What is Digg?88 Comments
- alienufo, on 10/27/2009, -3/+43Excellent article. Good for him for standing up for what is right.
- Cowlesy, on 10/27/2009, -3/+32Mr. Hoh is a brave man to speak his mind when people like Holbrooke clearly wish him not to do so.
- workaround4u, on 10/27/2009, -6/+32I'm beginning to believe that our troops should come home, from both Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever the choice, I wish Obama would either ***** or get off the pot.
- edgarreyes, on 10/28/2009, -1/+18as a former Marine and veteran of the current Iraqi war, I support Mr. Hoh. He is in the position to actually be able to resign and quit his posts for what he believes in based on what he has seen firsthand. It is easy to say that Army soldiers or Marines just follow orders without thinking, but the truth is, the other option is to face prison time for refusing to following orders.
- pagemap, on 10/28/2009, -0/+13Thanks for your service.
- nepidae, on 10/28/2009, -2/+15WAR IS PEACE
- bellasmom2, on 10/27/2009, -7/+20Doesn't Mr. Hoh understand, Obama is doing some serious thinking on this. He has it all under control.
- StopTheLie, on 10/28/2009, -8/+18“We have an obligation to every last victim of this illegal aggression because all of this carnage has been done in our name.
Since WW2, 90% of the casualties of war are unarmed civilians, a third of them children. Our victims have done nothing to us. From Palestine to Afghanistan, Iraq to Somalia, to wherever our (‘leaders’) next target may be, their murders are NOT ‘collateral damage,’ they are the nature of modern warfare. They don’t ‘hate us because of our freedoms,’ they hate us because every day we are funding and committing crimes against humanity.
…Today we know the truth. Our soldiers do not sacrifice for ‘duty, honor, and country’ they sacrifice for Kellogg Brown and Root. They don’t ‘fight for America,’ they fight for their lives and their buddies beside them because (our leaders) put them in a warzone. They’re not ‘defending our freedom,’ they’re laying the foundation for 14 permanent military bases to ‘defend the freedom’ of Exxon Mobile and British Petroleum. They’re not establishing ‘democracy,’ they’re establishing the basis for an economic occupation to continue after the military occupation has ended.
…We must dare to speak out in support of those American war-resistors, the real military heroes, who uphold their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against ‘all enemies, foreign and domestic’ including those ‘terrorist cells’ in Washington DC more commonly known as the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. ...'Power concedes nothing without a demand.' "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsrMzfhdmkU - Barackalypse, on 10/28/2009, -2/+11I'd prefer a President of any party that takes 31 days of vacation a month and can't sign his name.
- kingp43, on 10/28/2009, -3/+12Care to mention what this "huge amount of change and progress" consists of?
- antonio97b, on 10/28/2009, -0/+8he supported the Afghan war during the campaign.
- lead2thehead, on 10/28/2009, -0/+7I remember hearing something about fixing the economy too.
- Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -6/+13Who ever suggested that Marines were lobotomized hunks of meat?
It's one thing to oppose the administration, but it's another to disrespect our troops.
You should be ashamed of yourself. - ObamaYouth, on 10/28/2009, -0/+7Now that is a man, I don't care what his last name is.
- Barackalypse, on 10/28/2009, -1/+8This isn't about "policy preferences", this is about the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans serving on the front lines of a war many of them no longer believe in and that we don't seem to be winning. This is about the lives of tens of millions of citizens of nations we are an occupying force in. I don't give a crap what best serves the interests of the President, I care what serves the best interests of our Country, and IU guarantee you that having men and women of integrity and conviction leaving does not help our cause any (since it leaves us with the morons and the cowards that got us into this mess and have proven incapable of changing how they act based on past failures).
- Spindig, on 10/28/2009, -0/+5Actually the parents of children in the war are the ones now speaking the loudest about it. They are worried about their children in a war that is not being given any direction or support.
- LinuxPerson, on 10/28/2009, -3/+8Obama has made plenty of decisions about the war, he just seems indecisive on the surface. If I'm not mistaken, he just ordered another 20,000+ troops to Afghanistan. I think that brings us to approximately 40,000 more troops in the Middle East since the day Bush left office.
- HHP2K, on 10/28/2009, -4/+8Did anyone else double-take on that headline after reading what they thought said "U.S. Resigns from the Afghan War"?
- edgarreyes, on 10/28/2009, -0/+4Once you sign the contract, you owe the government 8 years, 4 active and 4 inactive at which any point they can call your ass up until the last day of your 8th year.
The military is not like a normal job where you can quit. You sign a contract and the government provides you training and benefits since day one, no questions asked, provided you give them service no questions asked.
Unfortunately, most people that sign up don't find out that being patriotic and the military isn't all that it's cracked up to be until it's too late. - LinuxPerson, on 10/28/2009, -0/+4Actually, early in his campaign he was promising to end the wars within a short period of time after taking office. As time went on, however, he changed his tune and started to extend his "deadline" so-to-speak.
That said, anybody who understands how MSM works should realize that those who are promoted are very likely the same people who will continue the status quo. In other words, anybody with an ounce of common sense has known all along that Obama would not be ending the wars. - Pareille, on 10/28/2009, -2/+6
Yawn.
How predictable that a knee-jerk reactionary would misunderstand my post.
I was pointing out that they do NOT have to be like that, Mr. Hannity.
Men who harm women, children and animals, poison water systems, and wreak general chaos on the land for reasons they do not understand ...just because orders have been given ...no I do not respect those men and I never will.
Digg me down all you want, war pimps. I will wear that as a badge of honor. - lead2thehead, on 10/28/2009, -8/+12Don't worry. Obama said he would end the war.
... any second now. - jdmgomoo, on 10/27/2009, -17/+21This is Obama's plan. Don't make a decision about troop levels and just let the problem just work itself out.
Then he can't be directly responsible for the outcome.
It's called "fixing the glitch", he must be a student of "Office Space". True leadership, he's got management written all over him. - Pareille, on 10/28/2009, -0/+3
I've already done so, twice. - DarkRellik, on 10/28/2009, -2/+5Why did I get dug down? Is it because I'm telling the truth? You can run away from reality, but the cold hard truth is there are people out there who harbor negative feelings towards the US and might engage in violence, once within the country. National security isn't just some made up mumbo jumbo - it's a necessary evil and it's been with you your whole life. For example, the only reason gangs aren't overrunning the cities is because you have a paid police force to keep law & order.
- inactive, on 10/28/2009, -5/+8that's a very popular misconception. people THINK he said he would end the war, but he actually said the opposite. he won the election based on misconceptions.
- DarkRellik, on 10/28/2009, -5/+8What the US needs to do is organize a massive Offensive, and try to get non NATO members (Brazil, Russia, India, etc) to participate. I'm talking about a huge Operation Barbarossa-styled offensive deep into the Afghani heartland. Matthew Hoh is right because we have been "fighting the war on the cheap." If we want to win this war, and not lose our national security, we need about 2 million more boots on the ground ASAP. We need to, at the very least, establish a clear defensive line on the border of Afghanistan/Pakistan to seal the Taliban's little escape hatch. Everybody knows this half assed strategy doesn't work! But if we abandon Afghanistan; if we abandon freedom - I think the shame will be too great for too many.
- Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -0/+3Uhmm, well you didn't technically write, "See, this shows..." but that doesn't change the meaning of the examples whatsoever, and I will also "sprinkle in" the observation that I don't think even you are so dumb as to not realize this. So please stop being disingenuous just to defend the indefensible. You might try apologizing instead.
My use of "everyone" was clearly in a rhetorical context. But just curious, how many people need to post before you know the difference between right and wrong?
And I don't consider taking some of my evening to correct someone willing to take a dump on the heads of teenagers putting their lives in danger because they took an oath "leisure time," and I'm sorry to see that you remain so flip about it. - Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -0/+3@Pareille:
Hmm, I'm beginning to think you actually might not realize what you wrote. Okay, so we'll take this slowly. By comparison:
If, as a follow-up to an article about Cindy Sheehan, I had written:
"See, this shows that women can be more than empty-headed little sex dolls, stuck in the kitchen cooking for their husband. This woman did what I sincerely hope others will do."
Everyone would rightly stop and say, "Uhmm, that's great that you support her and all, but what's all that crap about women being empty-headed sex dolls?"
When Barack Obama was elected President did you post that this shows that black people can be more than uneducated, single-parent, lazy welfare recipients?
But...But...I wrote that black people did not have to be that! Why is everyone yelling at me?!
See, there are certain ways of saying things in which you say more with your premise than with your conclusion.
Eight-grade writing composition lesson over.
And, further supporting my theory that you have a unique form of reading comprehension problem that only applies to your own posts -- I am not the one who raised the "totally bogus paradigm of left vs. right" you did, when you responded by calling me a "knee-jerk reactionary" and, quite cleverly, "Mr. Hannity."
There are challenges to having a discussion with me, but most of them have to do with you keeping track of what's falling out of your own mouth. - jpete71chevmal, on 10/28/2009, -0/+3Because he had inside information over what BHO's (non)strategy would be?
- inactive, on 10/28/2009, -1/+4Ryan32, why? so some aghan civilian whose kids where brutally murdered by US troops could take his revenge on me?
- pilzburybizkit, on 10/28/2009, -6/+8Die.
- le0pardess, on 10/28/2009, -2/+4@ paulvq and trig-Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. Good job
- Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -7/+9As evidenced by this statement?
""We took his letter very seriously, because he was a good officer," Holbrooke said in an interview"
Wow, he really seems to be orchestrating a cover-up.
The Bush/Cheney administration would have had him in Guantanamo by now. - Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -2/+4You said, "I think you are a lobotomized hunk of meat, but I also think that there are things you can do to show me that you aren't," directly to a Marine? Twice?
That's pretty ***** rude, even when speaking a lobotomized hunk of meat. - downs1, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1Wars are indeed political, but they are started for a reason. Unfortunately, as time passes, people forget why we're fighting. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were started following 9/11. Terrorists were being trained and exported from these countries. They still are. The problem is that those who are fighting the war from Washington and the other capitals don't really put the resources into the war that are required to win. The rules of engagement are so strict they often prevent the military from achieving victory. Then you have those who are never really want victory regardless of the rationale for fighting the war. Instead of backing their own military, they call them murderers and accuse them of killing women and children. It doesn't matter that in these two wars that the militant Islamics are the ones who are blowing up their own people. It doesn't really matter that US troops have repeatedly provided protection to civilians and have helped them survive their own national terrorists and executioners. This is conveniently forgotten while our own military is made to look like the bad guys by idiots like John Murtha, John Kerry, Harry Reid and other liberals in "leadership". It doesn't matter that every day, the Palestinians are firing rockets into Israel and the world ignores this, but when Isreal says, "Enough!" and goes after Hamas, or Hezbolla or the Palestinians who perpetrate these attacks, they are branded "war criminals" by the UN and others. Some of you liberals have no idea what you're saying. But you will when you experience the same kind of terror here. It's coming because some people simply don't have the guts to stand against it. They want something for nothing, and they feel the world owes them something. They deny, put down or destroy the very things that could bring peace and security. Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and it isn't what most of you think. He is systematically dismantling this country constitutionally, educationally, economically, socially, industrially and health care wise, and you all will suffer from it. His "apparent" fiscal irresponsibility will set the stage for our downfall. What will you do when he bankrupts us, hamstrings our military, forms his own radical "civilian security forces" which he has alluded to [like the Brown Shirts in Nazi Germany or the Red Guard in China under Mao] and brings in UN troops to help control the populace here because of unrest. He already wants to disarm the people so it will be easier to accomplish a total takeover. Is that what you want? Then who will you blame? George Bush?!
- jdmgomoo, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1General McChrystal (Obama's general on the ground) warns that unless he is provided more forces and a robust counterinsurgency strategy, the war in Afghanistan is most likely lost.
On August 30th!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/world/asia/21afg ...
October was the most deadly month in Afghanistan
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/oct/28/oct ...
While Obama takes his sweet time Americans are dieing. My point is that this is his strategy, if he waits long enough he may not have to make the difficult choice.
And stop bring back Bush, Obama said himself on Mar 23, 2009 ... "Afghanistan Mission Critical to Protecting United States"
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?i ...
Either he is a deer in the headlights or he is waiting for the "glitch to work itself out"
Put down the kool-aid and look at the facts. Either get us out of there or do what is needed to win. Meanwhile people are dieing while he works hard on is handicap. - noahhoward, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1Even your best general on the ground doesn't have all the details. He is on the ground, he is dependent on other sources for his information. He does not always know best.
- zephc, on 10/28/2009, -4/+5Our approach to Afghanistan was a mistake from Day 1. Actually, our involvement there has been a mistake for decades.
The question now is: do we have the hubris to think we have a plan that can change things there, or will it be better if we leave it alone, let it destabilize and later re-stabilize itself? Either way, there will be a mess of death and pain before it's all said and done. - Lemethe, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1Let me try to explain one point, the two party system is a failure. The
fact that our politics can be easily explained on a grid where opposing
axis represent economic freedom and social freedom respectively and
decided upon by only two groups should be a red flag to anyone.
I will refer you to this graph:
http://jph3.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/grid.gif
The x axis is economic freedom
The y axis is social freedom
The exploitation is simple. Both parties should align themselves with
one quadrant of the graph. Then they can mutually agree to ignore all
concerns which come from the two remaining political quadrants. In our
current case we have the upper right quadrant (republicans) and the
bottom left quadrant (democrats). The both mutually agree to ignore the
libertarians and the populists (say who?). They can agree on these
things because it serves both of their self interests.
But there is another more important point here.
The two party system will always lead to alienation of the people from
their government as the two parties will consciously or unconsciously
agree to a political stalemate OR their actions being nothing different
from centrist. In a nutshell there is no challenger to the stagnant
behavior of a two sided debate over a four sided problem. - noahhoward, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1If he belived that he would have taken the job and tried to fix the problem. It is about policy, it was about policy he did not like, policy he was asked to help fix, and policy he's decided to leave the same.
- noahhoward, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1*****, he was GIVEN the opportunity to MAKE the god-damned policy over. He was just one cog in the machine and the machine LISTENED for the first time I can remember ever happening they actually sought him out and handed him the tool he needed to fix things.
- jpete71chevmal, on 10/28/2009, -2/+3Because trying to "fight from within" is as futile as the war in Afghanistan. He's just one cog in the machine. By resigning in a high profile way, he gets his opinion all over the news and possibly demonstrates to someone else that there is an alternative to quietly trying to convince your superior of something that he has already made his mind up against.
- noahhoward, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1How big of a ***** moron do you need to be to think you just 'make a decision' about something like this? We're not talking about where to take the family on vacation, or where to go for dinner. We're talking about a move that will impact the lives of our troops, future of an entire nation, and the long term stability of the region. Is it our business, no, but some ***** ***** got us there and left us to find our own way out. You can't just ***** jump to call on that. It's also not the only thing he has to take care of.
I'd like to see you even produce some solid reasoning on the issue in a week. - Pareille, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1
edgarreyes,
All the more valuable, coming from one such as yourself !
That is what makes this an example of TRUE courage. - Pareille, on 10/28/2009, -1/+2
I believe CySailor is being sarcastic and I appreciate the sarcasm actually. - Trigonometron, on 10/28/2009, -2/+3"I didn't vote for Obama to end the war. I voted for him to not hear Palin's ignorant ass make the U.S. look like a bunch of Target patrons once she assumed command after McCain had a stroke in his 2nd term."
-John Titor
footnote: Titor claimed that in 2024, Target overtook Costco and Walmart as the largest retailer in the world. The dates seem to be disputable, based on assumed differences in Titor's timeline vs our own. - antonio97b, on 10/28/2009, -1/+2funny how I'm being dugg down but no one is saying anything to counter my arguement.
- lukedamonkey, on 10/28/2009, -1/+2"I am far more left than you"
I lol'd -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 