Smart Women oppossing dumb men.

And I continue to repeat that any 'exit strategy' of calling for withdrawal from just one of the theaters of the DAFT war (Afghanistan) is doomed to failure.

I continue to wonder why nobody speaks of the DAFT law that started this mess, the engine that drives this insanity.

Congress's Tonkin Gulf resolution allowed LBJ's surging into Vietnam. We talk about that legislation.

But Public Law 107-40, the insane AUMF that keeps the US trapped in a war against phantoms -
never gets mentions, and thus no progress toward peace is ever made.

You know, if this law is ignored for another 8 years I might start to become paranoid.
I understand why Congress doesn't mention the law - they would have to take responsibility for their actions.
Why Progressives continue to ignore Congress's culpability in this is a mystery to me.

Why does CODEPINK really expect Obama to listen? He already won the Nobel Peace Prize for being another warmonger like Bush. Obama does not believe in the love of the commons either in this country or in Afghanistan. It's the usual "either be a macho bulldozer or get out" ! He can easily say "Look, I won the Nobel Peace Prize so I can do what I want !"

- We Need a Policy, Not a Macho Hissy-Fit -

A policy? We need a policy?

How about focusing on the one and only plan that can garner enough multi-partisan support to end this insane and DAFT war?

Bring Public Law 107-40 into the light of day so everyone can see how insane it is, and how it keeps the US trapped.

What's so hard about that?

"Bring the Troops Home" is a bumper sticker, not a policy. We need a policy. And holding the US accountable for its actions in Afghanistan is a good place to start.

DROP THE BUSH DOCTRINE OF PRE-EMPTIVE CIVILIAN KILLING!

For a start.....I believe Code Pink does far more damage than benefit at this point. Their antics are simply counterproductive in my view.

But......they are doing what they believe in and for some smarmy little putz like Justin Raimondo and a bigger pointyhead like John Walsh to sit behind their keyboards and call these ladies whores is the mark of cowardly, small minded bozo's, who have done nothing but type.

I don't agree with what they do, but they have my respect for their honesty. These two and those like them have my contempt for the do-nothings and the insolent, arrogant little twits they are.

"a lot of people [in Afghanistan] say they didn't want more troops to be sent in and they wanted the U.S. to have a responsible exit strategy that included the training of Afghan troops, included being part of promoting a real reconciliation process and included economic development"

If Code Pink is advocating this....what the heck is the matter with it? We get out, our kids ciome home and the Afgans get to settle their own problems with our support as we go.

I'm with Code Pink here.

Meanwhile, Congress prepares a law at Obama's request to keep abuse photos from surfacing -- can't hurt our noble troops, can we?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091010/ap_on_go_co/us_abuse_photos_congress

Actually any "justification" for continued US imperialist military presence betrays an arrogance of the USA supposedly needing to be the world policeman which Dwight D Eisenhower rejected in the heyday of the Cold War. it sure as hell is no less true today. These women and men of this viewpoint need to read Bill Fulbright's classic book 'The Arrogance of Power." We all must get out of this idea that the USA should run the affairs of those in other lands. God hasn't given us that role, if that's what some people think. Nor does standing up for feminism have one damn thing to do with it. Under the UN Charter no member state, and that includes the USA has no right to intervene in the internal affairs of any other member state. We have the UN to discuss internationally sanctioned action that would deal with this, if need by going to the general assembly through the "Uniting for Peace" provision of the charter if some group or state becomes a threat to peace in the region. This is the way civilized city, where that's the case, and mostly, nation states handle their foreign policy concerns such as this. How about if we try to join the community of civilized nations for a change. It might really be great for a change.

AD

Actually any "justification" for continued US imperialist military presence betrays an arrogance of the USA supposedly needing to be the world policeman which Dwight D Eisenhower rejected in the heyday of the Cold War. it sure as hell is no less true today. These women and men of this viewpoint need to read Bill Fulbright's classic book 'The Arrogance of Power." We all must get out of this idea that the USA should run the affairs of those in other lands. God hasn't given us that role, if that's what some people think. Nor does standing up for feminism have one damn thing to do with it. Under the UN Charter no member state, and that includes the USA has no right to intervene in the internal affairs of any other member state. We have the UN to discuss internationally sanctioned action that would deal with this, if need by going to the general assembly through the "Uniting for Peace" provision of the charter if some group or state becomes a threat to peace in the region. This is the way civilized city, where that's the case, and mostly, nation states handle their foreign policy concerns such as this. How about if we try to join the community of civilized nations for a change. It might really be great for a change.

AD

Actually any "justification" for continued US imperialist military presence betrays an arrogance of the USA supposedly needing to be the world policeman which Dwight D Eisenhower rejected in the heyday of the Cold War. it sure as hell is no less true today. These women and men of this viewpoint need to read Bill Fulbright's classic book 'The Arrogance of Power." We all must get out of this idea that the USA should run the affairs of those in other lands. God hasn't given us that role, if that's what some people think. Nor does standing up for feminism have one damn thing to do with it. Under the UN Charter no member state, and that includes the USA has a right to intervene in the internal affairs of any other member state. We have the UN to discuss internationally sanctioned action that would deal with this, if need by going to the general assembly through the "Uniting for Peace" provision of the charter if some group or state becomes a threat to peace in the region. This is the way civilized city, where that's the case, and mostly, nation states handle their foreign policy concerns such as this. How about if we try to join the community of civilized nations for a change? It might really be great for a change.

AD

It's true that proper US policy won't fit on a bumper sticker. But it doesn't have to. Now the value of sloganeering is hard to over-estimate. Next we note an alternative approach, to put our values, the driver of proper policy, in the slogan. Try for example "Universal Equity/Justice". It's very difficult to misinterpret this slogan. And it's very difficult to disconnect our policies from the slogan. Now ask yourself why this slogan isn't adopted in elite circles, in the elite media. It becomes clear rather quickly by focusing on this slogan that elites are trying to suppress the idea and oppress the people. It thereby raises our awareness and motivation to act accordingly. Proper policy becomes much clearer even if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

Give a billion dollars to the UN to distribute in Afghanistan and leave.

Whatever reparations Afghanis, male and female, may want and deserve from Americans, they would surely settle to see a quick cloud of dust and some empty tracks out of the country.

Sure it makes a difference how one gets out and who one leaves in some sense in charge, and certainly it's past odd to imply that CODE PINK has ceased to be antiwar because they deal with nuance.

However, getting out means getting out, removal of troops. One must vamoose, amscray, largarse, quit, desist, become scarce, remove oneself, leave, exit, pass GO and not collect --- hey, even quit blowing up weddings.

Principally and critically, the US must cease to exercise control. In part, this means quit exercising control over the abuses of the Taliban, the Warlords, and whoever might be worse.

This is not because action against oppression or solidarity with oppressed peoples is wrong or ineffective. It is because that is not what the United States government has done, not what is is doing, not what it will do, and not what it cares to do.

As relatively minor examples of this -- horrifying examples, but minor compared to the overall violence against men, women, and children in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan -- one might note the frequent rape of American servicewomen and of foreign nationals by American troops; the usually unprosecuted rape of women residing near the many American bases around the world; and the regular torture, including sexualized torture, of women as well as men and children as a part of general American policy and practice during both the Cheney and 0bama administrations.

It's easy to criticize the Taliban. One can criticize all day and never go beyond what is valid. But that's what they have in common with the American invaders, not what makes themd different. It is poor reason to imprison, kill, torment and rape their victims; poor excuse to murder husbands, even abusive husbands; poor excuse to blow up relatives; starve and kill their children.

OK, I'm being obvious, and probably anyone here could go on with details of American atrocity. Hopefully it's also obvious that I too know that CODEPINK would advocate none of this.

However, the idea that American government or American culture knows enough about treating women and children well to give advice to people who at least commit their abuses under considerable duress is a bit ridiculous, given the above.

GET OUT is not just a bumper sticker, even if it does not itself constitute a policy.

GET OUT need be the centerpiece of policy. And, given the US' actions in Afghanistan since Jimmy Carter, let us amend it like this:

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
... GET OUT - AND STAY OUT .....
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Some people in Afghanistan like our money and think we can build them a decent society with our military. Big deal. They have that opinion but that doesn't make it reality. We need a full military withdrawal. Enough of Bush's WOT and nation building. I might as well believe in Santy Claus.

No matter how you slice it, the issue of Islam and women's rights is not going to be solved by the US military. CODEPINK needs to see the forest from the trees.

The problems of Afghanistan are primarily social/economic and can't be solved by "military means" no matter how well intentioned.

As peacemakers, we should volunteer to field the "people" resources to work with Afghans on the condition of military withdrawal.

Charlie Jackson
Texans for Peace
http://www.texansforpeace.org

The rich and powerful call all the macho shots.Not presidents, elected officials, or dying women and children.

We are in Iraq and Afghanistan for a variety of reasons, and none them have anything to do with the 9/11 attack.

The 9/11 attack was a catalyst, the reason , the excuse , to invade. You need an attack on a global entity to start a global war.

If you need to invade middle east country's that supply the worlds oil, you need a good reason.

The biggest crimes perpetrated on Americans were :

1. Improper crime seen investigation of 9/11 ground zero and the pentagon with multiple investigations from different agencies.
Evidence on Molten iron melted by thermite explosives.Explosions were heard by many people and first responders and recorded by people and media.
Proper identification of the airliners by the FAA.
Proper recovery of the airplanes black boxes.

2. Proper investigations of the terrorists origins , training and finances.Again , by multiple agencies.

3. If explosives were put into he buildings, who did it? When could they have done it?

At night , where and who was in charge of security for those buildings prior to the attack.

4. The Patriot Acts were born 30 days after the 9/11 attack.
Read the patriot acts, the constitution is gone folks.

5. Media propaganda and collusion .

6. War , torture ,rendition, warrant less spying, right wing religious take over. a crusade, a righteous war.Onward christian soldiers.

The rich pay and recruit the brainwashed patriotic poor to spy and control the intellectual and middle class of this country that eventually start to expose the lies. Thats your Homeland Security and the 72 fusion centers with 1 million spys to date. No redress of grievances and immunity given to company's involved in warrant less surveillance.

Its natzi Germany all over again, just as evil.

Train your sons and daughters never to join the military to fight staged wars, thats all we can do.

" YOUR EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US." " FREEDOM ISN'T FREE "
" GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS" " SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" " GOD BLESS AMERICA"

" AXIS OF EVIL" " FIGHT THEM THERE OR FIGHT THEM HERE"

OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS TRAINED BY OUR CIA.

SAY IT 1000 TIMES TILL IT SINKS IN.

THE UNITED $TATES OF PERPETUAL WAR PROFITEERING is $uffering death by a thousand cuts in IRAQ-NAM and AFGHANISTAN-NAM. The Russians (and other geo-political foes of the corp-rat fascist banksters in the Wall $treet casino) are having a good laugh.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that AFGHANISTAN-NAM is the graveyard of empires... and Rome is burning!

Yifat Susskind is a homophobic bigot and pro-war fascist.

The Raimondo article and others make some very valid arguments about the hypocrisy of left anti-war activists. None of these are addressed in this article of course. I find it hypocritical in this article that the author accuses writers like Raimondo of sexism because of their use of the word "whores" and yet refers to Raimondo, an openly gay man, as having a "hissy-fit." So is Susskind a homophobic bigot for choosing such a word? I guess so following the logic of this article. Simply do a search on google for the use of the word "whore" on the antiwar.com site: search "whore site:antiwar.com". They use "whore" all the time, more often than not referring to men not women.

This article is a lowbrow smear of the worst kind. Raimondo might have had some harsh words but at least there was a lot of intelligent substance to the points he was making not just a bunch of insults. Other than the childish name-calling Susskind does quote the humanitarian case for continued interventionism and nation-building from CODEPINK and asks for support for this hypocrisy. This is always the excuse for war from leftists and as Raimondo calls it: "tiresomely predictable." The right-wing fascists use security as an excuse and the left-wing fascists use humanitarianism as an excuse for war. Either way we get war no matter what. Fascists like Hitler used both excuses. Aghanistan does not need our "help" at all and neither does Iraq, Iran or any of the other countries we've bombed or threatened to bomb. It's a long list.

BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! can fit on a bumper sticker and staying true to those words is called integrity. Something Raimondo has but CODEPINK lacks. Instead we are getting "cut and run" arguments for our continued military interventionism like the one in this article. Obama is just as much of a war-mongering, nation-building politician as Bush was. Where are the leftist anti-war protestors? Where are the documentaries and stories about Obama's war agenda? Instead we get lines like this from another article on CD today: "I wish Obama would just declare victory in Afghanistan, withdraw western forces." Where is the outrage like there was when Bush was president, instead we get namby-pamby lines about how gee whiz I wish Obama would do this etc... There does seem to be some hypocrisy and a greater underlying agenda than simply protesting war and in this regard the anti-interventionist movement of the right often seem to have more integrity than the left.

"Yifat Susskind is a homophobic bigot and pro-war fascist."

Can you cite examples of this?

I looked at all the articles. I think Raimando and Walsh are guilty not only of sexism, but also of overreacting and jumping to a conclusion.

I do think a lot of people who were anti-war and anti-capitalist have lost their teeth since Obama got elected, and I think some of that has to do with Obama's party affiliation, his charm, and dare I say, his race. I don't think Medea Benjamin is one of those people. I hope she's not anyway.

Regardless, now is not the time for any kind of infighting. A clear majority of the public wants an end to all wars. We can build on that.

As far as being "responsible" goes, I think the only responsible kind of withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is one that is immediate and complete. As in THERE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY OCCUPATIONS TO BEGIN WITH, LET ALONE WITH GOVERNMENT TROOPS OR RENT-A-SOLDIERS!!! GET THEM ALL THE HELL OUT NOW!!!

Give them reparations and leave, then prosecute the architects of the war. After that, pull U.S. troops out of everywhere, revamp our foreign policy so that we're cooperating with other nations or simply leaving them the hell alone, create sustainable, renewable fuels, tackle poverty domestic and global, and apologize. That's not all we need to do, but it's a start.

Would Afghanistan be the way it is if it weren't so poor and war-torn? And whose fault is it that Afghanistan is that way?

The United States has no business trying to "liberate" women abroad when gender parity hasn't even been achieved in its own country. Women are abused and attacked and disenfranchised here DAILY! When women here are paid as much as men and patriarchy is dismantled and replaced with a culture of equality, among other things, then the U.S. can be a good example, not part of the problem, and we all know what Uncle Noam said about good examples being dangerous.

Besides, does anyone really think that the Afghan war was about liberating anyone or defeating terrorists? No. It's about $$$$$$.

"Bring the troops home" is more than a bumper sticker. Afghans have defended their land for 6000 years. We will bring the troops home-now, in ten years, in 100 years, in body bags, in pieces, in 1000 years. Afghan patriots and freedom fighters have a duty to see to it, and they will.

Will good old Merkin sticktuitiveness and gumption last 1000 years?

I beg to differ. What 'we' need is Afghanistan is to get the hell out and leave those people alone. Now!

We're put on the spot to decide how to conduct our Owners' affairs. Although our Owners don't care what we say think demonstrate about, we do try desperately to help our fellows, most of us. That's what Medea is/was about.
We're driven mad by our owners and their policies; witness the horrid over-reaction talked about here.
Hers was a caring response - and you can bet she wants the best possible solution - including the out now.
Seeing that's not going to happen at all, she's trying to work with the situation.

"Whores for Wars" certainly suits right-wing women much better.

Medea has been against the war in Afghanistan since before it happened. Where the hell do these wingnuts get the idea that she's changing her position?