“Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion, and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt.” --- Voltaire

It is interesting how so many have seen the way out of our violent dilemmas, and yet they are never heeded. Even Voltaire is ignored by the modern interventionist if he preaches voluntary trade, cooperation and neutrality.

And with that, I'll call 911 and report a dust-up over at UT on an unmentionable topic. (will they take the report if I can not mention it?)

=:-)

Well the Taliban seem to be engaged in growing them now.
— bernbart

Indeed they are (http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=92933). But since the US is trying to deny the Taliban the poppy fields and since Wakil implemented a poppy-eradication program (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/washington/story/71434.html), I still ask what was the point of your comment?

In case you can't remember that far back, it went like this:

Considering Wakil's past support the Poppy growing Taliban, and the new U.S push in Afghanistan to destroy the poppy fields, they claim is supporting Al Quieda, he may be in trouble.

Presumably, then, your logic runs like this:

• Taliban grows poppies

• Wakil opposes growing poppies

• US opposes growing poppies

• Therefore: Wakil may be in trouble with US

I'm glad that you are not stupid enough to believe everything in the NY Times. For a moment there I thought there was no limit to your stupidity.

Yes, I did read the article in McClatchy and I just went back and re-read it again and you are right. I mis read it. Walk did support eradication. Of course my critics here will love this. At least however I admit when I'm wrong.

have gone to some lengths to state the obvious: Obama's decisions are his own; current policy belongs to him; it matters not a whit what Bush's policies were in the context of what Obama's policies are.

See? Obama is the guy in charge and he has the authority to make the legal, ethical and moral decisions that are obvious to so many of us.

Why do you argue

I have NEVER defended the BUSH policy of holding prisoners in GITMO. I'm saying Obama is NOT Bush, he's been in office 6 months now and all you expect some kind of instantaneous results

that he's somehow a slave to Bush policy? That's really a bizarre position to take. Is Obama--or is he not--President? Is Bush--or is he not--a former President?

A few other things:

Why is that the only thing eever discussed here daily is GITMO? It;s as if there is nothing else going on in the world.

Well, for Christ's sake, what's your objection to Glenn's writing what he wants? There are plenty of other sites out there where you can read what interests you. And you know full well in any case that GITMO (and how I hate that truncation) isn't the subject here--it's a matter of civil liberties, the stuff that you, bernbart, ought to be concerned with along with the rest of us.

Also I do take dispute with the ongoing theory here that Obama is continuing Bush's policies. As far as Detenion. Obama 'weighed" the idea of permanent detentions. It's not been put into policy. So any of you ever recognize that Obama often puts out ideas to get reactions.

Really? And what will you say when six months becomes a year, two years, four years, a second term, and on and on?

Row on row...

I could be wrong and am just going out for a bit, so I don't have time to look it up, but I thought I read that the US was backing off on the poppies for the moment.

Did I read/remember wrong? It makes a lot of sense actually. Burning poppies equates to creating Afghan freedom fighters and often pretty much kills the family or families the revenue supported.

NATO should get out of Afghanistan anyway.

"In the context of longer term neferious objectives, they have some logic. For example, establishing the right to indefinite detention totally removes the ability of the judicial system to undo Goverment abuses."

Correct me if I'm wrong,,but it is my understanding that Obama was 'weighing the idea' of establsiihing indefinite detentions. It is a snot been put into policy.

Has anyone ever thought Obama threw this idea out there to get reactions. He did after all put it out there and not in some covert action.

That is hilarious! Although it is unprofessional and immature, and the authors of the paper really should have accepted nothing less from the reaction they got, it is kind of funny.

I meant expected, they should have expected nothing less.

oy

Really? And what will you say when six months becomes a year, two years, four years, a second term, and on and on?

-- Timothy3

I would say if GITMO has not all been sorted in 2 years, then it's a problem. Of course Obama is not the one making all the calls on this, there are 2 other branches of government. And yes it is good to keep up the pressure.

I do find it rather curious Congress turned down 80 million to close GITMo,yet we have the money to keep it open.

I also don't want us to be in Afghanistan after 2 years.

I could be wrong and am just going out for a bit, so I don't have time to look it up, but I thought I read that the US was backing off on the poppies for the moment.

Yes you are right. However, the British are apparently going ahead with their eradication programs.

Just what the natives need what? Total arbitrary and contradictory behaviour from the armed and dangerous occupiers who haven't a fucking clue what they are doing except to agree on killing Afghans as and when they choose to do so.