I don't believe in one person controlling parliament because he may have got 0.5% of the total national vote. If that's not democracy, so be it.

Something about not keeping all your eggs in one basket?

Yes & I understand it.

I realize that big business does lobbying.

But what is a bit disturbing is the "Too Big To Fail"

Folks that caused us to print a trillion or more this year in a so called crisis

Which btw they still have not addressed took the $$$ & again are paying themselves

large bonuses.....are the same that spent so much on contributions.

Now that is a little blatant

Listen, I was raised hard line Socialist and the family policies are hard work, working class unity and defend your country. My parents and grand fathers were all volunteers in three major wars in the 20th century, there is not a taint of wishy washy liberalism in my blood.

One of the things I was taught was that you can't have the chickens running the coop, business and company ownership has an important place in the grand scheme, but they have to be watched carefully. They are not going to part with one cent more than they are forced to.

Me? Yeah well, there's black sheep in every family. I talk the talk but haven't walked the walk for along time now...

He's an interesting guy.

The political party system seems to be very flexible in America, loyalty to the party "line" isn't as rigid as it is in other countries.

There seem to be a lot more independents, or "mavericks". Undisciplined springs to mind.

But then I prefer the Westminster system of government anyway, the three tier presidential system always seemed unwieldy and expensive to me. I like to think that the party I vote for elects the countries leader, and is in a position to dispose of him easily if he strays from the ideals he was voted in for.

Westminster vs Electoral College. As the lesser of two evils, Westminster would be my choice.

Electoral College got Dubbya in. Says alot.

Personally, ideally, neither would be in place.

Each system has its faults but what I like most about ours is that the President gets 8 years maximum to do his thing. Blair was there 10 years and stepped down on his own. Thatcher 11.5 years. If we could only now get term limits for Congressmen in the USA we'd be much better off. As it is today, they are closer to being traitors than "public servants" because they would choose party over country everytime as long as it helps keep them in power.

The party should represent a certain part of the electorate. The conservatives traditionally support business interests and the left, the working classes.

I have no problem with this but there has been a gradual slide to the middle ground, The UK and Australian Labour parties are run by right wing moderates while the Conservative/Liberals have slid to the left.

This gives the voter little choice, he knows his job isn't safe under either party and small business gets no protection from the right.

I'm almost becoming a supporter of basic protectionism, if you won't make it in your own country, don't expect to sell it there.

It's a system, called the myth of redemptive violence and almost universal - of believing that "God" wants citizens to kill the enemy, as defined by national leaders. That is demonic, and insane - like nuclear and conventional war.

I'll horrify you by suggesting that the Soviet Union played a far greater role in freeing the colonies than the USA.

Virtually all of the "new" African leadership that came with the "Winds of Change" were educated in Moscow at the height of the Cold War.

Does this include Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, Biafra, Ivory Coast, Darfur, Liberia, et al?

I'm just curious how the Russian educations led to these messes. Please explain.

Is there any part of my post that suggests that the outcome of decolonisation in these places never led to a mess?

The point I tried to make was that the majority of the leaders of the resistant movements learned Molotov cocktail manufacture in the USSR.

If you're suggesting that they would have been better leaders if their education was carried out in the US you're more than welcome to argue your point.

Is there any part of my post that suggests that the outcome of decolonisation in these places never led to a mess?

The point I tried to make was that the majority of the leaders of the resistant movements learned Molotov cocktail manufacture in the USSR.

If you're suggesting that they would have been better leaders if their education was carried out in the US you're more than welcome to argue your point.

Then perhaps you might have better tried to make that point than the one you did.

What you said was this..."Virtually all of the "new" African leadership that came with the "Winds of Change" were educated in Moscow at the height of the Cold War."

You could have stated the revolutionists were trained in the art of revolution in Moscow rather than the fact they might have gained their education in Moscow. A rather large difference in wording. I am not arguing for a US education for terrorists and revolutionaries at all. I'll let Moscow keep that distinction.

However, now I understand where you were going with it. Thanks for clearing it up.

This is a lenghty read but is spot on regarding the "overseas contingency operation", better known as the war against terrorism.

I apologize for it's length but if you can read it, perhaps you will better understand the situation. Nowhere in the article did I see any reference to equating the war on terrorism to the rape of Nanking.

Stratfor is a well regarded think tank.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Jihadist Strategic Dilemma

December 7, 2009 | 2125 GMT

Graphic for Geopolitical Intelligence Report

By George Friedman

With U.S. President Barack Obama’s announcement of his strategy in Afghanistan, the U.S.-jihadist war has entered a new phase. With its allies, the United States has decided to increase its focus on the Afghan war while continuing to withdraw from Iraq. Along with focusing on Afghanistan, it follows that there will be increased Western attention on Pakistan. Meanwhile, the question of what to do with Iran remains open, and is in turn linked to U.S.-Israeli relations. The region from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush remains in a war or near-war status. In a fundamental sense, U.S. strategy has not shifted under Obama: The United States remains in a spoiling-attack state.

Related Special Topic Page

* The Devolution of Al Qaeda

As we have discussed, the primary U.S. interest in this region is twofold. The first aspect is to prevent the organization of further major terrorist attacks on the United States. The second is to prevent al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups from taking control of any significant countries.

U.S. operations in this region mainly consist of spoiling attacks aimed at frustrating the jihadists’ plans rather than at imposing Washington’s will in the region. The United States lacks the resources to impose its will, and ultimately doesn’t need to. Rather, it needs to wreck its adversaries’ plans. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the primary American approach consists of this tack. That is the nature of spoiling attacks. Obama has thus continued the Bush administration’s approach to the war, though he has shifted some details.

* The Jihadist Viewpoint

It is therefore time to consider the war from the jihadist point of view. This is a difficult task given that the jihadists do not constitute a single, organized force with a command structure and staff that could express that view. It is compounded by the fact that al Qaeda prime, our term for the original al Qaeda that ordered and organized the attacks on 9/11 and in Madrid and London, is now largely shattered.

While bearing this in mind, it must be remembered that this fragmentation is both a strategic necessity and a weapon of war for jihadists. The United States can strike the center of gravity of any jihadist force. It naturally cannot strike what doesn’t exist, so the jihadist movement has been organized to deny the United States that center of gravity, or command structure which, if destroyed, would leave the movement wrecked. Thus, even were Osama bin Laden killed or captured, the jihadist movement is set up to continue.

So although we cannot speak of a jihadist viewpoint in the sense that we can speak of an American viewpoint, we can ask this question: If we were a jihadist fighter at the end of 2009, what would the world look like to us, what would we want to achieve and what might we do to try to achieve that?

We must bear in mind that al Qaeda began the war with a core strategic intent, namely, to spark revolutions in the Sunni Muslim world by overthrowing existing regimes and replacing them with jihadist regimes. This was part of the jihadist group’s long-term strategy to recreate a multinational Islamist empire united under al Qaeda’s interpretation of Shariah.

The means toward this end involved demonstrating to the Muslim masses that their regimes were complicit with the leading Christian power, i.e., the United States, and that only American backing kept these Sunni regimes in power. By striking the United States on Sept. 11, al Qaeda wanted to demonstrate that the United States was far more vulnerable than believed, by extension demonstrating that U.S. client regimes were not as powerful as they appeared. This was meant to give the Islamic masses a sense that uprisings against Muslim regimes not dedicated to Shariah could succeed. In their view, any American military response — an inevitability after 9/11 — would further incite the Muslim masses rather than intimidate them.

The last eight years of war have ultimately been disappointing to the jihadists, however. Rather than a massive uprising in the Muslim world, not a single regime has been replaced with a jihadist regime. The primary reason has been that Muslim regimes allied with the United States decided they had more to fear from the jihadists than from the Americans, and chose to use their intelligence and political power to attack and suppress the jihadists. In other words, rather than trigger an uprising, the jihadists generated a strengthened anti-jihadist response from existing Muslim states. The spoiling attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in other countries in the Horn of Africa and North Africa, generated some support for the jihadists, but that support has since diminished and the spoiling attacks have disrupted these countries sufficiently to make them unsuitable as bases of operation for anything more than local attacks. In other words, the attacks tied the jihadists up in local conflicts, diverting them from operations against the United States and Europe.

Under this intense pressure, the jihadist movement has fragmented, though it continues to exist. Incapable of decisive action at the moment, it has goals beyond surviving as a fragmented entity, albeit with some fairly substantial fragments. And it is caught on the horns of a strategic dilemma.

Operationally, jihadists continue to be engaged against the United States. In Afghanistan, the jihadist movement is relying on the Taliban to tie down and weaken American forces. In Iraq, the remnants of the jihadist movement are doing what they can to shatter the U.S.-sponsored coalition government in Baghdad and further tie down American forces by attacking Shiites and key members of the Sunni community. Outside these two theaters, the jihadists are working to attack existing Muslim governments collaborating with the United States — particularly Pakistan — but with periodic attacks striking other Muslim states.

These attacks represent the fragmentation of the jihadists. Their ability to project power is limited. By default, they have accordingly adopted a strategy of localism, in which their primary intent is to strike existing governments while simultaneously tying down American forces in a hopeless attempt to stabilize the situation.

The strategic dilemma is this: The United States is engaged in a spoiling action with the primary aim of creating conditions in which jihadists are bottled up fighting indigenous forces rather than being free to plan attacks on the United States or systematically try to pull down existing regimes. And the current jihadist strategy plays directly into American hands. First, the attacks recruit Muslim regimes into deploying their intelligence and security forces against the jihadists, which is precisely what the United States wants. Secondly, it shifts jihadist strength away from transnational actions to local actions, which is also what the United States wants. These local attacks, which kill mostly Muslims, also serve to alienate many Muslims from the jihadists.

The jihadists are currently playing directly into U.S. hands because, rhetoric aside, the United States cannot regard instability in the Islamic world as a problem. Let’s be more precise on this: An ideal outcome for the United States would be the creation of stable, pro-American regimes in the region eager and able to attack and destroy jihadist networks. There are some regimes in the region like this, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The probability of creating such stable, eager and capable regimes in places like Iraq or Afghanistan is unlikely in the extreme. The second-best outcome for the United States involves a conflict in which the primary forces battling — and neutralizing — each other are Muslim, with the American forces in a secondary role. This has been achieved to some extent in Iraq. Obama’s goal is to create a situation in Afghanistan in which Afghan government forces engage Taliban forces with little or no U.S. involvement. Meanwhile, in Pakistan the Americans would like to see an effective effort by Islamabad to suppress jihadists throughout Pakistan. If they cannot get suppression, the United States will settle for a long internal conflict that would tie down the jihadists.

A Self-Defeating Strategy

The jihadists are engaged in a self-defeating strategy when they spread out and act locally. The one goal they must have, and the one outcome the United States fears, is the creation of stable jihadist regimes. The strategy of locally focused terrorism has proved ineffective. It not only fails to mobilize the Islamic masses, it creates substantial coalitions seeking to suppress the jihadists.

The jihadist attack on the United States has failed. The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has reshaped the behavior of regional governments. Fear of instability generated by the war has generated counteractions by regional governments. Contrary to what the jihadists expected or hoped for, there was no mass uprising and therefore no counter to anti-jihadist actions by regimes seeking to placate the United States. The original fear, that the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan would generate massive hostility, was not wrong. But the hostility did not strengthen the jihadists, and instead generated anti-jihadist actions by governments.

From the jihadist point of view, it would seem essential to get the U.S. military out of the region and to relax anti-jihadist actions by regional security forces. Continued sporadic and ineffective action by jihadists achieves nothing and generates forces with which they can’t cope. If the United States withdrew, and existing tensions within countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan were allowed to mature undisturbed, new opportunities might present themselves.

Most significantly, the withdrawal of U.S. troops would strengthen Iran. The jihadists are no friends of Shiite Iran, and neither are Iran’s neighbors. In looking for a tool for political mobilization in the Gulf region or in Afghanistan absent a U.S. presence, the Iranian threat would best serve the jihadists. The Iranian threat combined with the weakness of regional Muslim powers would allow the jihadists to join a religious and nationalist opposition to Tehran. The ability to join religion and nationalism would turn the local focus from something that takes the jihadists away from regime change to something that might take them toward it.

The single most powerful motivator for an American withdrawal would be a period of open quiescence. An openly stated consensus for standing down, in particular because of a diminished terrorist threat, would facilitate something the Obama administration wants most of all: a U.S. withdrawal from the region. Providing the Americans with a justification for leaving would open the door for new possibilities. The jihadists played a hand on 9/11 that they hoped would prove a full house. It turned into a bust. When that happens, you fold your hand and play a new one. And there is always a hand being dealt so long as you have some chips left.

The challenge here is that the jihadists have created a situation in which they have defined their own credibility in terms of their ability to carry out terrorist attacks, however poorly executed or counterproductive they have become. Al Qaeda prime’s endless calls for action have become the strategic foundation for the jihadists: Action has become an end in itself. The manner in which the jihadists have survived as a series of barely connected pods of individuals scattered across continents has denied the United States a center of gravity to strike. It has also turned the jihadists from a semi-organized force into one incapable of defining strategic shifts.

The jihadists’ strategic dilemma is that they have lost the 2001-2008 phase of the war but are not defeated. To begin to recoup, they must shift their strategy. But they lack the means for doing so because of what they have had to do to survive. At the same time, there are other processes in play. The Taliban, which has even more reason to want the United States out of Afghanistan, might shift to an anti-jihadist strategy: It could liquidate al Qaeda, return to power in Afghanistan and then reconsider its strategy later. So, too, in other areas.

From the U.S. point of view, an open retreat by the jihadists would provide short-term relief but long-term problems. The moment when the enemy sues for peace is the moment when the pressure should be increased rather than decreased. But direct U.S. interests in the region are so minimal that a more distant terrorist threat will be handled in a more distant future. As the jihadists are too fragmented to take strategic positions, U.S. pressure will continue in any event.

Oddly enough, as much as the United States is uncomfortable in the position it is in, the jihadists are in a much worse position.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091207_ji...ontent=readmore

It's a system, called the myth of redemptive violence and almost universal - of believing that "God" wants citizens to kill the enemy, as defined by national leaders. That is demonic, and insane - like nuclear and conventional war.

So which war solved Communism?

I think it was called "The Cold War".

Must be news to the Chinese.

But then they or the Soviets weren't really Communist were/are they?

Totalitarian? What ever, still the majority governed by a favoured few.

Still, at least we get to vote for the people who shaft us.

China today is much, much different than during the Cold War or the USSR. I lived there two months this time last year and capitalism is everywhere.

Please can we just live together without all the BS from governements and media?

We all are humans living on the same planet.

Hopefully trying to help eachother.

Think common sense.

You do not need some religion to understand how to be nice to others do you?

Stop blaming others and start being nice to your fellow humans whatever they wear, think or look.

So how many lanes do you want on that bridge to Hawaii?

Please can we just live together without all the BS from governements and media?

We all are humans living on the same planet.

Hopefully trying to help eachother.

Think common sense.

You do not need some religion to understand how to be nice to others do you?

Stop blaming others and start being nice to your fellow humans whatever they wear, think or look.

If it bothers you then maybe you should stay away from the Bedlam forum?

So how many lanes do you want on that bridge to Hawaii?

I thought that was a good joke too.

It's a system, called the myth of redemptive violence and almost universal - of believing that "God" wants citizens to kill the enemy, as defined by national leaders. That is demonic, and insane - like nuclear and conventional war.

The British ended slavery in their colonies without war. ww1 created Nazi totalitarianism. ww2 left Communism to control countless countries. The USA did not need to wage a civil war to free the slaves; nor rebel against England to be free. Nor was war needed to eliminate child labor, give women the vote, free India, etc. As MLK Jr said, "WAR IS IMMORAL."

"WAR IS IMMORAL."

Morals are merely a matter of opinion and thus only mean something to the moraliser and others that share that opinion.

"WAR IS IMMORAL."

Morals are merely a matter of opinion and thus only mean something to the moraliser and others that share that opinion.

True enough. Yet as the pacifist indigenous woman asked the invading general who commanded an army of soldiers who carried the same military weapons that had just killed her family (they were all Catholics in this story), "Sir, you are the enemy - have you no morals?"

War

What is it good for?

Absolutely Nothing

1969 that song was out by Edwin Starr

Vietnam ....Look at the hardware & ordinance US military dropped on that tiny country

In the end what was the prize?

Anyone seriously think Iraq/Afghanistan will be any different?

Watch this actual footage.

Do you believe what they are saying?

100% certain its a weapon? In a ploughed field?

You can see the man jumping across the furrows.

Watch when they open on the two behind the tractor in the field.

Why fire on an obvious waving of a flag?

Why wave?

Now watch the guy under the truck does he also wave?

Does the AH6 operator say he is wounded?...yes

Do they need to continue? Obviously as they did.

That's atrocious and contravenes the Geneva Convention in more than one way.

I'm sure it's not an isloated incident either and stands as yet another example of why US troops are despised.

I say "despised" instead of feared.

A long item, possibly a weapon, became "positively" weaponS.

A wounded man, confirmed to be wounded, was ordered to be "smoked".

They're a bunch of cowardly bastards.

That's atrocious and contravenes the Geneva Convention in more than one way.

I'm sure it's not an isolated incident either

You can bet the farm on that as your right.

Same reason why waterboarding is allowed at Gitmo.

technicalities ........ Where the prison is etc...not a declared war etc.... yada yada yada

Torture is torture

But at the same time villages have been levelled & called collateral damages.

There was a show called Generation Kill

in it were US troops in Iraq.

Many of the young guys now like to carry a video camera & a lot of footage gets released onto the web.

For better or worse

In many ways it is good though that folks see with their own eyes. Rather than some news reporter giving body counts only.

Ahhhh, and the news reporters are "embedded" or they don't get to go to the hot-spots.

I think it is fair to say that embedded journalists are either directly or implicitly advised to toe the Army line.

That's atrocious and contravenes the Geneva Convention in more than one way.

I'm sure it's not an isloated incident either and stands as yet another example of why US troops are despised.

I say "despised" instead of feared.

A long item, possibly a weapon, became "positively" weaponS.

A wounded man, confirmed to be wounded, was ordered to be "smoked".

They're a bunch of cowardly bastards.

Without knowing the full story leading up to the point in the video I wouldn't pass judgement. Was the helicopter just flying by and saw the two men standing in the road? Or were they called in because someone was taking fire from the area where the men were? Maybe the original location of the video gives the back story.

flying: What "obvious waving of a flag" are you talking about? I didn't see it. The pilot is 100% sure it was a weapon and you are probably 100% sure someone was waving a flag. Maybe you both are seeing what you want. BTW - going back and watching the video over and over to be sure is not a luxury the pilot had at the time.

All that being said, I can't be certain it is a weapon that he throws in the field but whatever it is, why is it glowing from heat? Why does that "tractor" have something glowing on it that looks like it could be a barrel of some kind? Answer - probably because they have recently been fired.

I think it's something that's part of war.

The attitude is "better for us to be making mistakes and killing people here than them making mistakes in our country and killing our people".

It's nowhere near right, but unfortunately people with guns and bombs in the sky have been killing innocent people almost since there have been aircraft.

flying: What "obvious waving of a flag" are you talking about? I didn't see it. The pilot is 100% sure it was a weapon and you are probably 100% sure someone was waving a flag. Maybe you both are seeing what you want. BTW - going back and watching the video over and over to be sure is not a luxury the pilot had at the time.

If you watch at 2:30 minutes you will see the flag waved from behind the tractor.

After they shoot the first guy then at 2:30 minutes the guy behind the tractor waves a flag frantically after seeing the first guy shot.

You can tell obviously that the copter is some distance off. Obvious because the first burst they did not have the laser sight set. They fired & you see it did not make the man in the the field even jump or run. He was not even aware of the shots fired. That was at 2:11

Notice the guys are not scattering for cover as they do not even know they are fired upon. He walks back to the tractor.

At 2:29 he is killed as he walks away from the tractor. Then at 2:30-2:32 the 2nd guy seeing what has happened waves the flag like crazy out the left side of the tractor...He is then also shot.

How about at 3:05 is it not obvious to anyone the man crawling away from the truck is wounded? Even the gunners know it.

Then what?

It is one film in many films.

As for heat etc. They are using standard night vision not heat vision. But the tractor looks pretty plain with the smoke/exhaust stack going straight up & the blade out front.

In any case as I said just another in many videos.

But my original intent was....What is it good for?

Three men a truck a tractor & a car.

Someone throws a pipe/weapon/who knows what in a field

Three dead in spite of #2 waving & #3 crawling

Good days work?

I think it's something that's part of war.

The attitude is "better for us to be making mistakes and killing people here than them making mistakes in our country and killing our people".

It's nowhere near right, but unfortunately people with guns and bombs in the sky have been killing innocent people almost since there have been aircraft.

Sure .......But in the past there were clear lines.

They seem to be gone now. You know the torture that took place at Gitmo was so horrendous that

President Obama in his infinite wisdom reversed his pledge to release the pictures & refused to release the photos.

The reason he gave Releasing Images of Detainee Mistreatment Would Endanger U.S. Troops

In fact here is his direct quote

"The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," Obama said yesterday. "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger."

Correct me if I am wrong but is the US not the government that chased Nazi war criminals for 50 years based on the torture & atrocities they committed? During an actual war & yet during this so called war on Terror the very same government suppresses such info on torture committed by the US Military?

Why? Different War? How about the War on Drugs? Are we over that now? Must be because the soldiers walk through poppy fields & do not use a flame thrower on them. Oh does that have anything to do with the President of Afghanistan Karzai & his brother being the biggest drug lords there? Did the New York Times not report they are both on the CIA payroll?

They better be cautious as they are on the same payroll that once fed Saddam & Bin Laden. CIA darlings have a way of wearing out their attraction/usefulness to the US Military & the CIA

I have a problem with situational morals & the US Military/CIA/Blackwater et al have them in spades