POL-pourri

[wanna be drummer]

No, that's the UN.

I agree

Which part of NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organisation don't you understand? That's NATO's area of concern.

You want Nato to mess about in Africa? The Middle East? Asia?

Nah, that's the UN's problem. Not NATO's.

NATO kept the Soviet bear at bay for 50 years mate and it doesn't really have much to occupy itself now that the Cold War is long over. There's really not much call for NATO to get involved in anything. It has done it's job well.

They haven't done shit in recent memory. The Balkans are still fucked up. They never finished fixing it up. They do nothing

[Del Zeppnile]

No, that's the UN.

Which part of NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organisation don't you understand? That's NATO's area of concern.

You want Nato to mess about in Africa? The Middle East? Asia?

Nah, that's the UN's problem. Not NATO's.

NATO kept the Soviet bear at bay for 50 years mate and it doesn't really have much to occupy itself now that the Cold War is long over. There's really not much call for NATO to get involved in anything. It has done it's job well.

Actually NATO and the EU are supposed to be taking over peace keeping in Kosovo from the UN very soon if I am not mistaken. Although, I still think it was an error to allow these Albanian trouble makers to have a break away from Serbia as just happend. The Albanians have been behind much of the terrorism that has taken place in the Balkans for decades. And now that NATO is siding with the Islamist enemies they have made a grave error.

My opinion on NATO is that it served it's purpose during the cold war but it has outlived it's usefullness. As an American I believe that we do much better having individual agreements with nations like Poland, the UK and few others who are not polluted by the liberal socialism of some of the other western European nations right now. And as far as Serbia has been, the Russians have been correct in not wanting to decimate one of the last holds of Europe in the Balkan region. Allowing muslim backed regimes is suicide. Tito was right about that, and probably the only communist leader that deserves our thanks for keeping a lid on that shit for half a century.

[Mangani]

My opinion on NATO is that it served it's purpose during the cold war but it has outlived it's usefullness.

I wouldn't disagree with that. As I said, it did it's job for 50 years during the Cold War. There is little for it to do these days. Job done, purpose served.

[Hermit]

They haven't done shit in recent memory. The Balkans are still fucked up. They never finished fixing it up. They do nothing

Perhaps NATO should be dissolved..

..and additional US troops can make up the difference, eh?

You know,.. in the places NATO forces are currently deployed.. like Bosnia..and Darfur..

and Kosovo.. and Iraq.. and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ..and Afghanistan.

..eh?

Edited March 19, 2008 by Hermit

[Del Zeppnile]

Perhaps NATO should be dissolved..

..and additional US troops can make up the difference, eh?

You know,.. in the places NATO forces are currently deployed.. like Bosnia..and Darfur..

and Kosovo.. and Iraq.. and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ..and Afghanistan.

..eh?

Well, you could take them all out of Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia and let the Serbs and Russians fix those problems.

And as far as the rest goes, we don't need NATO to send troops to support the coalition.... we need right thinking countries to just send their own troops.

The think I hate about NATO is that it sometimes puts American soldiers under NATO commanders who are not American. I personally feel that should NEVER be done under any circumstances. The ONLY exception to that would be having American troops under a joint British/American command and that is ALL. I have not much confidence in any other nation's military command structure other than that of our British Allies.

edited to add: I also respect the Israeli military and have full confidence in their abilities as well.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Del Zeppnile

[wanna be drummer]

Perhaps NATO should be dissolved..

..and additional US troops can make up the difference, eh?

You know,.. in the places NATO forces are currently deployed.. like Bosnia..and Darfur..

and Kosovo.. and Iraq.. and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ..and Afghanistan.

..eh?

Why do we have to be in those places in the first place? Aghanistan is the only one on the list that I think we need to be in. Iraq only to a small degree. But Ukraine and Bosnia? No, thats their problem, not ours.

Darfur...maybe. We need to do something, but maybe not military action.

[Hermit]

The thing I hate about NATO is that it sometimes puts American soldiers under NATO commanders who are not American. I personally feel that should NEVER be done under any circumstances. The ONLY exception to that would be having American troops under a joint British/American command and that is ALL. I have not much confidence in any other nation's military command structure other than that of our British Allies.

edited to add: I also respect the Israeli military and have full confidence in their abilities as well.

I totally understand that rationale. It's not a bad point. But if we expect other nations to be willing to put their troops under the command of American generals when we need them, then it seems to me that sometimes it's gotta go the other way too. We expect them to trust our generals with the lives of their troops,.. we gotta turn around and have some trust in the capabilities of the generals of our allies too, don't we?

Not blind trust, mind you.. but informed trust. You know.. actual trust. .. for the greater good of all.

[Mangani]

I personally feel that should NEVER be done under any circumstances. The ONLY exception to that would be having American troops under a joint British/American command and that is ALL. I have not much confidence in any other nation's military command structure other than that of our British Allies.

Cool. I thought you were a British basher.

It doesn't worry me having British troops under U.S or Canadian command. Even German or French (whatever anybody says, they do have great military history and tradition). The Italians on the other hand...............LOL.

[Del Zeppnile]

I totally understand that rationale. It's not a bad point. But if we expect other nations to be willing to put their troops under the command of American generals when we need them, then it seems to me that sometimes it's gotta go the other way too. We expect them to trust our generals with the lives of their troops,.. we gotta turn around and have some trust in the capabilities of the generals of our allies too, don't we?

Not blind trust, mind you.. but informed trust. You know.. actual trust. .. for the greater good of all.

Yes we do expect them to trust our generals, and that is why we usually take the leadership role and are willing to commit more troops and recources to conflicts. I don't however believe that there is or needs to be an even field in regard to command and control. I mentioned the British because they have a well proven record in the last 50+ years of good command and control. I am not convinced that the French, Belgians, Italians and others have the same record... or willingness to be as decisive in battle. If it sounds like I am saying that those nations should be in a subordinate role, then yes that is what I am saying.

Cool. I thought you were a British basher.

It doesn't worry me having British troops under U.S or Canadian command. Even German or French (whatever anybody says, they do have great military history and tradition). The Italians on the other hand...............LOL.

I am not a 'British basher' even if I give out a lot of harsh remarks about the British from time to time.. but usually in response to something a Brit says about my country or our government. Consider it like fighting with a member of the family. I am often much more 'wounded' personally by anti-American remarks coming from the UK (although I also recognize that many are not as 'British' as we think who are making those complaints if you know what I mean). But I certainly recognize the English as being the most necessary part to the success of our "American Experience." Had the French or the Spanish been able to have had a more dominant role in North America, then the outcome would not have been nearly as positive in my opinion.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Del Zeppnile

[Hermit]

Yes we do expect them to trust our generals, and that is why we usually take the leadership role and are willing to commit more troops and recources to conflicts. I don't however believe that there is or needs to be an even field in regard to command and control. I mentioned the British because they have a well proven record in the last 50+ years of good command and control. I am not convinced that the French, Belgians, Italians and others have the same record... or willingness to be as decisive in battle. If it sounds like I am saying that those nations should be in a subordinate role, then yes that is what I am saying.

I don't disagree.

So then, when US General John Shalikashvili was the NATO Commander

in the early 90's (post-Cold War), was NATO acceptable to you then?

[Mangani]

I am not a 'British basher' even if I give out a lot of harsh remarks about the British from time to time.. but usually in response to something a Brit says about my country or our government. Consider it like fighting with a member of the family.

Ok, fair enough. Cool. I just remembered when I pointed out that America has a lot of guns and so unfortunately massacres will occur if nutjobs can easily have access to them. I never said America was wrong for having all those guns and I never said it should be changed. Then suddenly it was "the Queen is crap", "you're not free " "1776" etc etc hehe. I thought you were a British basher.

No problem then.

I am often much more 'wounded' personally by anti-American remarks coming from the UK (although I also recognize that many are not as 'British' as we think who are making those complaints if you know what I mean).

Yes, I know what you mean..................and you are right.

But I certainly recognize the English as being the most necessary part to the success of our "American Experience." Had the French or the Spanish been able to have had a more dominant role in North America, then the outcome would not have been nearly as positive in my opinion.

I make you right. The track record would tend to prove that. Look at South and Central America for proof. To a lesser extent, the French legacies around the world aren't too hot either.

[wanna be drummer]

They've certainly helped the Germans a couple of times

[Hermit]

Barney Frank calls for decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana

Rep. Barney Frank will soon introduce legislation to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, the Massachusetts Democrat said during an appearance on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher."

Frank offered no details on his legislation, and it's not at all clear that he could ever get it to the House floor for a vote. A Frank aide was unaware of his plans other than his statement on HBO.

Frank has introduced legislation in previous years to allow the use of "medical marijuana," although the bills never made it out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Asked by Maher as to why he would push a pot decriminalization bill now, Frank said the American public has already decided that personal use of marijuana is not a problem.

"I now think it's time for the politicians to catch up to the public," Frank said. "The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly. I'm going to call it the 'Make Room for Serious Criminals' bill."

*source*

--------------

Seems reasonable enough to me.

Alcohol is legal, pot should be too.

I don't buy the "gateway drug" rationalization for the prohibition of pot.

Marijuana is no more, and no less, of a "gateway drug" than alcohol.

I'm not entirely sure that pushing (pardon the pun) this issue is

a particularly wise move during a general election year though.

[zepyep]

Barney,...be Frank!

[zepyep]

oh and this,BF is chair of:United States House Committee on Financial Services

And since their is noooooo problem there,I am so glad he is focusing on the real issues,....

KB (welcome to the jungle,we got fun and games)

[Del Zeppnile]

I don't disagree.

So then, when US General John Shalikashvili was the NATO Commander

in the early 90's (post-Cold War), was NATO acceptable to you then?

I believe that the day we decided to go to war with the Serbs against the objections of the Russians and the United Nations Security Council was the day that NATO proved to have outlived it's usefullness. Here we went into war where NO NATO NATION was being threatened and where NO NATO NATION was being supported.

That was totally inconsistent with the NATO charter and our national interests.

[bigstickbonzo]

Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana. Always has been. Always will be.

I think Frank is pushing on the realization by several within the system that as the "Boomers" get older and take over the higher archy of this country, its one law that might have a chance at passing because we all know how the "Boomers" enjoyed their marijuana. I favor the legalization of all drugs, but especially marijuana. Too many people are being incarcerated and labeled as 'criminals' for smoking some herb.

I'd be highly surprised if this made it to the floor of the House.

[ledzeppIV]

Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana. Always has been. Always will be.

I think Frank is pushing on the realization by several within the system that as the "Boomers" get older and take over the higher archy of this country, its one law that might have a chance at passing because we all know how the "Boomers" enjoyed their marijuana. I favor the legalization of all drugs, but especially marijuana. Too many people are being incarcerated and labeled as 'criminals' for smoking some herb.

I'd be highly surprised if this made it to the floor of the House.

It may happen someday. But doubt we will live to see it. Same with sports gambling. The idiots are never going to stop it so why not use it as revenue. That would be too smart.

[Uncle Bill]

I agree with you ICQYB

[bigstickbonzo]

It may happen someday. But doubt we will live to see it.

The real question is whether the 'people' who control the drug trafficking in this country will be overthrown by a ruling for legalization. That includes marijuana. Too many people within the gov't and outside control the drug business. It's really no secret, but won't be addressed publically because for most, its plausible deniability. I certainly see marijuana being either completely 'de-criminalized' or legalized within my lifetime. Cocaine and heroin, the biggest fuel to street gangs in this country, on the other hand-might be more of a lucrative pipedream to think the gov't really wants to give up its strangehold on the trafficking of those drugs.

[Mangani]

Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana. Always has been. Always will be.

But it doesn't go well with a nice meal.............and it does stink to high heaven and annoys the person next to you who isn't doing it.

I'll stick to me booze , thanks.

[Electrophile]

I agree with you ICQYB

Get out of here.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Electrophile

[Hermit]

.

This is MUST SEE for anyone interested in knowing the truth about

the run-up to the Iraq war and the bungling of the war/occupation.

It airs on March 24 & 25, 2008

link --> *Frontline: Bush's War*

From the horror of 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq; the truth about WMD to the rise of an insurgency; the scandal of Abu Ghraib to the strategy of the surge -- for seven years, FRONTLINE has revealed the defining stories of the war on terror in meticulous detail, and the political dramas that played out at the highest levels of power and influence.

Now, on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, the full saga unfolds in the two-part FRONTLINE special Bush's War. Veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk draws on one of the richest archives in broadcast journalism -- more than 40 FRONTLINE reports on Iraq and the war on terror. Combined with fresh reporting and new interviews, Bush's War will be the definitive documentary analysis of one of the most challenging periods in the nation's history.

"Parts of this history have been told before," Kirk says. "But no one has laid out the entire narrative to reveal in one epic story the scope and detail of how this war began and how it has been fought, both on the ground and deep inside the government."

In the fall of 2001, even as America was waging a war in Afghanistan, another hidden war was being waged inside the administration. Part 1 of Bush's War tells the story of this behind-the-scenes battle over whether Iraq would be the next target in the war on terror.

On one side, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet squared off against Vice President Dick Cheney and his longtime ally, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The battles were over policy -- whether to attack Iraq; the role of Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi; how to treat detainees; whether to seek United Nations resolutions; and the value of intelligence suggesting a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks -- but the conflict was deeply personal.

"Friendships were dashed," Powell's deputy Richard Armitage tells FRONTLINE. As the war within the administration heated up, Armitage and Powell concluded that they were being shut out of key decisions by Cheney and Rumsfeld. "The battle of ideas, you generally come up with the best solution. When somebody hijacks the system, then, just like a hijacked airplane, very often no good comes of it," Armitage adds.

Others inside the administration believe they understand the motivation behind some of the vice president's actions. "I think the vice president felt he kind of looked death in the eye on 9/11," former White House counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke says. "Three thousand Americans died. The building that the vice president used to work in blew up, and people died there. This was a cold slap in the face. This is a different world you're living in now. And the enemy's still out there, and the enemy could come after you. That does cause you to think [about] things differently."

More than anything else, the Iraq war will be the lasting legacy of the Bush presidency. Part 2 of Bush's War examines that war -- beginning with the quick American victory in Iraq, the early mistakes that were made, and then recounting the story of how chaos, looting and violence quickly engulfed the country.

As American forces realized they were unprepared for the looting that followed the invasion, plans for a swift withdrawal of troops were put on hold. With only a few weeks' preparation, American administrator L. Paul Bremer was sent to find a political solution to a rapidly deteriorating situation. Bremer's first moves were to disband the Iraqi military and remove members of Saddam Hussein's party from the government. They were decisions that the original head of reconstruction, Gen. Jay Garner (Ret.), begged Bremer to reconsider at the time. Now they are seen by others as one of the first in a series of missteps that would lead Iraq into a full-blown insurgency.

But Bremer has his defenders: "We believed, Bremer believed, and I think the leadership in Washington believed that it was very important to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that whatever else was going to happen, Saddam and his cronies were not coming back," Walter Slocombe, the national security adviser to Bremer, tells FRONTLINE.

Garner was not the only one on the outside. As senior officials complained about inattention at the top, Gen. Tommy Franks and his deputy, Gen. Michael DeLong -- the generals who had planned the war -- found that decisions were being made without them as well.

"All the recommendations that we were making now in the Phase IV part weren't being taken -- weren't being taken by Bremer or Rumsfeld," DeLong tells FRONTLINE. "That's when Franks said, 'I'm done.' They said, 'Well, you'll be chief of staff of the Army.' He said, 'No, I'm done.'"

What followed is well documented: insurgency, sectarian strife, prisoner abuse and growing casualties. But within the administration, a new battle over strategy was being fought -- this one between a new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The clash between America's top diplomat and its chief defense official would go on for more than two years and be settled only after the Republican loss in the 2006 congressional elections. It was then that the president forced Rumsfeld out, ended his strategy of slow withdrawal and ordered a surge of troops. FRONTLINE goes behind closed doors to tell the most recent chapter in this ongoing story, and asks what Bush will leave for a new U.S. president both in Iraq and in the larger war on terror.

------------------------

Here's an excellent *INTERACTIVE TIMELINE*

The entire show can be seen online.. *HERE*

--------------

Preview:

"Bush’s War is lucid, engrossing, infuriating, timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the conflict and arriving on the heels of another grim day of terrible violence in the region (with sad irony, on Easter Sunday)—also the day when the U.S. death toll reached 4,000. This is the sort of program network-news divisions ought to be devoting their resources to. Which is why we should be so thankful to Frontline for being there all along the way.

Building a narrative from an archive of more than 40 Frontline reports (with updated interviews) dating back to the 9/11 attacks through the planning, selling and execution of this war, Bush’s War might more accurately be called “All the President’s Men—and Condi Rice.” Though there is war footage here, this is really the story of the political infighting that got us into this situation and why the end is not in sight. You could almost lose sight of the war against terrorists in all the scorched-earth tactics in the bureaucratic battles between agencies (CIA vs. FBI vs. Department of Defense vs. State Department) and the power-play turf wars and blame games between the (mostly) men in charge, notably Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld against Colin Powell.

It’s a scandal wrapped in a tragedy, with the first night (the build-up to war) a study in arrogance and the second night (shock and awe followed by insurgency) a chronicle of incompetence".

*source*

--------------------

Tune in and.. clue in.

[Uncle Bill]

This is MUST SEE for anyone interested in knowing the truth about

the run-up to the Iraq war and the bungling of the war/occupation.

Keeping in mind this is PBS of course.

[Hermit]

Keeping in mind this is PBS of course.

Yeah,.. of course.

Cuz, you know,.. PBS is so unreliable and all.

By all means please do debunk any claims/facts presented in the show.

..if you can.

--------------------

*Interviews with members of the Bush Administration*

There's nothing like hearing it straight from the horse's-ass's mouth, right?