<html><head><base href="x-msg://112/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I suppose I'm too insensitive and stupid to think that anything or argument that says for us to get our bloody hands out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and SE and ME is for the good. Even if the arguments come from Frank Rich or Friedman (whom I refuse to read, because he gives me indigestion). What is it with you guys who feel obliged to <i>condemn</i> anything that comes out that does not <i>precisely</i> match what you want to be said. Now it's not only Rich, but Paul Street. Who next? <div><br></div><div>I recommend reading Street's article on ZNet, again. </div><div><br><div>I've now (had to) read Rich's article. David's second sentence is a wild take-off on what he seems to have said. The word "seems" is where the problem seems to lie. <br><div><br></div><div>Just some reactions to latest posts.</div><div><br></div><div>--mkb</div><div><br><div><div>On Aug 1, 2010, at 2:45 PM, David Green wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 12pt; "><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 12pt; "><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The two liberal responses in today's NYT are interesting. Rich's is that the Afghan war is on its downside, everyone knows it, so let's attend to other issues while war is ended by some vague process that will not require voluntary action on the part of the citizenry.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Thomas Friedman's response is that Americans are being played for suckers by our puppets, including Karzai, and the Pakistanis. He also offers an account that differentiates between the Saudi royal family and the Wahabbi sect--I haven't heard this before, and I suspect its either fiction or exaggerated. Of course, we nurtured the most "extreme" forces for our original foray into Afghanistan during the Carter administration.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">In any event, in Friedman's narrative, idealistic well-intentioned Americans are being victimized by those trying to help them. Rich doesn't go that far--implicitly well-intentioned Americans have simply made lots of mistakes.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">In addition, there's enough megalomania between these four ears to fill a wing of a psychiatric hospital, or perhaps the Pentagon.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">DG<br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 12pt; "><br><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">From:</span></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>C. G. Estabrook <<a href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</a>><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">To:</span></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Brussel Morton K. <<a href="mailto:mkbrussel@comcast.net">mkbrussel@comcast.net</a>><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">Cc:</span></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Peace Discuss <<a href="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net">peace-discuss@anti-war.net</a>><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">Sent:</span></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Sun, August 1, 2010 2:12:03 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">Subject:</span></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…<br></font><br>American liberalism is a closed oyster into which a mere grain of sand - the Wikileaks documents - has penetrated. Here we see that echt liberal Frank Rich, equal to the challenge, beginning the process of covering the offending element with a first layer of nacre, by the same living process as is used in the secretion of the mother of pearl covering that lines liberalism's shell...<br><br>Behold - a pearl!<br><br> Kiss This War Goodbye<br> By FRANK RICH<br> Published: July 31, 2010<br><br><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01rich.html?_r=2&hp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01rich.html?_r=2&hp</a><br><br><br>On 8/1/10 11:37 AM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:<br>> *From Paul Street on a ZNet article:*<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> “The lesson; no, the message; no, um, the takeaway of the leaked documents is<br>> not: if only they knew how badly it's going, how hard it's going to be, then the<br>> administration would bring an end to the conflict. Rather, the takeaway; no, the<br>> message is that even knowing how badly the war goes, they persist. The lesson is<br>> not the Administration's blindness, but its dogged intransigence, its total<br>> commitment to the endeavor, regardless of the means or outcome, regardless of<br>> the possibility of reward, regardless of the cost, regardless of suffering,<br>> regardless of sense and duration. The United States has an institutional<br>> commitment to the occupation of Afghanistan. It can't be argued out of it.”*[7]*<br>> *<br>> *<br>> One of the best reflections about Wiki-Leaks and related matters. See<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/revealing-moments-by-paul-street" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.zcommunications.org/revealing-moments-by-paul-street</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Peace-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Peace-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br></div></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>