I believe, appears to have been in Afghanistan badgering, if not demanding of Mr Karzai to hold a runoff. That and Hillary's graciously allowing Karzai to make a statement seems damned imperial to me. The UN, in this case, appears to be a US lackey, and Obama's Peace Prize is a separate issue from him having apparently taken the laurel wreath from the previous emperor.

While I (and the plurality of 2004 Presidential voters) share your disdain for the Undead John Kerry you seem to be talking yourself into a corner. If Kerry represents an imperial nation it rather argues against the Nobel Peace prize which you were so delighted to see bestowed upon the fortnight presidency of Barack Obama. For as we have argued previously platitudes without action does not build peace. If Kerry is working so diligently to undermine Obama's efforts should not that imperialist be removed by the Change/Hope President? Should he not be held acountable for the mutterings of his own appointed Secretary of State? The answer of course is no because there is no diplomatic malfeasance to begin with. Regardless of how my dear right-wing partisan heart would leap at the opportunity to wax negative about Mme Hillary and FrankenKerry I do not believe they have done anything wrong here.

John Kerry's name being mentioned in an American newspaper is not terribly shocking. Read Pahwjok and you will find the names of the Afghanistan representatives of the IEC who are equally badgerous of Karzai's efforts to avoid a run off. Read the German papers and doubtless you will behold accounts of that nation's attempts working in chorus with the UN to provide a united front to ensure that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan follows its Constitutional mandate to hold a runoff.

[Pops In]

As I said previously, it is the business of the Afghan electorate, if indeed we have set them free.

[Pops In]

Thinking more about the Peace Prize thingy, it could well be part of crowning the emperor.

[Pops In]

In recent times, I don't recall the UN demand of Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, GW Bush that they rerun their dodgy elections. What's different here? Answer: Afghanistan is occupied.

[E Mutz]

As I said previously, it is the business of the Afghan electorate, if indeed we have set them free.

And as I have said previously there are these nasty little devils called Taliban who are the true occupiers of this country. Would you have a nation, a people unable to resist murderous thugs simply succumb to them? Until Afghanistan is secure and it's people able to vote without fear of intimidation they will not be free. But thank you for clarifying the purpose of our presence.

In recent times, I don't recall the UN demand of Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, GW Bush that they rerun their dodgy elections. What's different here? Answer: Afghanistan is occupied.

The fact that you do not recall UN demands of AhmassadkvjbS;UD or Mugabe does not mean they did not occur. Read your own history. The United Kingdom (Imperialist rascals) pursued a policy of seizing the foreign assets of the King's family. A London based bank actually seized the foreign assets of a poor Zimbabwean named Sam Mugabe then returned the assets with an apology after belatedly realizing that the fellow was not related to King Rob. The US AND EU have imposed sanctions against Mugabe since 2002. Moreover, the UK was one of the leading voices in the chorus of protest against the Iranian Election. Their efforts were blunted by Russia and China who both recognized AhddhoihgrwOIHSD as the duly elected president.

Your snide remark regarding GW Bush does not merit response.

[Pops In]

And as I have said previously there are these nasty little devils called Taliban who are the true occupiers of this country. Would you have a nation, a people unable to resist murderous thugs simply succumb to them? Until Afghanistan is secure and it's people able to vote without fear of intimidation they will not be free. But thank you for clarifying the purpose of our presence.
The Taliban is not the reason for the occupation. The reason we are there is because we were told that was where a certain Osama bin Laden was hanging out. But that is beside the point. As you point out, they are not free, neither from the Taliban nor the occupying nations. The latter dictating the agenda. Not saying which is preferable.




The fact that you do not recall UN demands of AhmassadkvjbS;UD or Mugabe does not mean they did not occur. Read your own history. The United Kingdom (Imperialist rascals) pursued a policy of seizing the foreign assets of the King's family. A London based bank actually seized the foreign assets of a poor Zimbabwean named Sam Mugabe then returned the assets with an apology after belatedly realizing that the fellow was not related to King Rob. The US AND EU have imposed sanctions against Mugabe since 2002. Moreover, the UK was one of the leading voices in the chorus of protest against the Iranian Election. Their efforts were blunted by Russia and China who both recognized AhddhoihgrwOIHSD as the duly elected president.

Your snide remark regarding GW Bush does not merit response.
Sanctions and direct interference are not the same thing. And Bush's elections were as questionable as the others.

[E Mutz]

The Taliban is not the reason for the occupation. The reason we are there is because we were told that was where a certain Osama bin Laden was hanging out. But that is beside the point. As you point out, they are not free, neither from the Taliban nor the occupying nations. The latter dictating the agenda. Not saying which is preferable.

Pops, a this point I will cease any further debate on this topic as you are not presenting anything resembling a cogent argument grounded in sources or reason. I can throw the UN Security council resolution at you which specifically named overthrow of the TALIBAN as the reason for the international response (UN S.C. Res. 1368, 12 September 2001) I can cite numerous past instances of elections resulting in varying degrees of intervention and I can tell you as I have done before how strenuously and personally I object to your inane insistence on refering to international forces as occupiers. Nevertheless, you seem content to derive a thought in your head and stick to it regardless of any attempt at reason.

I will no longer participate in this fruitless enterprise with you as I find your technique sophomoric and personally insulting.

If your mind cannot determine a difference between Taliban and international forces who have worked to stabilize, feed, and help the Afghan populace I see no reason at all to entertain further conversation.

[Pops In]

You defame me sirah! All I am saying is we should be wary of pretending we are on a benign mission when the reality could be something more nefarious, like empire building the evidence, albeit circumstantial, being the interference in the Afghan election and the imperious language of the US administration. Further we have permanent bases in Iraq and designs on Iran and Pakistan.

Of course you know that I only refer to the occupying powers, not the forces.

ETA: That'll bugger his Peace Prize. :lol:

[E Mutz]

You defame me sirah! All I am saying is we should be wary of pretending we are on a benign mission when the reality could be something more nefarious, like empire building the evidence, albeit circumstantial, being the interference in the Afghan election and the imperious language of the US administration. Further we have permanent bases in Iraq and designs on Iran and Pakistan.

Of course you know that I only refer to the occupying powers, not the forces.

ETA: That'll bugger his Peace Prize. :lol:

Well, grand so. We may respectfully disagree then without being disagreeable. My apologies and respects.

[Pops In]

Well, grand so. We may respectfully disagree then without being disagreeable. My apologies and respects.
Most gracious of you sir. Apologies are not necessary, and respects uncalled for. ;)