What on earth is going on?

Mathematical discussions on dynamic systems and what somebody already referred to as the oximoron chaos theory is beyond believe to be included here. The "butterfly effect" is as pertinent to historical events as Scrodingers dead cat quantum mechanics is. Maybe if we do not observe anything in Afghanistan nobody would know if they are dead or alive, not the cat but those funny brown people (after all quantum theory says that).

Polite writing does not seem to bring any response, so let me bit a bit more direct: ondolette stop your pedantic writings and deal with the unpleasent realities of US objectives in Afghanistan. Otherwise you may give us a disertation how lapiz lazuli trade was affected because of the Taliban intransigence and since that material is important to some sectors of the female population we have to intervine. (come to think about that is as good a theory as any that you present)

So, based on Obama's civil rights record as President, with the latest insult being his use of Bush's signing statements to disobey the law, who's voting for him again? I can say I'm not and I've informed him of that.

Obama has basically placed all of his hopes for re-election in the bet that the economy will turn around enough that he'll keep a significant portion of the voters that helped get him elected. Despite the arguments of how he hasn't taken the right steps to turn the economy around anyways, even if he had, this is a gamble as it very well may be something that is simply out of his control. Thus, I'm truly amazed that he has decided to blow off the voters who would have been on his side despite a possibly bad economy by turning his campaign promises about the rule of law and civil rights into lies. It's simply no longer "change I can believe in." It's change I believed in and still know is necessary. He deserves to lose if he doesn't change himself. Pathetic.

I simply don't understand how so many Democrats have failed to grasp why candidates like Nader become a problem for them. No amount of bad mouthing how I may vote in the next election will make me vote for the guy, as his course in civil liberties is inexcusable. On this issue, it would be like someone giving me crap for not voting for someone who robbed me and others at gun point, with their excuse being that because he gave a bit of what he took to the poor, his crime doesn't matter. It may be a difference between that and the thug who would rob me and keep everything to themself. But, in the end, I still got robbed. I can't bring myself to vote for such a person, particularly when Congress now has the numbers to undo all of the ugliness in regards to civil liberties from the Bush regime, especially if the President was on board.

My vote for Obama is turning into the most disappointing vote I ever cast. Die hard Republicans may be ok with their choice lying to them. I'm just not that way. This has turned into too much.

You're such a radical.

I take that to mean you apologize for wrongly accusing me of not watching the videos. Apology accepted.

Oom, I'm not trying to prove anything about the CIA, nor am I attempting to argue with Ondolette about his views about Afghanistan. I defer to Ondolette's oh-so-revered wisdom in all things Asian, Central Asian, and Mathematical, of course.

But just as Glenn is not the only game in town when it comes to discussing civil rights violations, torture, FISA, surveillance, and the hypocrisy of the media, neither is Ondolette the final arbiter of what is truth and what is not.

I disagree with Ondolette about many things, but I cannot give you substantiated documentation that will prove what involvement the CIA has in so many of the issues discussed in this comment section. If I had the goods, so would everyone else. We are beginning to see some of the truth right now, but there is so much more.

And of course I know the difference between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. My point was that even if Ondolette and others want to scoff about covert operations or CIA involvement in the heroin trade, or their record of interfering in the elections and governments of sovereign nations, things that I have studied as much as Ondolette has studied Asia, does not mean my points are not based on facts rather than "conspiracy theories" or any other minimizing and derogatory term you want to toss at them.

It's the condescension most of us dislike, not the information.

You're such a radical.

1. I agree that that the nations of a globalized world with a substantial transnational population built on nearly one hundred years of capitalist momentum, cannot not just suddenly and on a whim begin divesting themselves from each other. The sheer feat of becoming a self-sustaining country in this current environment is simply impossible to imagine--and why the arguments of those like Heru are so silly. Of course, it would be better if we were one nation dealing with our own problems--but where would the oil come to sustain this lifestyle, the timber, the meat, the plastics and rubber? The large influx of Mexican labor to do the work that there is no economic imperative to get done? What would happen to our tech industry? It would be utter chaos--and perhaps it should be. But I've never heard these proponents of that unimaginable and completely inapplicable model claim the horrifying chaos so engendered as part of the outcome, intended or otherwise.

2. As for your math stuff, keep it out of these discussions, please. Others are right when they opine that you may be using it--perhaps without knowing it--as a way of creating an expert paradigm around yourself that others can't assail. I have no idea of the names or theorems you're dropping here, nor do I think them necessary to discuss this issue. Obviously, when one sees the world through a prism of their study, its hard not to bring in such precepts, but you're only alienating people to your argument by doing that.

Finally, 3. If its true that the US is operating outside of the UN "mandate" [for lack of a better word] with its own forces in addition to the UN forces and project, then they've obviously compromised the whole affair. How can the largest superpower be said to be working in tandem with and independently of the UN at the same time in such a region? Indeed, given the history of the US in that region, it should have been the last country involved in any major way. Obviously, the UN was well capable of doing whatever nation-building you feel was appropriate without any US involvement whatsoever. The whole thing is well beyond reparable, at least by these geniuses. Just take a look at this:

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was President George W. Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan, could assume a powerful, unelected position inside the Afghan government under a plan he is discussing with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, according to senior American and Afghan officials.

Mr. Khalilzad, an American citizen who was born in Afghanistan, had considered challenging Mr. Karzai for the presidency in elections scheduled for this summer....the position would allow Mr. Khalilzad to serve as “a prime minister, except not prime minister because he wouldn’t be responsible to a parliamentary system,” a senior Obama administration official said. Taking the unelected position would also allow Mr. Khalilzad to keep his American citizenship.

Literally, we're about to install an American governor in that country. It would be bad enough, but we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can't even run our own country, much less that of others.

I respect your view, that the world community has an obligation to failed states. In fact, the West has generally had a good hand in the failure of those states. But there has to be another way that has a list of goals and a way to achieve them in mind. We already fucked this up beyond belief; we couldn't make it any worse by leaving.

That being said, your knowledge of international law has been a great tool for this site and I've learned quite a bit from reading your posts about applicable Geneva Conventions and the CAT. Most of your detractors add absolutely zero here.