Showing posts with label └ afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label └ afghanistan. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
the mcchrystal method.
youve probably heard about the rolling stone article that got mcchrystal fired. now heres a guess as to what the hell mcchrystal was thinking...
mcchrystal is convinced afghanistan is screwed without more troops and is trying to avoid the blame.
he asked for 60,000 troops, but obama only sent 30,000. he said anything less than 40,000 would run the risk of failure, and now that afghanistan is failing, he wants to make sure hes not going to become the administration's scapegoat.
mcchrystal wants the blame to fall on obama's afghan policy, which is where it should be. obama's afghan policy was doomed from the beginning, and if i were him, i might wanna get out of the way of that shitstorm too.
(full speech.)
that said, its definitely ridiculous for a commanding officer to play politics with his position. he should be above the blame game, and definitely shouldnt be doing his job with politicking in mind.
then again, he might not have cared about the politics and was legitimately just so frustrated that he couldnt see the disastrous magazine article a few days in front him.
so much for brilliant strategist.
mcchrystal is convinced afghanistan is screwed without more troops and is trying to avoid the blame.
he asked for 60,000 troops, but obama only sent 30,000. he said anything less than 40,000 would run the risk of failure, and now that afghanistan is failing, he wants to make sure hes not going to become the administration's scapegoat.
mcchrystal wants the blame to fall on obama's afghan policy, which is where it should be. obama's afghan policy was doomed from the beginning, and if i were him, i might wanna get out of the way of that shitstorm too.
(full speech.)
that said, its definitely ridiculous for a commanding officer to play politics with his position. he should be above the blame game, and definitely shouldnt be doing his job with politicking in mind.
then again, he might not have cared about the politics and was legitimately just so frustrated that he couldnt see the disastrous magazine article a few days in front him.
so much for brilliant strategist.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Friday, October 9, 2009
yes we can (lower our standards).
an op-ed i wrote on afghanistan...
Yes We Can (Lower Our Standards)
As the Afghanistan policy debate continues behind closed doors in Washington, I’ve been putting together the pieces of the Obama administration’s emerging Afghanistan strategy. I’ve written about Afghanistan before, and I’ll make no effort to hide what I believe: Counter-insurgency is nothing to be sheepish about. Obama should give General McChrystal all the troops he needs.
But as I read the headlines yesterday, Obama’s message of hope didn’t seem to apply to Afghanistan. One AP headline that stood out was “Obama focusing on al-Qaida, not Taliban.” It seems like the strategy is basically “Yes we can,” but only if we lower our standards. With a war weary public, I can understand the temptation to water down the objectives, but if history has taught us anything, it’s that seeking accommodation with Islamic militants is never a good idea. That’s how the Taliban came to power in the first place, and we’re still cleaning up that mess.
The U.S. aided and abetted the Islamic militants against the Soviet Union in the 80s, and turned a blind eye to Afghanistan once the project against the Soviets had run its course. The Soviet Union, in a curiously similar position to what the U.S. is facing now, watered down their objectives in Afghanistan after an unsuccessful attempt to hunt down Islamic militants along the Pakistan-Afghan border. As war weariness set in, the Soviets pulled back from the countryside and garrisoned the cities, gradually replacing their troops with Afghans.
The strategy worked in the short-run, and the cities held against the American-backed Islamic militants. Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah consolidated his control of the cities, much as President Hamid Karzai is doing now, mockingly earning him the title, “the Mayor of Kabul.” Najibullah also pursued the same strategy Obama seems to be proposing now, national reconciliation with the Taliban. With Najibullah in control of the cities and “peaceful” reintegration of the Taliban underway, the Soviets and the Americans packed up and went home. A few years later, the Taliban took Kabul.
So what went wrong? Well for starters, the Taliban’s ideology is a mixture of Wahabbism and pan-Islamism. Wahabbism advocates a strict interpretation of Islam and renders it permissible to kill non-adherents or “infidels,” which includes most of the world and even countless other Muslims. Pan-Islamism advocates the unification of all Muslims under one Islamic government, which would require the overthrow of countless peaceful governments across the Middle East. (I hear nuclear-armed Pakistan is looking good these days.) Does this sound like an amenable ideology that can be effectively mollified through power sharing?
For a more recent case, take a look at Pakistan’s Taliban experiment. The Pakistani government, secular by most accounts, has always been mixed up with Islamic militancy. They courted Islamic militants along with America against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and they used Islamic militants against India in Kashmir. Like America, lately they’ve been dealing with some serious blowback. Unfortunately for Pakistan, their threat is existential. One unintended consequence of the war in Afghanistan was to push thousands of Taliban into the already restive provinces of northwest Pakistan, further destabilizing its already shaky political foundations.
So last February, Pakistan tried a truce. Also last February, I wrote in my blog condemning it. Pakistan allowed the Taliban to create a haven in the Swat Valley, permitting the Taliban to govern and even implement their sick version of sharia law. (No Michael Jackson memorials.) After dozens of terrorist bombings and hundreds of innocent Pakistani civilian deaths, a cursory glance at the headlines shows how well that worked out.
So again, what went wrong? Well they can’t say I didn’t warn them. The Taliban’s radical Islamist ideology has never been pacified by letting them have their own little corner of the world. They’re not exactly the type of people who understand timeout in the corner (of the country). I hope the Obama administration keeps that in mind as the Afghanistan policy debate continues.
If a watered-down version of counter-insurgency does indeed become the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, let me say that I’ll leave room for error and sincerely hope that I’m wrong. Unfortunately, I’ve been right about this before. In my humble opinion, appeasing the Taliban failed for the Soviet Union, placating the Taliban failed for Pakistan, and giving a failed strategy one more try doesn’t exactly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes We Can (Lower Our Standards)
As the Afghanistan policy debate continues behind closed doors in Washington, I’ve been putting together the pieces of the Obama administration’s emerging Afghanistan strategy. I’ve written about Afghanistan before, and I’ll make no effort to hide what I believe: Counter-insurgency is nothing to be sheepish about. Obama should give General McChrystal all the troops he needs.
But as I read the headlines yesterday, Obama’s message of hope didn’t seem to apply to Afghanistan. One AP headline that stood out was “Obama focusing on al-Qaida, not Taliban.” It seems like the strategy is basically “Yes we can,” but only if we lower our standards. With a war weary public, I can understand the temptation to water down the objectives, but if history has taught us anything, it’s that seeking accommodation with Islamic militants is never a good idea. That’s how the Taliban came to power in the first place, and we’re still cleaning up that mess.
The U.S. aided and abetted the Islamic militants against the Soviet Union in the 80s, and turned a blind eye to Afghanistan once the project against the Soviets had run its course. The Soviet Union, in a curiously similar position to what the U.S. is facing now, watered down their objectives in Afghanistan after an unsuccessful attempt to hunt down Islamic militants along the Pakistan-Afghan border. As war weariness set in, the Soviets pulled back from the countryside and garrisoned the cities, gradually replacing their troops with Afghans.
The strategy worked in the short-run, and the cities held against the American-backed Islamic militants. Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah consolidated his control of the cities, much as President Hamid Karzai is doing now, mockingly earning him the title, “the Mayor of Kabul.” Najibullah also pursued the same strategy Obama seems to be proposing now, national reconciliation with the Taliban. With Najibullah in control of the cities and “peaceful” reintegration of the Taliban underway, the Soviets and the Americans packed up and went home. A few years later, the Taliban took Kabul.
So what went wrong? Well for starters, the Taliban’s ideology is a mixture of Wahabbism and pan-Islamism. Wahabbism advocates a strict interpretation of Islam and renders it permissible to kill non-adherents or “infidels,” which includes most of the world and even countless other Muslims. Pan-Islamism advocates the unification of all Muslims under one Islamic government, which would require the overthrow of countless peaceful governments across the Middle East. (I hear nuclear-armed Pakistan is looking good these days.) Does this sound like an amenable ideology that can be effectively mollified through power sharing?
For a more recent case, take a look at Pakistan’s Taliban experiment. The Pakistani government, secular by most accounts, has always been mixed up with Islamic militancy. They courted Islamic militants along with America against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and they used Islamic militants against India in Kashmir. Like America, lately they’ve been dealing with some serious blowback. Unfortunately for Pakistan, their threat is existential. One unintended consequence of the war in Afghanistan was to push thousands of Taliban into the already restive provinces of northwest Pakistan, further destabilizing its already shaky political foundations.
So last February, Pakistan tried a truce. Also last February, I wrote in my blog condemning it. Pakistan allowed the Taliban to create a haven in the Swat Valley, permitting the Taliban to govern and even implement their sick version of sharia law. (No Michael Jackson memorials.) After dozens of terrorist bombings and hundreds of innocent Pakistani civilian deaths, a cursory glance at the headlines shows how well that worked out.
So again, what went wrong? Well they can’t say I didn’t warn them. The Taliban’s radical Islamist ideology has never been pacified by letting them have their own little corner of the world. They’re not exactly the type of people who understand timeout in the corner (of the country). I hope the Obama administration keeps that in mind as the Afghanistan policy debate continues.
If a watered-down version of counter-insurgency does indeed become the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, let me say that I’ll leave room for error and sincerely hope that I’m wrong. Unfortunately, I’ve been right about this before. In my humble opinion, appeasing the Taliban failed for the Soviet Union, placating the Taliban failed for Pakistan, and giving a failed strategy one more try doesn’t exactly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
Monday, September 14, 2009
waging peace in afghanistan.
an op-ed i wrote on afghanistan...
Waging Peace in Afghanistan
When it comes to winning the peace, the U.S. doesn’t have the best record, and when it comes to learning foreign policy lessons, the U.S. seems to have a steep learning curve. When major combat operations are over, the conflict is in many ways just beginning. The U.S. may not have learned the hard way, but America certainly found out the hard way after the 1980’s effort to supply the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Despite the frustration of many involved, the U.S. turned its back on the reconstruction after it drove the Soviets from Afghanistan, and left a vacuum that was occupied by the most brutal of the rebels, the Taliban.
After the blowback from a forgotten Afghanistan hit the U.S. on September 11th, 2001, one might think military planners would realize that military victory is only a means to an ultimately political end. It is in the U.S.’s interests to see a secure, democratic, and prosperous Afghanistan. However when the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan a month after September 11th, it had a troop commitment of only 1,300. When the Taliban fell, there were only 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Though Afghanistan is a very different story than Iraq, the biggest mistake was similar.
The U.S.’s erroneous beliefs concerning the Iraq War’s immediate aftermath established a poor start for its most ambitious nation-building endeavor since World War II. Blind faith in the now defunct opinions of Iraqi exiles, who assured US officials that they would be “greeted as liberators,” caused them to neglect the need for a post war plan to maintain order following the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime. In what has been called a “catastrophic victory,” the U.S. was so focused on and so good at winning the war that it had forgotten about and wasn’t ready for winning the peace.
In the absence of a plan to win the peace, Iraq was a power vacuum. Scenes of chaos and looting filled the airwaves. The basic functions of the now absent state, such as protection of property, were opportunistically undertaken by Iraqi opposition groups, greatly consolidating their power. Unconcerned with and often openly hostile to U.S. interests, these groups found themselves in firm command and control of enclaves within Iraq to an extent rivaling the control of the U.S., CPA, and eventually the new Iraqi government.
Luckily the tide turned when General Petraeus took over. General Petraeus understands that victory in Iraq is not only a military challenge, and he inspired his soldiers by asking “What have you done for the people of Iraq today?” It is a good sign for Afghanistan that the similarly perceptive General Stanley McChrystal has assumed command there. He works closely with Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, and is concerned with the well-being of the Afghan people. And it doesn’t hurt that he is an expert in counter-insurgency and special operations.
Today there are about 63,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more than double the previous year’s amount as part of President Obama’s escalation strategy, but more may be needed. If one follows the polls, it seems war weariness is on the rise just as a torrent of other issues is overshadowing Afghanistan, but now is a critical time for Afghanistan and it is important America doesn’t repeat the mistakes of the past and let Afghanistan go adrift. As the memory of another September 11th anniversary fades, don’t forget the importance of Afghanistan, historically and presently. As I once argued for the President and Congress to give Petraeus all the resources he needed in Iraq, it is now time to give McChrystal all the resources he needs in Afghanistan.
Waging Peace in Afghanistan
When it comes to winning the peace, the U.S. doesn’t have the best record, and when it comes to learning foreign policy lessons, the U.S. seems to have a steep learning curve. When major combat operations are over, the conflict is in many ways just beginning. The U.S. may not have learned the hard way, but America certainly found out the hard way after the 1980’s effort to supply the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Despite the frustration of many involved, the U.S. turned its back on the reconstruction after it drove the Soviets from Afghanistan, and left a vacuum that was occupied by the most brutal of the rebels, the Taliban.
After the blowback from a forgotten Afghanistan hit the U.S. on September 11th, 2001, one might think military planners would realize that military victory is only a means to an ultimately political end. It is in the U.S.’s interests to see a secure, democratic, and prosperous Afghanistan. However when the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan a month after September 11th, it had a troop commitment of only 1,300. When the Taliban fell, there were only 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Though Afghanistan is a very different story than Iraq, the biggest mistake was similar.
The U.S.’s erroneous beliefs concerning the Iraq War’s immediate aftermath established a poor start for its most ambitious nation-building endeavor since World War II. Blind faith in the now defunct opinions of Iraqi exiles, who assured US officials that they would be “greeted as liberators,” caused them to neglect the need for a post war plan to maintain order following the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime. In what has been called a “catastrophic victory,” the U.S. was so focused on and so good at winning the war that it had forgotten about and wasn’t ready for winning the peace.
In the absence of a plan to win the peace, Iraq was a power vacuum. Scenes of chaos and looting filled the airwaves. The basic functions of the now absent state, such as protection of property, were opportunistically undertaken by Iraqi opposition groups, greatly consolidating their power. Unconcerned with and often openly hostile to U.S. interests, these groups found themselves in firm command and control of enclaves within Iraq to an extent rivaling the control of the U.S., CPA, and eventually the new Iraqi government.
Luckily the tide turned when General Petraeus took over. General Petraeus understands that victory in Iraq is not only a military challenge, and he inspired his soldiers by asking “What have you done for the people of Iraq today?” It is a good sign for Afghanistan that the similarly perceptive General Stanley McChrystal has assumed command there. He works closely with Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, and is concerned with the well-being of the Afghan people. And it doesn’t hurt that he is an expert in counter-insurgency and special operations.
Today there are about 63,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more than double the previous year’s amount as part of President Obama’s escalation strategy, but more may be needed. If one follows the polls, it seems war weariness is on the rise just as a torrent of other issues is overshadowing Afghanistan, but now is a critical time for Afghanistan and it is important America doesn’t repeat the mistakes of the past and let Afghanistan go adrift. As the memory of another September 11th anniversary fades, don’t forget the importance of Afghanistan, historically and presently. As I once argued for the President and Congress to give Petraeus all the resources he needed in Iraq, it is now time to give McChrystal all the resources he needs in Afghanistan.
Monday, February 16, 2009
pakistan.
are you serious?
the pakistani government, secular by most accounts, has always been mixed up with islamic militancy. for years, they courted islamic militants against the soviets in afghanistan (along with america) and they used islamists against india in kashmir.
like america, lately theyve been dealing with some serious blowback. unfortunately for pakistan, their threat is existential.
one unintended consequence of the war in afghanistan was to push thousands of ak-wielding quran-toting fanatics into the already restive provinces of northwest pakistan, further destabilising the already shaky political foundations in pakistan.
as much as i recognize musharrafs mistakes, he got one thing right when he warned that the country wasnt stable enough for free and fair democratic elections. he may have had his own motivations, but that doesnt necessarily make him wrong. despite the suspicion and conspiracy theories, i for one believe his opinion was vindicated by the bhutto assasination. im not saying its an excuse for dictatorship, but the threat from islamic militants is indeed too powerful for pakistanis to have truly free and fair elections. theyll probably have to be resigned to the next best thing, elections where leaders and their supporters are under constant threat of assasination by militants.
now that the musharraf era is over in pakistan, the question remains... how does an aspiring presumably liberal democracy confront a growing islamist threat from within? well heres a stupid idea i can almost guarantee will not work.
that said, pakistan is still at a crossroads. my hope and hers...
...is that pakistan might learn soon enough that these taleban wahabbi islamist fucks arent content hanging out in their own little corner of the world. theyre religious the way this guy was religious.
not exactly the type of people who understand timeout in the corner. (of the country.)
so lets hope her vision triumphs. and not just for pakistan.
the pakistani government, secular by most accounts, has always been mixed up with islamic militancy. for years, they courted islamic militants against the soviets in afghanistan (along with america) and they used islamists against india in kashmir.
like america, lately theyve been dealing with some serious blowback. unfortunately for pakistan, their threat is existential.
one unintended consequence of the war in afghanistan was to push thousands of ak-wielding quran-toting fanatics into the already restive provinces of northwest pakistan, further destabilising the already shaky political foundations in pakistan.
as much as i recognize musharrafs mistakes, he got one thing right when he warned that the country wasnt stable enough for free and fair democratic elections. he may have had his own motivations, but that doesnt necessarily make him wrong. despite the suspicion and conspiracy theories, i for one believe his opinion was vindicated by the bhutto assasination. im not saying its an excuse for dictatorship, but the threat from islamic militants is indeed too powerful for pakistanis to have truly free and fair elections. theyll probably have to be resigned to the next best thing, elections where leaders and their supporters are under constant threat of assasination by militants.
"Nonetheless, despite his mistakes, he has been that rare phenomenon in Pakistani politics — an honest man with good intentions who tried to serve his country to the best of his abilities. In a country that has suffered so much over the years from corrupt and self-serving politicians, there have been too few figures like him."
now that the musharraf era is over in pakistan, the question remains... how does an aspiring presumably liberal democracy confront a growing islamist threat from within? well heres a stupid idea i can almost guarantee will not work.
that said, pakistan is still at a crossroads. my hope and hers...
...is that pakistan might learn soon enough that these taleban wahabbi islamist fucks arent content hanging out in their own little corner of the world. theyre religious the way this guy was religious.
not exactly the type of people who understand timeout in the corner. (of the country.)
so lets hope her vision triumphs. and not just for pakistan.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
gas and politics.
more politics tangent...
things that interest/worry me, the killing of the undp leader in somalia. fuck. hezbollah got veto power in lebanon and a prisoner swap with israel. lame. afghanistan is definitely getting worse, but luckily petraeus is now in charge of both theatres just in time to fuck some shit up. iraq is looking a lot lot lot better. (check this out... by far the best indicator of iraqi development ive found thus far.) i think its about time the us focuses on afghanistan and finishes what they started. 20000 troops in afghanistan? seriously.
so im adding this because a few people have been asking me about the indymac failure. if you want info on that, i like this. basically, no, the economy is not about to collapse. but if youre in total panic mode (like some people i know) and will stop at nothing to know what banks might be at risk, the bove list has the best methodology ive seen so far. ok now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
i hear a lot of silly hippy jibber jabber about the price of gas and some really idiotic schemes for boycotts and protests. obviously, ive kind of been itching to give a little info. basically the important point is this... lotta doomsday talk about running out of oil, but the current crisis, while influenced by emerging markets adding to the demand, is mostly the result of speculation. about what? about this.
the actual consumption versus supply has not shifted as radically as the price. check it... (and thats not even considering that production is increasing over time as well.) let me put it this way. the actual fundamentals of production and consumption changes are pretty stable over time, so these sudden price fluctuations are not based on those fundamentals, but shocks and anticipated shocks that may never even materialize. same shits been happening throughout recent history... so what do i think of oil prices now? its a bubble. beware the burst if obama wins before an attack on iran. sorry if thats not exciting and apocalyptic... but maybe this will cheer you up.
speaking of obama... pretty much everyone i know is bonkers for obama and i feel like i owe them an explanation. im going to poop here for two reasons... 1. because time flies when your poopin on stuff (-cindy) and 2. because people keep asking me what i think and i can now point them in this direction...
im undecided.
most people will look at me funny and be like really? not obama? but the answer is no. not yet anyway. need more input. (-johnny 5)
obama has some pretty amazing qualities that dont have anything to do with his presidential competency. just because of who he is, his ascendancy to the presidency (unintentional rhyme) will bring renewed credibility (is that another rhyme?) to americas image in the world. and as much as i dont think america should be making descisions solely for love and attention, (i have already got that covered... see? i do it for my country!) a kid being brainwashed in some waziristan madrasa is going to want an explanation from his bushy bearded mullahs when a minority 1st generation immigrant who went to school in indonesia with a name like barack hussein obama becomes president in a country supposedly controlled by a jewish christian zionist alliance.
i mean dont get me wrong... aipac has a seriously unfortuanate grip on the us government... but we shall overcome! (wait, what? oh sorry i just watched an ambiguosly hopeful obama speech and im feeling inexplicably inspired by an undeniably desirable vision that can apparantly be obtained simply by supporting obama hopefully enough. oh and apparantly through protectionism, universal healthcare, and a hasty withdrawal from iraq.)
in case you cant tell, i already got started on the cons. obama is an awesome dude, dont get me wrong... id fist pound the shit out of him. (why am i turned on?) but despite all the change rhetoric, his policies are really nothing that revolutionary... theyve all been vetted at some point by some politician or another. so why wasnt everyone going nuts for those politicians? like i said... obama is not about his policies or his plans. bonkers for obama is about who obama is, not what he will do.
and unfortuanately, i disagree with a lot of the things he wants to do, the most important of these being his protectionism and his iraq policy. until recently, obama said he wanted to have all combat troops out within 16 months. i mean seriously? could you imagine the disasterous consequences if we stuck with that no matter what happened in the meantime? i think obama will be the next president and so luckily, hes calmed down on that stance, saying he will reevaluate when he takes his iraq trip. +2 obama. i always thought he seemed too intelligent to be serious about that... but that kind of means he just said it to win the primaries. -1 obama. really that should be a -2... but would he have won the primaries without saying that? probably not and obamas no idiot. so only -1. net +1 for moderating stupid stance.
now the protectionist shit. same exact story i think... i just find it hard to believe someone so educated and so eloquent can seriously be against free trade. but alas, do educated eloquent people control the vote in crucial swing states like ohio? nope... joe whitey mcretard does. and since the emerging economies of the world are responsible for our friend's plight, he is fully convinced that we can close our borders, pray a lot more, and pretend theyre not there. so what do i want from obama? more moderation.
when do i expect to have my answer? after a debate or two. mccain is way too intelligent not to confront obama about these clearly populist poopforbrains policies. mccain is an awesome dude... this is definetly not bush v kerry. i have a profound respect for the dude, even if he drools while he sleeps. (my cousin rode next to him on a flight to phoenix.) in fact im pretty sure i agree with mccain much more than obama on policies. actually... let me take a second to get slightly annoyed.
this whole thing about mccain being bush all over again is probably the stupidest thing since bush got reelected. this is a dude with millions who flies economy when hes on public funds. this is a dude who got destroyed by bush in the 2000 primaries because he refused to do the disgusting shit bush and rove did to him. this is a dude whos central platform of campaign finance reform would probably eliminate politicians like bush from the political landscape. just because you support obama, dont slander a dude who tried to stop bush from getting the presidency in 2000. its just ummm... how can i put this... stupid.
ok anyway... obamas answers when mccain confronts him in a debate will be crucial for my vote, and im assuming theres a few people out there like me. if he shows himself to be a moderate... if he drops some hints that he basically just said some of his stupider policies for the primaries... he will probably win me over.
im a fucking libertarian, so no, obviously i wont agree with him on a lot of things. but who he is... his ability to change americas image, his ability to inspire people, and his foreign policy perspective that only someone with foreign parents can understand... those will outweigh our disagreements.
anddd im done.
things that interest/worry me, the killing of the undp leader in somalia. fuck. hezbollah got veto power in lebanon and a prisoner swap with israel. lame. afghanistan is definitely getting worse, but luckily petraeus is now in charge of both theatres just in time to fuck some shit up. iraq is looking a lot lot lot better. (check this out... by far the best indicator of iraqi development ive found thus far.) i think its about time the us focuses on afghanistan and finishes what they started. 20000 troops in afghanistan? seriously.
so im adding this because a few people have been asking me about the indymac failure. if you want info on that, i like this. basically, no, the economy is not about to collapse. but if youre in total panic mode (like some people i know) and will stop at nothing to know what banks might be at risk, the bove list has the best methodology ive seen so far. ok now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
i hear a lot of silly hippy jibber jabber about the price of gas and some really idiotic schemes for boycotts and protests. obviously, ive kind of been itching to give a little info. basically the important point is this... lotta doomsday talk about running out of oil, but the current crisis, while influenced by emerging markets adding to the demand, is mostly the result of speculation. about what? about this.
the actual consumption versus supply has not shifted as radically as the price. check it... (and thats not even considering that production is increasing over time as well.) let me put it this way. the actual fundamentals of production and consumption changes are pretty stable over time, so these sudden price fluctuations are not based on those fundamentals, but shocks and anticipated shocks that may never even materialize. same shits been happening throughout recent history... so what do i think of oil prices now? its a bubble. beware the burst if obama wins before an attack on iran. sorry if thats not exciting and apocalyptic... but maybe this will cheer you up.
speaking of obama... pretty much everyone i know is bonkers for obama and i feel like i owe them an explanation. im going to poop here for two reasons... 1. because time flies when your poopin on stuff (-cindy) and 2. because people keep asking me what i think and i can now point them in this direction...
im undecided.
most people will look at me funny and be like really? not obama? but the answer is no. not yet anyway. need more input. (-johnny 5)
obama has some pretty amazing qualities that dont have anything to do with his presidential competency. just because of who he is, his ascendancy to the presidency (unintentional rhyme) will bring renewed credibility (is that another rhyme?) to americas image in the world. and as much as i dont think america should be making descisions solely for love and attention, (i have already got that covered... see? i do it for my country!) a kid being brainwashed in some waziristan madrasa is going to want an explanation from his bushy bearded mullahs when a minority 1st generation immigrant who went to school in indonesia with a name like barack hussein obama becomes president in a country supposedly controlled by a jewish christian zionist alliance.
i mean dont get me wrong... aipac has a seriously unfortuanate grip on the us government... but we shall overcome! (wait, what? oh sorry i just watched an ambiguosly hopeful obama speech and im feeling inexplicably inspired by an undeniably desirable vision that can apparantly be obtained simply by supporting obama hopefully enough. oh and apparantly through protectionism, universal healthcare, and a hasty withdrawal from iraq.)
in case you cant tell, i already got started on the cons. obama is an awesome dude, dont get me wrong... id fist pound the shit out of him. (why am i turned on?) but despite all the change rhetoric, his policies are really nothing that revolutionary... theyve all been vetted at some point by some politician or another. so why wasnt everyone going nuts for those politicians? like i said... obama is not about his policies or his plans. bonkers for obama is about who obama is, not what he will do.
and unfortuanately, i disagree with a lot of the things he wants to do, the most important of these being his protectionism and his iraq policy. until recently, obama said he wanted to have all combat troops out within 16 months. i mean seriously? could you imagine the disasterous consequences if we stuck with that no matter what happened in the meantime? i think obama will be the next president and so luckily, hes calmed down on that stance, saying he will reevaluate when he takes his iraq trip. +2 obama. i always thought he seemed too intelligent to be serious about that... but that kind of means he just said it to win the primaries. -1 obama. really that should be a -2... but would he have won the primaries without saying that? probably not and obamas no idiot. so only -1. net +1 for moderating stupid stance.
now the protectionist shit. same exact story i think... i just find it hard to believe someone so educated and so eloquent can seriously be against free trade. but alas, do educated eloquent people control the vote in crucial swing states like ohio? nope... joe whitey mcretard does. and since the emerging economies of the world are responsible for our friend's plight, he is fully convinced that we can close our borders, pray a lot more, and pretend theyre not there. so what do i want from obama? more moderation.
when do i expect to have my answer? after a debate or two. mccain is way too intelligent not to confront obama about these clearly populist poopforbrains policies. mccain is an awesome dude... this is definetly not bush v kerry. i have a profound respect for the dude, even if he drools while he sleeps. (my cousin rode next to him on a flight to phoenix.) in fact im pretty sure i agree with mccain much more than obama on policies. actually... let me take a second to get slightly annoyed.
this whole thing about mccain being bush all over again is probably the stupidest thing since bush got reelected. this is a dude with millions who flies economy when hes on public funds. this is a dude who got destroyed by bush in the 2000 primaries because he refused to do the disgusting shit bush and rove did to him. this is a dude whos central platform of campaign finance reform would probably eliminate politicians like bush from the political landscape. just because you support obama, dont slander a dude who tried to stop bush from getting the presidency in 2000. its just ummm... how can i put this... stupid.
ok anyway... obamas answers when mccain confronts him in a debate will be crucial for my vote, and im assuming theres a few people out there like me. if he shows himself to be a moderate... if he drops some hints that he basically just said some of his stupider policies for the primaries... he will probably win me over.
im a fucking libertarian, so no, obviously i wont agree with him on a lot of things. but who he is... his ability to change americas image, his ability to inspire people, and his foreign policy perspective that only someone with foreign parents can understand... those will outweigh our disagreements.
anddd im done.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
letters to the editor.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12984.htm (ahmadinejad's letter to the president.)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html (bin laden's letter to america.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,946805,00.html (saddam's letter to iraq.)
(my letter to you...)
As much as I love Craigslist, was it ever in the.
In the game, the player takes the role of an operative for the government of a nation known as the Great State, an extreme version of our own country's current political climate. It is even rumored that some Zombies are evolving into a tougher breed of living dead known as Ghouls. This month's issue, not unfittingly, is a detailed anatomy of RPG mechanics themselves.
It is even rumored that some Zombies are evolving into a tougher breed of living dead known as Ghouls.
Thanks to everyone for all their help making our site what it is today.
Magic frightened Demetrius.
In Grey World, you will find both.
Learn Combat Conditioning, Strength training, Muscle Gain, Extreme flexibility, and Magnetic Mind Power from the real fitness training and conditioning expert. The game is played with dice. Hex uses a minimum number of random tables to keep the game accessible and fast.
Roll the dice, make a choice. Many games have made this transition. You can design your own guns, cars are free form, and a number of optional rules are provided. As much as I love Craigslist, was it ever in the. Balance the loss of Health and Endurance to gain XP. I chose to use a simplified version of my BLYSS system for this RPG, and if I do say so myself it's worked out rather nicely. Now, the town exists in three different worlds at once: Our World, Grey World, and Dark World.
Almost any action your Mob can do, you roll for.
Battle giant rats, skeletons, vampires, hellhounds and even a dragon to save your home town!
Each Mob is unique and individual, with a separate card for each Mob. After crashing to Earth, the UFO is transported away by sneaky FBI agents.
While a select few live in prosperity and security, the majority of Anakron's citizens, the Dregs, live in squalor and violence.
A timer such as a stopwatch or hourglass is also needed to play. Magic frightened Demetrius. Battle giant rats, skeletons, vampires, hellhounds and even a dragon to save your home town! A bunch of happy-go-lucky Alien Hominids are joyriding through earth's atmosphere.
It has brought to the fray the idea that video games and fitness don't have to be mutually exclusive. Set in the current modern world, only the few players know there are things beyond the easy sight of Man, and because they know about it are hunted and hunt the self-same creatures.
Suddenly I was daunted!
You're the Alien Hominids in a battle for your extra-terrestrial freedom!
Almost any action your Mob can do, you roll for.
com lays out a few really good reasons hotels, particularly those who cater to business travelers, should offer Wi-Fi free of charge. Why did your familiar agree to join you?
Can you save your home from this hex? Now, the town exists in three different worlds at once: Our World, Grey World, and Dark World.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html (bin laden's letter to america.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,946805,00.html (saddam's letter to iraq.)
(my letter to you...)
As much as I love Craigslist, was it ever in the.
In the game, the player takes the role of an operative for the government of a nation known as the Great State, an extreme version of our own country's current political climate. It is even rumored that some Zombies are evolving into a tougher breed of living dead known as Ghouls. This month's issue, not unfittingly, is a detailed anatomy of RPG mechanics themselves.
It is even rumored that some Zombies are evolving into a tougher breed of living dead known as Ghouls.
Thanks to everyone for all their help making our site what it is today.
Magic frightened Demetrius.
In Grey World, you will find both.
Learn Combat Conditioning, Strength training, Muscle Gain, Extreme flexibility, and Magnetic Mind Power from the real fitness training and conditioning expert. The game is played with dice. Hex uses a minimum number of random tables to keep the game accessible and fast.
Roll the dice, make a choice. Many games have made this transition. You can design your own guns, cars are free form, and a number of optional rules are provided. As much as I love Craigslist, was it ever in the. Balance the loss of Health and Endurance to gain XP. I chose to use a simplified version of my BLYSS system for this RPG, and if I do say so myself it's worked out rather nicely. Now, the town exists in three different worlds at once: Our World, Grey World, and Dark World.
Almost any action your Mob can do, you roll for.
Battle giant rats, skeletons, vampires, hellhounds and even a dragon to save your home town!
Each Mob is unique and individual, with a separate card for each Mob. After crashing to Earth, the UFO is transported away by sneaky FBI agents.
While a select few live in prosperity and security, the majority of Anakron's citizens, the Dregs, live in squalor and violence.
A timer such as a stopwatch or hourglass is also needed to play. Magic frightened Demetrius. Battle giant rats, skeletons, vampires, hellhounds and even a dragon to save your home town! A bunch of happy-go-lucky Alien Hominids are joyriding through earth's atmosphere.
It has brought to the fray the idea that video games and fitness don't have to be mutually exclusive. Set in the current modern world, only the few players know there are things beyond the easy sight of Man, and because they know about it are hunted and hunt the self-same creatures.
Suddenly I was daunted!
You're the Alien Hominids in a battle for your extra-terrestrial freedom!
Almost any action your Mob can do, you roll for.
com lays out a few really good reasons hotels, particularly those who cater to business travelers, should offer Wi-Fi free of charge. Why did your familiar agree to join you?
Can you save your home from this hex? Now, the town exists in three different worlds at once: Our World, Grey World, and Dark World.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
sandstorm.
dude i just read the best blog ever.
http://naysaninafghanistan.blogspot.com/2006/06/life-in-kabul.html
(its my cousin in afghanistan.)
ok sooo i think were having a libby+ashkan+samwilson birthday bash + going away party for andre and brendans trans siberian trip. the date is tentatively friday, july 28. can everyone come then? let me knowww!
12 Comments
http://naysaninafghanistan.blogspot.com/2006/06/life-in-kabul.html
(its my cousin in afghanistan.)
ok sooo i think were having a libby+ashkan+samwilson birthday bash + going away party for andre and brendans trans siberian trip. the date is tentatively friday, july 28. can everyone come then? let me knowww!
12 Comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)