Gryphon
Dr. Spots
Delivering Democracy from 30,000ft
Posted by kennedy121 on May 10, 2009
- Reaping the rewards of democracy
The Obama administration and its allies in Afghanistan continue to escalate George Bush’s good fight in the name of bringing democracy to the people of Afghanistan. Obviously in this case greater democracy promotion translates into record numbers of bombs dropped last month;
In the past month, warplanes released 438 bombs, the most ever.
April also marked the fourth consecutive month that the number of bombs dropped rose, after a decline starting last July.
The munitions were released during 2,110 close-air support sorties.
The actual number of airstrikes was higher because the AFCent numbers don’t include attacks by helicopters and special operations gunships. The numbers also don’t include strafing runs or launches of small missiles.”
George must be proud.
Gryphon said
Kennedy, thanks so much for picking up my slack here.
I think you know that I would agree that bombing during a war is not actually an effective way to promote democracy but is in fact serving another purpose. Democracy may follow but the premise of bombing for democracy is unsound. It is now and it was 40 years ago. But it sounds good for political purposes opposed to democracy, so I understand it’s use here.
It’s called among other things a Strawman Argument. It is stated that the other side in the debate is doing something that they never claimed to be doing because it is an easy target for attack. It is like LBJ telling campaign workers in his Texas state senate race to spread the word that his opponent was having carnal relations with his swine livestock.
A campaign worker replied, “Do you think people will really believe he’s a Pig F**ker?”
LBJ answered, “No of course not. But let’s hear him deny it.”
So, will people believe that the US administration is “bombing to promote peace.” No, but it makes good sarcastic press. And if the question is directly addressed it leads nowhere. Instead lets talk about why they really are bombing. It still may not be a good reason and it might, But facetious assertions does not further the discussion. It shuts it down.
Like I said, Kennedy. I appreciate you picking up the slack for me here. It’s been a strange few days. I’ll be back in the next couple of days and do some posting of my own.
I have a great commentary about how the British P.M. is getting gang raped by parliament.
Much Love,
Gryph
kennedy121 said
“Instead lets talk about why they really are bombing.”
The US military and their allies are ineffective? The countries civilians are merely distant ‘collatoral’ damage and stats to people who don’t really give a toss about them? Dare I claim there may be a hint of racism involved (not on the surface level…kind of a ‘these people are so backward, they don’t really matter’ kind of attitude?
Or perhaps it’s just because NATO can bomb that they do? ‘I bomb, therefore I am’ could be NATO’s new moto.
And yes, Gordon Brown has been a dead man walking about 1 month after entering office unelected in 2007. We don’t have set term limits, and we also don’t have set election dates, as you prob know. He can call an election anytime, with the campaign then taking 6 weeks after that. You have to have an election legally at some point up to 5 yrs after the last (or at least that’s when parliament has to be dissolved by). Anyway, he’ll probably wait as long as allowed, which would be June next year. Unless he single handedly saves the world economy and cures every sick child on the planet, he’s gone. He also has comitted a string of gaffes recently, such as his party members claiming expenses for toilet seats, bath plugs and the like, having a pic taken in front of a swastika, smiling like a lunatic in a Youtube vid and so much more I’d get RSI typing it out!!
I look forward to the post!
Gryphon said
The US military and allies are ineffective? That’s a question? I don’t recall saying it if it is, (without rereading my comment) and it sounds nothing like something I would say.
No I don’t think it’s racism Ken, but that is another good strawman, isn’t it?
Afghan, was the logical and reasonable target after 9/11 and now that we are drawing down Iraq and the ones opposed to Iraq have little argument against our presence there it only makes sense for the opponents of the U.S. to go after our involvement in Afghan. Whether Iraq was justified is another question though. I say yes. You and others may say no, but it is MUCH more arguable than presence in Afghan. Please no more dead baby photos, eh?
You’re stealing Doc’s lead.
WHAT? No vote for favorite duck?
kennedy121 said
I’m not sure which dead baby photos you’re referring to…I haven’t posted any on my own blog or yours (with exception to those during the Israeli attack on Palestine early this yr). Also, if I were to do so, I’d only do it with the idea in mind that people in the west (especially the UK and US who cause a hell of a lot of deaths) should stop practicing cognitive dissonance and face up to the realities of our governments’ actions. Rather than wearing Obama t-shirts, people should see what his administration is doing elsewhere…and yes, get angry and protest. If seeing pics of dead children makes them angry and question the legitimacy of their government, my job is done.
“It’s called among other things a Strawman Argument. It is stated that the other side in the debate is doing something that they never claimed to be doing because it is an easy target for attack”
Well bombing seems to be a crucial part of NATO’s war effort in Afghanistan. NATO claim to be there to stabalise the country, get rid of the Taliban and promote democracy. Ergo, NATO are using military means (including bombing) to promote democracy. In other situations, where it is A) works and B) Is somehwat justified (ie, bombing Nazi Germany which had been attacking allied nations for years) it could be a workable strategy. In Afhganistan, a NATION (nevermind any organisations acting within it) that posed no threat to the US whatsoever, bombing doesn’t seem to help in the promotion of democracy or stabalisation, but we’re told the war (which includes bombing) must be escalated.
One interesting piece of information most people overlook is how the Taliban offered negotiations to the US after 9/11 (knowing they’d be attacked so wishing to save their skins) regarding the hand over of Osama Bin Laden. This to me highlights the realities of why we’re in Afghanistan. The Taliban were allowed to rule with an iron fist for years, and the US gov barely bothered to extract Bin Laden by non-military means. The whole thing was a show of force on the part of the Bush admin (with Dem support) to ensure nations such as China, Russia and middle size mid-East powers were aware no one F***s with US interests. Basically a reassertion of its hegemonic power. Oh, and it offered great geopolitical advantages such as a Mid East strategic springboard and oil/gas pipeline redirection away from Russian influence.
I’ll find you the source for the Taliban/Bin Laden negotiation offer if you want, it’s in one of my books somewhere!
Gryphon said
“(with exception to those during the Israeli attack on Palestine early this yr)” Yep. Those are the ones to which I was referring.
“In Afhganistan, a NATION (nevermind any organisations acting within it) that posed no threat to the US whatsoever” A LOT of people on both sides of the fence beg to differ. Afghan (the Taliban) gave vital aid and support to Al Qaeda (something that we have failed to discuss). Afghanistan was always the logical target for our attack. “The friend of my enemy is my enemy.”
If you gave material support to the man who killed my wife, son, daughter, husband, father, mother (as afghanistan did prior to 9/11 and then SHELTERED him afterward, do you not think I will not come into your house with all force necessary to get him AND you?
“The whole thing was a show of force on the part of the Bush admin (with Dem support) to ensure nations such as China, Russia and middle size mid-East powers were aware no one F***s with US interests. Basically a reassertion of its hegemonic power. Oh, and it offered great geopolitical advantages such as a Mid East strategic springboard and oil/gas pipeline redirection away from Russian influence.”
Now, you’re talking more along the lines of what I was thinking. There are vital national interests at stake in these words. That was a big part of it. BUT, you should not, and the whole “nation” of the U.S. could not, and should not forget that WAR was declared on the U.S. from within the borders of Afghanistan when 3 jet liners attacked targets in the U.S. and killed many many many of THIS nation’s citizens
res ipsa loquitur.
kennedy121 said
“The US military and allies are ineffective? That’s a question? I don’t recall saying it if it is, (without rereading my comment) and it sounds nothing like something I would say.”
Oh no, that was my response to your question why NATO is bombing…because the NATO allies have been pathetically ineffective fighting on the ground, so have resorted to taking the Taliban on with fighter jets 30,000 feet up. Obviously a military force of poorly trained and low quality fighters must resort to such technologies as they have no chance on the ground (one of the best examples being the major cock ups by the US and British fighting in Helmand, a Taliban stronghold and somewhere other NATO nations wont touch with a barge pole).
Gryphon said
I never asked why anyone was bombing, Ken. Including and most importantly NATO. I know why. A review of my statements above bears me out.
Including the statement as a question makes it appear as though I asked it. I didn’t.
I have no confusion in this debate.
Gryphon said
And you STILL haven’t answered the duck poll! *tapping foot*