Comments (17) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Impeach_Bush said, about 1 year ago

   Ok, this one I have to call Ted on. The war in Afghanistan is a true multi-national UN sponsored coalition effort. It’s just a bleeep shame that Bush abandoned the real war in Afghanistan for an illegal invasion against Iraq.

2. 

   littlehorn said, about 1 year ago

   Why is it a shame that Bush abandoned the “real” war ? Is the occupation of Afghanistan, that killed thousands of unarmed civilians, such a great thing, that it needs be salvaged from the Talibans ? Why is the war in Iraq wrong as a strategy, and not as an act. This is an international crime. Hundreds of thousands have perished. Does that not make it wrong ? Does that not make it much wronger than the complications in Afghanistan ?

   Which by the way we are not sure at all are caused by the lesser number of US troops there. This was Bush propaganda for the surge: if we commit enough troops, there’ll be peace. And now we have a liberal using the same point for Afghanistan. That’s ironic.

   I say it’s great that Bush abandoned Afghanistan for Iraq. The sooner the US army fails, the sooner the boys will go back home and imperialism is kinda cut back.

   I’ll remind you that people are dying each day, and this is imperialism, this is occupying.

   You want that to stop by focusing on Afghanistan and winning ? That won’t work.

   It is the very fact of the occupation that fuels the resistance.

3. 

   Herbabee said, about 1 year ago

   What vexes me about this whole debacle is:

   What was the nationality of the majority of the 9/11 hijackers who allegedly sparked it all? Our good friends, the Saudis.

4. 

   AnnRKey said, about 1 year ago

   The US did not go to the UN for permission to invade Afghanistan. They just went in. They probably could have got UN permission. The US obviously felt powerful enough to do whatever it wanted. Not to mention the Taliban offered to deliver bin Laden if the US showed evidence bin Laden was responsible for 911.

5. 

   turdraker said, about 1 year ago

   The real culprit here is the Pakistani Intelligence Service, which has been supporting the Taliban and projecting power in Afghanistan ever since the Russians left. We’ve given $10 billion to Pakistan since 9/11. We could save money and lives twice over if we just stopped the flow of military aid to these backstabbers.

6. 

   Alexus_The_Great said, about 1 year ago

   but, but, but… You all sound like kool-aid drinking libtards! you are showing worrisome signs of independent thinking…
   (Stew… where art thou?)

7. 

   hokey said, about 1 year ago

   What I’ve noticed is that Ted Rall’s multi-panel cartoons are often tedious, if not totally incomprehensible. BUT his single panel cartoons are often very good.

8. 

   Impeach_Bush said, about 1 year ago

   The Taliban KNEW bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Asking for proof was just a delaying tactic to protect him. As they were providing a safe haven to the group that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban became a legitimate target in the world’s eyes. Arguing this point just gives the right-wingnuts cause to complain that Progressives are to wishy-washy to defend their own country.

9. 

   littlehorn said, about 1 year ago

   And it gives me cause to advise you to go join them. Imperialists oughta understand they’re sick bleeep and we’re not going to withstand what they have to bleeep from their mouth.

   Invasions and occupations are wrong. You don’t know bleeep about the Taliban and you agree with the Right-Wingers.

   You are part of the problem.

   GO

   AWAY

10. 

    Impeach_Bush said, about 1 year ago

    No, my friend, YOU are the reason Middle America labels Progressives as weak on national defense. Even a liberal should be smart enough to defend himself. Your wimpy “make love, not war” attitude is what convinces Joe Sixpack to keep voting Republican. Thank God you only represent the fringe.

11. 

    littlehorn said, about 1 year ago

    Shouldn’t you be more concerned with the views of those who actually get to decide stuff ? You know, like, those Dems you vote for all the time.

    Are you seriously saying you are going after the votes of Republicans ? This is what you are concerned with ? That Republicans manage to make your party look weak to the eyes of their constituency ? You’re mad because a bunch of savage brownshirts do not like my non-interventionist stance ?

    And then people are surprised guys like Lieberman hang on to the Democrat label. Of course they do ! There’s plenty of bleeep who waste our time complaining about how Republican voters don’t vote Democrat!

    Also, don’t you ever call me a progressive. Progressives are indeed weak, but not because they don’t go to war. That’s because they have no balls, and they always vote Democrat in the end, continuing the same system that wreaks havoc on the whole world.

    Democrats: more than a hundred years of existence, still no peace in sight.

    Defense is arresting Bin Laden.

    Occupation is murder.

    Try having a non-interventionist stance today, we’ll see who’s the wimp. Being pro-war in the US is no difficulty. It’s being pro-peace that’s difficult, as your reaction makes clear.

12. 

    Impeach_Bush said, about 1 year ago

    “Also, don’t you ever call me a progressive”

    So you identify yourself as…?

13. 

    littlehorn said, about 1 year ago

    I don’t identify myself as anything. I’m a non-interventionist abroad, and a radical at home, in the same way as Martin Luther King.

    Also, whoever will dismantle the Empire is fine by me, regardless of the party affiliation.

14. 

    Impeach_Bush said, about 1 year ago

    Ahhh, a Starbucks anarchist. Give me latte, or give me death! Good luck tilting against those windmills. The rest of us will be back in the real world dealing with real problems while you plot the downfall of civilization.

15. 

    AnnRKey said, about 1 year ago

    How do you know the Taliban knew? Even if they did, we still ignored there offer instead of presenting evidence. Here we are 7 years later and bin Laden hasn’t had his day in court. He does deserve his day in court, does he not?

16. 

    Alexus_The_Great said, about 1 year ago

    Ann: That would be a good idea except for the fact that Bin Laden is dead…
    http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/19/gen.musharraf.binladen.1.19/index.html

17. 

    Impeach_Bush said, about 1 year ago

    pssst, Alexus, that 6 year old news story was refuted long ago.