http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon10202009.html

or click sig

Eight years into the war on Afghanistan -- and with no end in sight -- seems a peculiar time for antiwar activists to claim that U.S. forces need to stay there even longer for the sake of the Afghan people.

Yet Yifat Susskind, Communications Director for the human rights organization MADRE, recently argued on CommonDreams.org, "’Bring the Troops Home’ is a bumper sticker, not a policy.”She continued, “For MADRE, U.S. obligations stem from the fact that Afghanistan's poverty, violence against women, and political corruption are, in part, results of U.S. policy over the past 30 years.”

CODEPINK co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans began arguing for a “responsible” withdrawal after their recent visit to Afghanistan, which focused on discovering Afghan women’s attitudes toward the U.S. occupation. While there, they met with a hand picked group of politically connected Afghan women that included President Karzai’s sister-in-law, Wazhma Karzai.

...

The U.S. left has failed to effectively oppose the war in Afghanistan from its onset, when the population overwhelmingly supported the war on the pretext that “We were attacked.” That support has severely eroded, and polls show that a clear majority now wants to end the occupation. Yet many on the left have remained confused for the last eight years -- ardently opposing the war in Iraq while remaining silent about the equally immoral war in Afghanistan.

This confusion has apparently been compounded by the election of Barack Obama, who initially opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding, however, he has since embraced the aims of U.S. imperialism with gusto. U.S. troops and, perhaps more importantly, U.S. military bases remain in Iraq with no deadline for complete withdrawal.

...

Washington’s warmongers have been getting away with mass murder in Afghanistan for far too long. Obama is now at the helm of this disastrous imperial adventure. “Troops out now” is the only viable exit strategy, yet it can also easily fit onto a bumper sticker. Those who argue for prolonging the U.S. occupation until the U.S. transforms its mission into a benevolent one are likely to be kept waiting forever.

...much more at link ...

An article well worth reading, and he mentions some of the women in Afghanistan that one should be listening to rather than the well connected women of the power elite.

It is time for the left to tell Obama that we must leave now.

All Catholic Churches in the Orlando Diocese would let you into Mass in flipflops. I have seen it.

You are just an attention whore. (no offense to whores who are honest working people)

The front fell off!

Funny as hell; thanks a million.

For those who missed it, you need to see this short of a politician explaining an environmental disaster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-QNAwUdHUQ

or click sig ...

http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_life_lessons_from_an_ad_man.html

or click sig.

This may seem off topic to the max; but he is talking about perception and how to appreciate what we already have. If only he was Secretary of State.

But the main thing is it may be one of the funniest short vids I have seen this year. The part about the "re-launch" of Shreddies is a hoot. (perhaps a mis-spelling of the cereal)

WARNING: He is British.

That is not the issue. Jebbie claims that we have rights as citizens only if the Supreme Court so rules. I claim we have rights under the constitution that are there regardless of what the black robed nine say, or when they say it.

See?

Jebbie has long championed the unlimited power of the central government here. I think he believes the SC is a ruling council like in the TV show Babylon 5.

I quoted your words where you plainly laid out that idea of yours that the only rights we have come from the central government though the Supreme Court. I guess you are just not mentally able to follow a line of reasoning to where it leads.

I was not aware that having access to medical marijuana was a right protected by the Constitution.

A woman's choice is such a right. Therefore, the comparison is like comparing apples and oranges methinks.

If the Supreme Court were to someday rule that having access to a drug or the like is protected by the Constitution, then it would be a good comparison.

You can play stupid all you want, but those words plainly say that you are asserting that we have no right not provided by the Court.

Do you not read what you wrote? Or, are you disavowing what you wrote?

One of your better ones. Thanks.

What the hell was lad whining about that you don't make sense the other thread. Hell, you make more sense (and I get entertained) than anyone on the board. Well, expect when Sinnard is involved in a pissing contest. (those can be real funny)

This is what you wrote:

I was not aware that having access to medical marijuana was a right protected by the Constitution.

A woman's choice is such a right. Therefore, the comparison is like comparing apples and oranges methinks.

If the Supreme Court were to someday rule that having access to a drug or the like is protected by the Constitution, then it would be a good comparison.

As anyone who can think, read, and follow a discussion can plainly see: you are claiming that Americans only have rights that the central government bestows on them through a ruling by the high court.

I say bullshit. The right is there in the document itself and was there all along. You can not find one leg to stand on to say that my right to grow and eat plants is not protected by the constitution.

I think you need to read it someday. I'll wait.