It's time for me to do another book.
But fortunately for those who don't want, or don't have the time, to
read a book, they have conveniently made it into a movie. My first
reaction was how could they make it better than the book? But then
that's always my first reaction. I have not seen the movie, as it
doesn't come out until October 2, but I see it is starring Matt
Damon. Well, if it's got Matt Damon in it, that alone would
encourage one to give it a look. But it seems that those who have
seen it are giving it some good reviews, so I feel safe in
recommending it.
The book is "The Martian" by Andy
Weir. The plot revolves around a lone astronaut who becomes
stranded on Mars after a severe storm causes NASA to abort the
mission he and his crew mates are on. What was so fascinating for
me was the ingenuity shown by one man who had only himself to rely on
for survival. For someone like me, who never studied science too
seriously in school, the idea that scientific knowledge could be the
skill needed for survival in a thriller was a bit of a revelation. As the review says it is a nerd thriller. But I never found it to drag or bog
down in details that were not integral to the plot line. Or put
another way, there wasn't a lot of filler that I had the desire to
skim over.
I would read the book, but if that
isn't your thing, here is the trailer for the movie.
184 comments:
Shipwrecked on Mars is a fairly old plot. I remember this one playing on the Saturday matinee "B movie" time slots on TV when I was a kid (it was old even then).
Presumably this newest one raises itself out of the "B movie" classification.
I've never heard of that one. I looked at the plot, which is pretty far fetched. But it probably falls in with other films of the genre at the time.
While The Martian has some rather out there scenes, it does seem to be somewhat more realistic. :) And judging by he trailer the film work will look awesome on the big screen.
Houthis release hostages
This story is expected to develop.
I'll say. Inquiring minds want to know...
Interesting piece in Der Spiegel. The author has an unfortunate case of the ‘do something', in this case argued by observing that the inevitable happened anyway, and concluding therefore that the Obama administration should have wasted time and effort trying to prevent the inevitable.
But, other than that, it's an interesting assessment of where things are today.
Just by the way, military losses, just the military, were almost double in our Civil War what the Syrian total (military and civilian) losses have been in Syria to date (as a percentage of total population).
"…almost double…"
Reviewing the math in my head, make that ‘more than double’.
"In interviews, Republican leaders and strategists said that rather
than having a presumptive nominee by early 2016…, it was doubtful
that a candidate would be in place before late spring — or even
before Republicans gather for their convention in Cleveland in July.
***
"In the starkest sign of how unsettled the situation is, what once
seemed unthinkable — that Mr. Trump could win the Republican
nomination — is being treated by many within the Republican
establishment as a serious possibility.
"‘Somebody like Trump, who is operating in a crowded field, could
put this contest away early if the crowd doesn’t thin out,’ said Eric
Fehrnstrom, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Romney."
NYT
Of course Assad is running out of soldiers! They're all on their way to Europe. He seems to be replenishing them with Russians, who may or may not eventually run afoul of IS, after they have finished bulldozing over the other rebel groups.
I do rather like our recent change of course for the future of that soldier we trained to fight in Syria. They are apparently going to put him with a Kurdish group. It might keep him out of Russian sights for a while.
Well, I can see why people would speculate as to how this all would have played out if we had actually responded to Assad's crossing that red line that Obama said existed ( which apparently really didn't). While you may feel this all was inevitable, other people may believe that a change in how events unfolded might have changed the outcome.
Just by the way, military losses, just the military, were almost double in our Civil War what the Syrian total (military and civilian) losses have been in Syria to date (as a percentage of total population).
It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Despite our civil war we still had formed a government whose existence made re-building easier. Syria is torn between multiple factions making forming an all inclusive government almost impossible.
"‘Somebody like Trump, who is operating in a crowded field, could
put this contest away early if the crowd doesn’t thin out."
The money won't hold out for all of them.
It looks like we are upping the number of refugees we will take next year and the year after.
"…other people may believe that a change in how events unfolded
might have changed the outcome."
Perhaps this is a good time to go back over the history of the uprising that the do something contingent so often so fondly misremembers? You want to remember a so-called moderate center of armed resistance to Assad that never did actually exist if I recall that correctly? And you're going to now explain how it is that this so fondly misremembered governing capable contingent conveniently existed in Syria when it exists almost nowhere else in the Arab world?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges."
Yes, of course it is. I was leading up to that point, but you jumped ahead. I'd say one of the most significant differences is that the Syrian citizen (they're nominally citizens instead of subjects) started out with substantially less commitment, ‘substantially less allegiance’ is perhaps the way to say it, to Syria than did say, Grant's boys to the Union, or Lee's boys to Virginia.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The money won't hold out for all of them."
But, maybe for enough of them, courtesy of the Citizens United decision. They still gotta lose four before they have 11 on stage at once, which is too many, but that's when they can dump the JV debate.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"It looks like we are upping the number of refugees we will take
next year and the year after."
I think he's gotta get that through Congress; I don't think there's an Executive Order he can invoke. So, that's still a maybe.
Lynnette: "Of course Assad is running out of soldiers! They're all on their way to Europe."
You take it many of the refugees are Allawites? I can't be certain but I would venture a guess they are a tiny minority and that the bulk of Allawites are stuck in Syria. If for no other reason because it would probably be complete suicide for them to try to cross rebel held grounds, and very dangerous to be seen as deserting too.
Lynnette: "He seems to be replenishing them with Russians"
A couple hundred so far. Mostly their contribution is on the equipment side. Seems to be securing a base that will function as a local base for Fighter jets. They first brought in the necessary equipment and people to secure the area and build some facilities, and now comes the planes. I hardly think they have much ground combat in mind rather than defending that base if it comes to it.
I'd look to Hezbollah and Iran rather than Russia if I were you, when it comes down to who'll be adding troops on the ground if Assad is running seriously low on forces.
Putin's clamping down on the Ukrainian rebels who want to present him with another win (i.e. annexation of eastern Ukraine, or, failing that, independence of eastern Ukraine from Kiev). Bloomberg
The general idea is to make sure that the Ukraine remains an economic basket case for the forseeable future. American Interest
"I can't be certain but I would venture a guess [Allawites] are a tiny minority…"
I'm not certain whether you're trying to describe the refugees or the Syrian soldiers, but I don't think most of Assad's soldiers were Alawites, maybe a higher number of his officers.
Lee: "I don't think most of Assad's soldiers were Alawites, maybe a higher number of his officers."
I don't think so either. But they are the ones the regime can trust and they are not among the defectors to some rebel groups. Of the loyal troops that remain they might very well be a majority though.
I think the majority of Assad's ‘loyal’ troops these days are Hezbollah.
And, there have been hints of late that the Alawite community has been exploring the question of their own survival sans Assad. Iran could certainly live with that, might not be their first choice, but they could make it work for them. This may well be the reason we now see greater Russian involvement.
Lee: "And, there have been hints of late that the Alawite community has been exploring the question of their own survival sans Assad. Iran could certainly live with that, might not be their first choice, but they could make it work for them. This may well be the reason we now see greater Russian involvement."
Could be. But I read the opposite in one recent article. It claimed Russia could've lived with exchanging Assad early on, if the regime in some fashion remained and Russia could keep its precense there. But that they are now throwing in behind Assad. I don't presume to know which story is more correct.
Here's an interesting article about the plight of the Allawites (talkin' 'bout the people here, not the regime). Caught, it seems they are, in a bad place. Not that other groups are any better off.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11518232/In-Syrias-war-Alawites-pay-heavy-price-for-loyalty-to-Bashar-al-Assad.html
Lee: "I think the majority of Assad's ‘loyal’ troops these days are Hezbollah."
I wouldn't bet on it. I still think the upper echelons of his military and their most loyal batallions would outnumber the Hezbollah involvment. I read somewhere an estimate of about 5000 Hezzbollah fighters inside Syria and surely Assad must have a greater number than that of loyal syrian troops?
But in any case my point to Lynnette was that foreign ground combat forces and especially infantry on the ground is way more likely to come from Hezbollah or even the Quds force than from any would be Russian involvment.
I remember you saying that Qasem Soleimani basically ran the war for the regime when they turned it around and avoided an imminent defeat in - what was it - 2012-2013?
"It claimed Russia could've lived with exchanging Assad early on…"
I believe that's true, but it is no longer ‘early on’ and Iran has been running the show of late.
Lee: "I believe that's true, but it is no longer ‘early on’ and Iran has been running the show of late."
Probably so. To what degree I do not know but it does seem they are largely in charge, or at least retain the option to take control when they deem needed.
Which is one more reason I believe Lynnette is wrong if she believes Russia is contributing ground forces to replace dwindling Assad fighters on the ground.
Can't see that happening myself.
But they do seem to be pretty serious in setting up that new base. Probably to run air sorties from IMO, or at least to have the ability to do so.
Which is one more reason I believe Lynnette is wrong if she believes Russia is contributing ground forces to replace dwindling Assad fighters on the ground.
How is Russia's relationship with Iran nowadays? Would they trust Iran to look after their interests in a new (smaller) Syrian entity run by Assad that includes their "Material-Technical Support Point" at Tartus? Or would they prefer to use their own men? In a sense replacing Assad's ( or Hezbollah's) army?
How much are they willing to fight to keep their facility at Tartus open?
"…n a new (smaller) Syrian entity run by Assad…"
I think they were worried about the potential for a new Alawite area not run by Assad.
Alawite areas in and around Syria.
I'd say one of the most significant differences is that the Syrian citizen (they're nominally citizens instead of subjects) started out with substantially less commitment, ‘substantially less allegiance’ is perhaps the way to say it, to Syria than did say, Grant's boys to the Union, or Lee's boys to Virginia.
Yes, definitely.
There is also a lack of will to compromise for the good of all.
You want to remember a so-called moderate center of armed resistance to Assad that never did actually exist if I recall that correctly?
Moderate? I don't know how moderate, but there might have been those in the military that would have given up Assad and been encouraged to try to form a more moderate government with those in rebellion. I understand that's a big if. But we will never know.
Of course, once Putin has Assad's back with Russian troops and equipment, he's in a position to sell Assad out instead of backing him up. The price for either being Putin gets to keep his base at Tartus.
"…but there might have been those in the military that would have
given up Assad and been encouraged to try to form a more moderate
government with those in rebellion."
If the Obama administration could have given broader hints to the Alawite power structure that we'd be willing to work with them, if they'd only take Assad out of the mix, then I don't know how. I thought they were very clear on that. Assad's gotta go; the Sunni won't deal with him after the massacres of civilian neighborhoods--the rest is negotiable.
If the Obama administration could have given broader hints to the Alawite power structure that we'd be willing to work with them, if they'd only take Assad out of the mix, then I don't know how.
We tried the same thing with Saddam, but it didn't seem to work. Maybe hinting isn't enough, given the authoritarian nature of those types of regimes. Maybe definite action is necessary.
"Maybe definite action is necessary."
I saw widespread protests mentioning Assad by name during every protest, turn themselves into armed rebellion. Hard to imagine a more direct action than that.
Shameful shit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0
"Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records."
Yes, of course, Afghans in Afghanistan simply must be made to comport themselves according to Swedish standards else what's the world coming to?
So you Lee feel it's OK that your military fires some of your own troops for acting when they withness the rape of children?
OK, you're a hardcore "cultural relativist" then. Good to know.
I seem to remember a whole lot of complaints against the backwards and women-hating and Bhudda-statue demolishing Taliban. But a band of kiddy-fiddlers is apparently an OK substitute according to you since it's their "culture".
Sorry, I can't agree and frankly I'm disgusted by your latest comment. I'm glad at least some US troops seem to find it as disgusting as I do, that gives me some hope.
"… when they withness the rape of children?"
Nothing in that article indicating that the marines in question, the ones fired, actually witnessed anything other than a detention. It seems they may have acted on unadjudicated allegations (that's called ‘taking the law into your own hands’ over here, and it's generally frowned upon, even for those who might be expected to be less disciplined than marines). There is a hearsay story supposedly from the father of a dead marine, but that's not admissible evidence either.
However, all of that is pretty much irrelevant. The reason I specified Swedish standards is that, now that you know about these things, Sweden is in a perfect position to investigate and prosecute such incidents. We are somewhat compromised by our prior associations with the alleged perps. I'm looking forward to all that Sweden shall soon do to root out this vile practice from all of Afghanistan. When may we expect some the first Swedish investigators to arrive in Afghanistan ya think?
Disgusting. I'm sickened by what you write Lee.
Attempting to whitewash kiddy-fiddlery and renouncing your own troops who rightly act up against it and instead siding with your military leadership who want to bury it under the carpet. Trying to swich the issue by talking about this or that. BS all of it.
Lee: are you OK with the rape of young boys for a "greater good", or aren't you?
Over 2K comments at NYT and almost all expressing disgust.
But here we have Lee, the whitewasher.
Shame!
"…are you OK with the rape of young boys for a ‘greater good’, or
aren't you?"
I don't understand Swedish morality. As far as I can see, ‘the rape of young boys’ can never serve a greater good.
@ Lynnette,
It would appear that ex-General David Petraeus is of a similar mind as you. He has imagined up ‘enclaves in Syria’ that will magically attract only ‘moderate’ Sunni rebels. And he's likewise imagined up a ‘coalition’ to provide the air power necessary to keep them safe (apparently air power will be sufficient, more magic I suppose)
I just realized that Petraeus was allowed to plead out to a misdemeanor for passing classified information to his mistress. I suppose that means he's still entitled to be addressed as General Petraeus.
@ Lynnette,
It seems that Hillary has gone public in opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
‘Pears we may still be having some problems discerning who might be a loyal ‘moderate’ Syrian rebel
"Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population.
I don't think it is just children. But perhaps they are the most vulnerable.
The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records."
If this is the case then whoever decided to give this order should be dishonorably discharged, if not courtmartialed . This is not why we came to Afghanistan. If we can't try to improve the place, we should get out.
Russians are building in two new locations in Syria, both near the town of Latakia. Reuters
"If this is the case…"
I'm wondering if you and Marcus are defining ‘instructed not to intervene’ the same way? He's had some peculiar definitions pop up in his English here lately.
He called Syria a “geopolitical Chernobyl,” saying the crisis there was “spewing instability and extremism over the region and the rest of the world.”
He has a point.
I'm wondering if you and Marcus are defining ‘instructed not to intervene’ the same way?
I don't know how Marcus reads it, but I read it literally. That we are not to stop any these actions committed by the Afghans. I see this not only as a moral failing, but as a failure to further our mission there.
"He has a point."
Yes, and I believe his point is that ISIS operations are much more dangerous in the near empty wastelands of Syria than in the cities of Iraq. (I actually disagree with his point--in point of fact, most of the Syrians who are fleeing are fleeing from attacks by Assad's allies and forces on populated areas, not from ISIS attacks, and not from ISIS controlled territory.)
It seems that Hillary has gone public in opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
Her reasoning appears to be that the pipeline would not be in our best interest in regard to climate change.
"…I read it literally. That we are not to stop any these actions
committed by the Afghans."
Curious… The only instance I read about where a soldier actually could have intervened in an actual molestation portrayed the unnamed ‘lance corporal’ involved sympathetically, and went so far as to ‘protect’ his anonymity.
"‘I’m not a hundred percent sure what was happening under the
sheet, but I have a pretty good idea of what was going on,’ he said."
And yet he doesn't mention doing anything about it, but he's given sympathetic treatment nonetheless.
Are you sure of your definitions here?
...-in point of fact, most of the Syrians who are fleeing are fleeing from attacks by Assad's allies and forces on populated areas, not from ISIS attacks, and not from ISIS controlled territory.)
That's why he was suggesting that we ground Assad's air force if he continues with the barrel bombing. Although now with the Russians getting involved, that may be more problematic. Do we want to risk shooting down a Russian pilot and plane?
Perhaps carving out an enclave, such as in the Kurdish areas, would be more feasible? Although the dangers aren't just for the Kurds, but Arab inhabitants as well, and I don't know how they would get along if they were to shelter in the Kurdish areas. Hmmm...
"That's why he was suggesting that we ground Assad's air force if
he continues with the barrel bombing."
Yeah, well, I'm pretty sure that stopping Assad from bombing his own citizens is not covered by the 1990s anti-terrorism use of force resolutions under which the Obama administration is proceeding in Iraq, and now Syria, (although it's already perhaps a bit of a stretch to say those resolutions are fairly applicable to Syria). Open attacks on the recognized Syrian government and its forces are clearly going to require an Authorization to Use Force (War Powers Act). You really think Petraeus was up there asking for what amounts to a Declaration of War against Bashar Assad's government?
If that's what he was up to, then he seemingly glossed lightly over that part (as did his host John McCain).
"Perhaps carving out an enclave, such as in the Kurdish areas,
would be more feasible?"
And by what magical spell would these enclaves exclude not-moderate Arabs?
And yet he doesn't mention doing anything about it, but he's given sympathetic treatment nonetheless.
Are you sure of your definitions here?
I'm not following you here.
Russians are building in two new locations in Syria, both near the town of Latakia. Reuters
I think someone has gotten there first. Any no fly zones or enclaves appear to be at the pleasure of Putin and Assad. No doubt Europe will be seeing more foot traffic coming their way.
And by what magical spell would these enclaves exclude not-moderate Arabs?
I rather think the Kurds would have been just as anxious to keep out the extremists.
"I'm not following you here."
Your article (and by extension, you) appear to be directing your contempt towards persons who have been disinclined to take up the task of punishing offenders for prior offenses, not towards intervening during the commission of an offense.
Open attacks on the recognized Syrian government and its forces are clearly going to require an Authorization to Use Force (War Powers Act).
So we can blame Congress instead of Obama for the SNAFU.
"I rather think the Kurds would have been just as anxious to keep
out the extremists."
I see, you're suggesting that Arabs be sent en mass to what are currently Kurdish controlled areas. I believe the Kurds would call this ‘an attack’ (and I suspect they would be correct) and they would attempt to repulse it.
"So we can blame Congress instead of Obama for the SNAFU."
I think we can fairly blame both Petraeus and McCain for trying to bootstrap an objection to the Syrian government, one that they have no intention of trying to solve, into enough public outrage to cover an attempt to go after an entirely different problem that they do want to chase. Saw enough of that when Cheney was finding al-Qaeada under Saddam's beds.
Your article...
Actually, Marcus' article, but anyway...
...(and by extension, you) appear to be directing your contempt towards persons who have been disinclined to take up the task of punishing offenders for prior offenses, not towards intervening during the commission of an offense.
You think I should direct my anger more at the Anonymous Corporal? In a sense he is a victim too.
I see, you're suggesting that Arabs be sent en mass to what are currently Kurdish controlled areas. I believe the Kurds would call this ‘an attack’ (and I suspect they would be correct) and they would attempt to repulse it.
You make them sound so, so, Hungarian.
But, yes, that may be problematic, as I alluded to in my original comment. An enclave in an Arab dominated area of Syria would probably be necessary. Maybe we could just grab Raqqa and the surrounding area...but it would take some boots on the ground. I wonder if the Jordanians wouldn't mind loaning out a few? They do have an interest in returning displaced Syrians to Syria.
Well I'm off for the night. Tired.
"You think I should direct my anger more at the Anonymous Corporal?"
I think he is the only person referred to in the entire article who actually walked in on some Afghan adults molesting children, and he appears to have simply walked away from the situation. I'm not sure how that makes him a victim in any sense.
Lynnette: "If this is the case then whoever decided to give this order should be dishonorably discharged, if not courtmartialed . This is not why we came to Afghanistan. If we can't try to improve the place, we should get out."
Thank you Lynnette! I wholeheartedly agree.
If village elders say the situation is becoming worse since the Taliban ruled because of the transgressions of new Afghan "commanders" then you should definetly not be seen to be on the side of the latter.
And neither should we for that matter. Sweden still has troops in Afghanistan.
I just don't see why Lee feels he has to dig his heels in and blather about this or that. IMO the NYT article was pretty straight forward - US troops have reacted with disgust at kiddy-fiddlery by their so called allies, and the brass have punished them for speaking out. I think that's shameful and in the end counter productive.
And I'm not saying Lee would excuse kiddy-fiddlery or the rape of young boys because I hold him to a much higher standard than that. But he does have a tendency to whitewash every single thing that could put the US or the US armed forces in a negative light.
If it were russian troops in Afghanistan and troops on the ground sounded the alarm about young boys being raped by Afghani forces supported by the russians but were penalised by their command, then I don't think Lee would be looking for technicalities and trying to whitewash it all.
So, I'm not calling Lee a supporter of child abuse, but I do call him a hypocrite. There.
Me: "…are you OK with the rape of young boys for a ‘greater good’, or
aren't you?"
Lee: "I don't understand Swedish morality. As far as I can see, ‘the rape of young boys’ can never serve a greater good."
You know damn well what I meant, even if I didn't express myself clearly enough.
OK, here's the clear version:
"…are you OK with US military forces looking the other way and thereby allowing the rape of young boys for a ‘greater good’, or aren't you"
"…are you OK with US military forces looking the other way and
thereby allowing the rape of young boys for a ‘greater good’, or aren't you"
Near as I can tell the one person in that story who actually looked the other way ‘thereby allowing the rape of young boys’ is the identity-protected marine lance corporal who's portrayed sympathetically in the piece. I presume that you, like Lynnette, view him sympathetically as well (or, at least, did until I called ya on it; you may very well deny that now given the clear opportunity to trim your sails on the subject).
I must therefore conclude that somehow Lynnette shares your distorted definition of what it means ‘to intervene’ (to use the infinitive form of the verb).
Be that as it may, I see still see no ‘greater good’ served by his his inaction in that situation nor by your sympathy for him. Your Swedish concepts of morality continue to elude me.
Fine. You seem to seek to not understand me. Just read the NYT article and comment on that then, without any links to previous coments but just your opinion. Give us your POW.
It's a hatchet piece; an intentional distortion. The signs of that are fairly clear. It's bad journalism, but bad journalism is often fairly popular.
"You seem to seek to not understand me."
I think you don't understand you.
I wonder why this articke was removed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html3319
You can just read the URL to find out what it as about.
Apparently that story didn't wash and the article was taken down.
Fret not, I'm sure there's a screen shot available out there. I'll be sure to post it once I find it.
"I wonder why this articke was removed:"
Popped right up for me. Maybe it's just blocked in Sweden.
Lee: "It's a hatchet piece; an intentional distortion."
How so? Are the US servicemen liars?
Most people would recognize that the ‘distortion’ was applied by the author of the piece. I think you recognize that too; I think your English really is that good. I think you're going all ignorant all over intentionally.
I think he is the only person referred to in the entire article who actually walked in on some Afghan adults molesting children, and he appears to have simply walked away from the situation.
Because he had orders to do so.
I'm not sure how that makes him a victim in any sense.
If higher had acted true to our values, instead of through expediency, than this man wouldn't have been put in the position of deciding between his principles and his career. These are things that can haunt you, leading to emotional problems down the road. So, yes, I still say, in a sense he too was a victim.
It's a hatchet piece; an intentional distortion.
So you are suggesting he was lying? That he did not actually see anything that may have led him to believe there was a sexual act being performed on, or by, a minor?
I just don't see why Lee feels he has to dig his heels in and blather about this or that.
It leads to debate?
"Because he had orders to do so."
Actually, you've imagined that part up all by yourself. Nothing said by, nor attributed to, said unnamed lance corporal supports the inference that anybody, at any time, gave him an order to overlook child molestation that was taking place right in front of him. I suppose this is a tribute to the power of a journalistic hatchet job to sway ‘softies’.
Actually, you've imagined that part up all by yourself.
Oh no, I'm pretty sure I had help.
Anyway, here is more on this from the Daily Beast.
The instructions, or orders, are clear as mud. But the behavior towards those who tried to stop or report possible abuse isn't. It seems those people are being punished for speaking out. Those who feel this should be looked into in more depth are right, IMHO.
"Oh no, I'm pretty sure I had help."
From whom?
It defiies logic to assume that the author of that piece did not think to ask the name-protected lance corporal if he had been ordered to look the other way and walk away when and if he stumbled onto an occassion of the rape of of children. The writer would not have forgotten to ask that question.
Neither would have forgotten to provide the answer if the lance corporal had given him an affirmative answer.
One can only conclude that the writer did ask that question and the lance corporal did answer in the negative, and the writer did not want to include that information in his article.
"Anyway, here is more on this from the Daily Beast."
There's nothing more there except more innuendo. There's the same heresay from a fellow who's suing the marine corps over his son's death (must not have been the beneficiary on the life insurance, or maybe the marine negelected to get the military life insurance). There's the same Quinn and Martland, who decided to punish an Afghan for having allegedly abused a child at some earlier time. That was not an intervention; that was post hoc vigilanitism.
There's the same Brezler fellow who's being ‘forcibly discharged’ by the Marines for unexplained charges. Both articles hint broadly that he's being forced out for having defied orders to not broadcast what he was told was classified information about the sexual predilictions of one Sarwar Jan. Neither article will actually come out and tell us what the charges are against Brezler that are behind the Marine's effort to expel him. It defies reason to believe that neither author thought to ask that question, or, having asked, simply forgot to mention the answer in their article. The only reasonable explanation for that lack is that the hidden answer does not support the innuendo they wish to leave for your conclusion.
And, out of all the tens of thousands of men and women who've served in Afghanistan, the only four folks who're willing to come forward on this subject just happen to be four people who're currently in litigation with the Marine Corps? They can't find anybody else, anybody who's not got an ax to grind of their own. What's the odds of that?
More to the point… How many American soldiers, for how long a time, do you imagine will be required to purge this insult to western civilization from Afghan society? How many Afghans do you suppose we will be obliged to kill before they come around to an even grudging acceptance of the imposition by force of superior Swedish cultural norms across the length and breadth of Afghanistan?
Are we up for that job ya think?
And, more importantly, given your eagerness to jump into action to help the Syrians, to how many cultural deficiencies does this obligation extend? Will we not also be obligated to commit to putting a stop to the equivalent Arab custom of casual acceptance of the sexual abuse of minors before we decide to make those folks safe? Or, if we chose to assume that pedophilia isn't also rampant in rural Arab society… Shall we not purge them of the brutality that is ‘stoning’ as a punishment, and the amputation of hands? Shall we stop short of overthrowing the Arab custom of ’honor killing’? How many troops is this gonna take? How long is this gonna take? What's it gonna cost us? How many Arab we gonna hafta kill? Shouldn't we instead bail out of Syria entirely, right now, before we get sucked into that responsibility?
[ee]: From whom?
From those who seem to believe that stories of abuse are brushed aside.
[Lee]: There's nothing more there except more innuendo.
[Daily Beast article]: “There isn't an explicit, top-level policy that requires soldiers to look the other way, but the fact that there have been such extraordinary implications for a group of service members that attempted to stop sex abuse says it all,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a former Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, told The Daily Beast.
No, but there is at least a statement by someone in authority denying that any explicit orders exist. Having said that, though, there is certainly some question as to why these men were dismissed from the military. There is also the question of why a man with the record of Sarwar Jan was allowed on base with his entourage of boys. One of whom apparently killed three Marines.
[Daily Beast article]: “Although sexual assault is against the law in almost all countries, the laws are not always enforced to protect the victims,” the training script says. “In fact, in some countries, shame and stigma are often attached to the victim and not the offender. Victims also risk blame and punishment for the crime that was committed against them.”
In Afghanistan, female victims may also be forced to marry their assaulters so that both can avoid going to jail, a practice that “protects the offender while subjecting a victim to marry and live with his or her offender,” the script notes.
These are valid points that do need to be considered in any action we may or may not take. They are also the something more I found in that article.
And, out of all the tens of thousands of men and women who've served in Afghanistan, the only four folks who're willing to come forward on this subject just happen to be four people who're currently in litigation with the Marine Corps?
They have very little to lose.
They can't find anybody else, anybody who's not got an ax to grind of their own. What's the odds of that?
Actually, probably rather good, considering what happened to those who came forward. I am sure there are those who are simply afraid to come forward for fear of damage to their careers. And then, of course, there is also the possibility that some witnesses to abuse may no longer be alive.
How many American soldiers, for how long a time, do you imagine will be required to purge this insult to western civilization from Afghan society?
We may not be able to change the whole country, but we can change the little bit that we are in charge of. If we can ban drugs on base, we can ban any actions that would be considered crimes under our laws, such as the rape of minors. Or anyone else for that matter.
And, more importantly, given your eagerness to jump into action to help the Syrians, to how many cultural deficiencies does this obligation extend?
As I said above, it should extend to any area we control, and should include anything that is illegal under our law. That includes all of those things you mentioned.
Btw, Donald Trump and Fox News seem to be fighting again. I suspect he will flame out. He is starting to look rather cartoonish.
"Having said that, though, there is certainly some question as to
why these men were dismissed from the military."
‘These men’ constitute exactly three. Quinn and Martland took it upon themselves to administer extra-judicial punishment on an Afghan national. Brezler appears to have decided to violate a direct order and instead of (or perhaps in addition to) reporting his concerns through the appropriate chain of command, he seems to have sent an e-mail blast of classified information to every person whose e-mail address he could find at the base where his target was being stationed. I don't have any trouble figuring out it is these three got themselves trouble. I am amazed that it seems to puzzle you.
"There is also the question of why a man with the record of Sarwar
Jan was allowed on base with his entourage of boys."
That seems to be a new question actually. As far as I can tell nobody's asked that one yet--it's new from you. Perhaps they should have been left outside at the gate--although how long they would have survived out there is open for question.
"Actually, probably rather good, considering what happened to
those who came forward."
Lotta people did time in Afghanistan already separated from service and not subject to retaliation. That's gotta include people who served right along with these three.
"I suspect he will flame out."
That has been often predicted; so far not accurately.
"…but we can change the little bit that we are in charge of."
And yet, so far, the one marine who actually did walk in on an ongoing offense and yet did nothing about it is one of the good guys in your listings. Your rules are going to be hard to manage.
"…but we can change the little bit that we are in charge of."
That also means abandoning Quinn and Martland whose little bit of vigilantism was occasioned by the Afgan's conduct outside of an American base--two thirds of your heroes abandoned right there.
"…but we can change the little bit that we are in charge of."
That seems to be a somewhat less sweeping goal than you originally aspired to. To wit:
"This is not why we came to Afghanistan. If we can't try to improve
the place, we should get out."
@ Tue Sep 22, 09:02:00 p.m. ↑
A cynic might think that your overriding goal is simply to make sure that the United States remains militarily involved, once that's accomplished then secondary goals like ‘improving the place’ can be swapped in or out as need be. Call it a hard line case of the ‘do something’ habituation.
I'm not sure who this guy is, but he may have a point.
"Like it or not, the Syrian standoff is there to stay. The rivalries are
too deeply entrenched, and the combat means at the disposal of
belligerent factions are too exorbitant, for peace and stability to be an
attainable objective in the months or years ahead.
"Under such circumstances, Washington and its allies have no better
option than to work within the Syrian conflict - to avoid making empty
promises or setting vacuous red lines, and to avoid vain attempts to
fix it."
Fabio Rafael Fiallo
Quinn and Martland took it upon themselves to administer extra-judicial punishment on an Afghan national.
How many enlisted men are involved in fights? Are they all dismissed from service?
Brezler appears to have decided to violate a direct order and instead of (or perhaps in addition to) reporting his concerns through the appropriate chain of command, he seems to have sent an e-mail blast of classified information to every person whose e-mail address he could find at the base where his target was being stationed.
Maj. Jason Brezler. I think you have some of your facts about the Major wrong. You may want to read up on his situation.
[Lynnette]: "There is also the question of why a man with the record of Sarwar Jan was allowed on base with his entourage of boys."
[Lee]: "That seems to be a new question actually. As far as I can tell nobody's asked that one yet--it's new from you."
Well, no, actually, others have been asking it before me, which is why I even learned about this.
I don't have any trouble figuring out it is these three got themselves trouble. I am amazed that it seems to puzzle you.
Really? I must confess that the more I read about this whole matter, the more puzzled I become. I would suggest an investigation outside of the Marine Corps. might be in order.
[Lynnette]: "I suspect he will flame out."
[Lee]: "That has been often predicted; so far not accurately."
So you want to bet?
[Lynnette]: "…but we can change the little bit that we are in charge of."
[Lee]: "And yet, so far, the one marine who actually did walk in on an ongoing offense and yet did nothing..."
Yet is speaking out now...anonymously. Just another one of those puzzling pieces of this situation.
[Lee]: "That also means abandoning Quinn and Martland whose little bit of vigilantism was occasioned by the Afgan's conduct outside of an American base--two thirds of your heroes abandoned right there.
Outside of the base? Are we sure about that?
[Lynnette]: " "This is not why we came to Afghanistan. If we can't try to improve the place, we should get out."
I don't see this as being inconsistent with my "little bit" comment. I do understand that we can't change an entire country with the small amount of troops we have there. What we can do is try to help the Afghans to do so. I would hope that we would support those people. Sanwar Jan is most certainly not one of them.
A cynic might think that your overriding goal is simply to make sure that the United States remains militarily involved, once that's accomplished then secondary goals like ‘improving the place’ can be swapped in or out as need be. Call it a hard line case of the ‘do something’ habituation.
No, we would not have to be militarily involved if the Afghans stepped up. At least not to the extent that we are now. But we obviously would still have to support a progressive Afghan government.
Seen from this perspective, it's better to allow, and even to push, Vladimir Putin to become entangled in the Syrian quagmire - Ronald Reagan allowed the Soviet Union to do just that in Afghanistan.
He may have a point, indeed.
...avoid vain attempts to
fix it."
Well, there is more than one way to fix things.
P.S.
Although I am not sure that Ronald Reagan allowed the Soviet Union to do anything.
"I think you have some of your facts about the Major wrong."
I believe you may be correct. Let's see if I've got this right. According to Brezler's lawyers, one Marine Maj. Brian Donlon, who's serving in Afghanistan just happens to ask Maj. Jason Brezler, who's back here in the states for information on this guy Sarwar Jan, and Brezler just happens to have classified documents on his private computer about Sarwar Jan (and only about Sarwar Jan) which he immediately sends to Donlon. Fair string of coincidences there.
After Donlon looks at the file and mentions to Brezler that it looks like classified info, Brezler has a sudden attack of mental clarity and turns himself in for taking classified documents home with him without telling anybody (which is an offense, in fact I believe it's the one that Petraeus was allowed to plead to after he gave classified data to his girlfriend.) It cost Petraeus his job (and his security clearance), but Brezler figures he should get a better deal than that. Do I got that right?
"Outside of the base? Are we sure about that?"
And days before; yes, we are sure about that.
"It cost Petraeus his job (and his security clearance)…"
And two years' probation and $100,000 fine.
"it's better to allow, and even to push, Vladimir Putin to become
entangled in the Syrian quagmire…"
I don't know that I agree with that part. They're putting in anti-aircraft batteries. Neither ISIS nor the Syrian opposition has any air capabilities. Gotta wonder who they're figurin’ to shot at.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Well, there is more than one way to fix things."
I am confident that you are willing to expand or contract the immediate objective as necessary to serve the overriding demand that we ‘do something’. We should certainly not get bogged down in minor matters like fussing over what, if anything, we ought to be doing. That might cause us to fail to ‘do something’.
"Well, no, actually, others have been asking it before me…"
Well then perhaps someone should have explained to them that he had been appointed local Police Chief, and that an Afghan Police Chief is a para-military position, unlike a civilian police chief back here in the states.
By the way, the important thing to watch with Trump is where he stalls out, what percentage support. If he drops back into the 20s and stalls out there, he'll start picking up delegates and then the media circus that sustains him will be back on. If he drops down into the low teens or high single digits, then he'll not pick up enough delegates to get the media circus going again, and without that he'll fade away. High teens and it could go either way.
According to Brezler's lawyers, one Marine Maj. Brian Donlon, who's serving in Afghanistan just happens to ask Maj. Jason Brezler, who's back here in the states for information on this guy Sarwar Jan, and Brezler just happens to have classified documents on his private computer about Sarwar Jan (and only about Sarwar Jan) which he immediately sends to Donlon. Fair string of coincidences there.
So are you suggesting that the first email was some kind of bait to catch someone out for still possessing classified documents? Or perhaps to find any documents pertaining to this Sanwar Jan that were floating around out there? It does seem that things go missing with regard to him.
Back when Brezler self-reported the security violation resulting from the urgent email response, his immediate commanding officer had found no cause to pursue the matter. The investigating officer from his headquarters recommended the matter be closed with no disciplinary action. An assessment in Afghanistan determined that this intelligence “spillage” was of no military importance and recommended that the emailed report be declassified. The military analyst who wrote the report is of the same opinion.
Or do you believe Brezler is lying about being asked? That should be apparent from the email sequence what transpired, I should think.
"It cost Petraeus his job (and his security clearance)…"
And two years' probation and $100,000 fine.
Perhaps what Petraeus shared was of more value and thus the consequences would be harsher?
[Lynnette]: "Outside of the base? Are we sure about that?"
[Lee]: "And days before; yes, we are sure about that."
And are we sure that all instances occurred outside of the base?
...he had been appointed local Police Chief, and that an Afghan Police Chief is a para-military position...
Para-military? So he was/is part of a militia that we are working with.
They're putting in anti-aircraft batteries. Neither ISIS nor the Syrian opposition has any air capabilities. Gotta wonder who they're figurin’ to shot at.
Anybody with planes in the area that may dare to fly into the airspace within range. Since I have not heard that we have started bombing Assad, I must presume the ones the are gunning for are the Israelis.
But as they are putting anti-aircraft batteries in, it appears that we have not succeeded in preventing them doing so. Good luck with that.
We should certainly not get bogged down in minor matters like fussing over what, if anything, we ought to be doing.
What would you suggest we do? To get the Russians to remove their anti-aircraft batteries?
Over 700 people killed in a stampede in Saudi Arabia. You would think that by now they would have the pilgrimage better organized to deal with the large influx of people. Sad.
"So are you suggesting that…"
I'm suggesting that you're getting the story as told by his lawyer. I would further suggest that the lawyer is looking to create favorable publicity because he's got a bad case, so he's hoping to win a spin war if he strikes first.
I've listened to lawyers spin before; even hired a few myself on occasion. It's not the lawyers' job to tell you the whole truth.
"Perhaps what Petraeus shared was of more value…"
What basis do you have for such speculation?
"And are we sure that all instances occurred outside of the base?"
Perhaps you'll want to re-read that story, and pay attention to part where the boy was supposedly abducted and then ‘released’ by the Afgan and then he and his mother came to the base to report the guy to the Americans. ‘Showed up at the American base’ is the way they put it.
Another mosque bombing. This time in Yemen. ISIL has claimed responsibility.
"So he was/is part of a militia that we are working with."
Usually the word ‘militia’ is used to refer to volunteer irregulars, not government para-military.
Showed up at the American base’ is the way they put it.
Yes. So they beat the guy up. Why? Why didn't they go through proper channels? Was it because they knew nothing would be done? And if so, why is that? And why was the guy let on base with that kind of record? How can we be sure that he did not continue on with the abuse on base with the boys he brought in with him? Why did one of the boys subsequently kill 3 Marines? These are questions that should be answered. If I were a relative of one of those Marines, I would like to have those questions answered.
...government para-military.
So he is attached to the Afghan government. Hamid Karzai's government? So we didn't want to rock the boat with them?
No, Jan is still there, Karzai isn't.
"What would you suggest we do?"
I suggest we first consider whether or not we really ought to do anything. I'm not real big on surrendering to the ‘do something’ auto-response. If we decide we ought to do something, then we can figure on what actions might produce a result we might want to achieve.
"And why was the guy let on base with that kind of record?"
I think the fact that Quinn summoned him probably had something to do with that.
"Why did one of the boys subsequently kill 3 Marines?"
Supposedly this guy Jan has been discovered to have had ties to the Taliban. The Taliban have a long history of killing marines, and they often use infiltrators (including women, could certainly include servants) to kill marines. Been known to happen before that Afghans on American bases kill marines and are subsequently discovered to have Taliban connections (also since). Bezler's lawyer would have us speculate that there was an entirely different reason, of course, but there's no basis for that, at least none that I know of, and there is that history with Taliban operatives.
I'm not real big on surrendering to the ‘do something’ auto-response.
As long as it is understood that the do nothing response runs the risk of encouraging the do something response in others.
I see the Russians have now slipped a few fighters jets into Syria. Maybe they are there to assist in our fight with ISIL?
[Lynnette]: And why was the guy let on base with that kind of record?
[Lee]: I think the fact that Quinn summoned him probably had something to do with that.
According to this Jan was living on base.
In 2012, an Afghan boy who is believed to have been the forced sexual companion to an Afghan police commander, living on a U.S. base, killed three Marines there, in what some have suggested was an act of retribution against U.S. forces whom the boy may have seen as complicit in his abuse.
Supposedly this guy Jan has been discovered to have had ties to the Taliban.
That was back in 2010, yet he is still Police Chief? At least that is the impression I am getting from that article.
The Taliban have a long history of killing marines, and they often use infiltrators (including women, could certainly include servants) to kill marines.
Yes, this is true. And they have also been known to infiltrate the police.
"According to this Jan was living on base."
I thought you'd have figured it out by now, and I wouldn't have to point this out, but you're co-mingling two different stories. Quinn beat up Abdul Rahman, not Jan. Perhaps you can get one story that comes out the way you want out of the pieces of the two, but I don't think so.
Der Spiegel gives us a dismal analysis of the current state of politics in Turkey. They seem to think that Erdoğan will most likely not win back his majority.
"The most likely outcome…is that [Erdoğan] loses and the country
descends into intractable chaos."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Meanwhile, we are seeing some signs that the EU is finally coming to grips with the flood of refugees. Gotta do something (too little so far) to take care of these people closer to their homes. And, need to meet the problem at Europe's borders, not halfway into Europe at the Hungarian border. What's described here is too little, and maybe too late, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
Comment from ‘One New Hampshire Republican’ on the notion that Ted Cruz will pick up the evangelical supporters of the recently suspended candidacy of Scott Walker:
"Lord help us: By the time Trump is a nonfactor, we'll have to deal
with Cruz.”
...you're co-mingling two different stories. Quinn beat up Abdul Rahman, not Jan. Perhaps you can get one story that comes out the way you want out of the pieces of the two, but I don't think so.
Fair enough. The articles are linked by the suggestion that the two cases revolve around the sexual abuse of young boys and our possible inaction on the matter. Let's step back and separate the two.
We still have the question of why a man like Jan, who was apparently linked to the Taliban in 2010, was allowed to live on base in 2012, with his entourage of boys. One of whom killed three Marines.
The Quinn case revolves around two soldiers who decided to take matters into their own hands and beat up a man who was accused of sexual abuse of a young boy, On the surface it is a case of vigilantism, as you pointed out. But why did they feel they had to take that route, rather than go through proper channels?
What are we actually doing to encourage people in Afghanistan to reject the Taliban, or even ISIL, if we are not seen to have the well being of the average Afghan at heart? If it even appears that we condone sexual abuse of young boys, then we appear to be no different than others who do.
Talking about shake up in politics, it appears that John Boehner is resigning, not just as Speaker of the House, but from Congress, at the end of October.
As someone said, interesting times, indeed.
Gotta run, many things to try to get done today...I'll have to check out links later.
We have here a fair rebuttal to the ‘do something’ crowd on the subject of Syria. I'm pretty much with him until he gets down to the subject of his recommended "new approach". He's still trying to put Syria back together as a unified country with the Sikes-Picot border intact. That's a pipe-dream. That ship has long since sailed; the Sunni are not going to give up on their dreamed of Sunnistan, and the Arab States are not going to quit funnelling them money and weapons and fighters.
It seems to me that the regional Sunni powers have determined that they can live with ISIS, at least for now, as the price of the new Sunnistan. They seem to have turned their attention towards managing their relationships with the various Islamist factions. No doubt they see this as a cheap (for them) and currently effective means to contain the expansion of Iranian influence in Syria. The Iranians are bogged down in keeping Assad in power over what is now a fairly small section of what used to be Syria. Bogged down Iranians are a good thing as they see it. There is no particular reason for them to want to upset that status quo. (The fallout is headed for Europe after all, not a problem for them.) It's hard on the Jordanians, but, that's the Jordanians problem. Jordan isn't exactly a major power in the region, and folks without power should expect to have trouble.
If Erdoğan regains a majority in Turkey, they may have to rethink this, recount the costs; Erdoğan has been committed to bringing down Assad. But, with him out of power in Turkey, the options for a partitioned Syria, or for continuation of the status quo, a grinding, bloody proxy war where the Sunni and Shia Arabs bleed each other for years look like the most likely of outcomes.
"Fair enough. The articles are linked by the suggestion that the two
cases revolve around the sexual abuse of young boys and our
possible inaction on the matter."
I suspect they also share common defense counsel--they have the same set of lawyers
"We still have the question of why a man like Jan…was allowed to
live on base…"
Not at all hard to figure. I'm gonna let you rethink that one yourself, see if it doesn't come to ya.
"But why did they feel they had to take that route, rather than go
through proper channels?"
For all you know, Quinn is an aggressive homophobe and he did it because he enjoyed it.
We've had troops there for 14 years now; one of them eventually beat up on a local for diddling boys, which the locals are wont to do. How is it you find this remarkable?
"If it even appears that we condone sexual abuse of young boys…
Get real. They condone the sexual abuse and exploitation of young boys, or, at least, they're used to acquiescing to it (just not so much when it's their boy).
"…it appears that John Boehner is resigning…"
The teabaggers are jumping and clapping and cheering. Dumbasses. Boehner's gonna ram through a spending bill that does not defund Planned Parenthood (their latest lost cause hobby-horse). Neither will they get another chance to vote to de-fund ObamaCare.
And then they gotta figure out how to cobble together a Republican majority on other issues, and do that without Boehner to blame for the compromises necessary to achieve that.
He's still trying to put Syria back together as a unified country with the Sikes-Picot border intact. That's a pipe-dream. That ship has long since sailed; the Sunni are not going to give up on their dreamed of Sunnistan, and the Arab States are not going to quit funnelling them money and weapons and fighters.
It was an interesting analysis, but I think I agree with you on this part. I doubt ISIL would get on board with any negotiated settlement in Syria. And, unlike Al-Nusra, they don't have an outside backer to pressure them to do so.
I am almost of the mind that we should just leave the Russians to it, as long as they don't mess with the Kurds. Our efforts appear to have been a failure in trying to organize anyone to fight Assad and ISIL, except for them.
"I am almost of the mind that we should just leave the Russians to
it, as long as they don't mess with the Kurds."
I'm thinking we shouldn't make any long-term decisions until we see how the election in Turkey comes out, and what that means going forward. (Other than gotta support the idea of more and better refugee camps in the neighborhood--i.e. Jordan not Kurdistan)
[Lynnette]: "We still have the question of why a man like Jan…was allowed to live on base…"
[Lee]: "Not at all hard to figure. I'm gonna let you rethink that one yourself, see if it doesn't come to ya."
Well, if it's the old "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer" thing, I don't think it worked very well. At least not for the three Marines who were killed.
For all you know, Quinn is an aggressive homophobe and he did it because he enjoyed it.
If that is the case there should be some evidence of it in his past. I can't imagine that one suddenly develops those kind of tendencies.
We've had troops there for 14 years now; one of them eventually beat up on a local for diddling boys, which the locals are wont to do. How is it you find this remarkable?
Remarkable? No, not at all. I can imagine there are quite a few soldiers who wouldn't mind doing the same thing. I have read somewhere that rapists of children are ranked the lowest of scum even in prisons.
Get real. They condone the sexual abuse and exploitation of young boys, or, at least, they're used to acquiescing to it (just not so much when it's their boy).
Obviously that boy's mother didn't. And there is no evidence that she would have condoned it if it were another's boy. I also suspect that there are many other women in Afghanistan who do not condone sexual abuse of children or women.
(Other than gotta support the idea of more and better refugee camps in the neighborhood--i.e. Jordan not Kurdistan)
I think that short term that goes without saying. Long term there must be some way to find those displaced people proper homes, either back in Syria or in other countries. A refugee camp is no way to live or raise children. But right now it appears that many are trying for Europe on their own. But I have to wonder, what happens to those whose asylum requests Europe rejects? Do they deport them? If so, where to?
"I can't imagine that one suddenly develops those kind of tendencies."
And I can't imagine his lawyer bothering to mention it to either reporter, or either of them bothering to mention it in their articles if they found it out on their own.
Or, maybe it was as simple as he thought the mama was good lookin’ and was hoping that playin’ hero would get some horizontal Afghan gratitude on those cold Afghan nights.
"I also suspect that there are many other women in Afghanistan who do
not condone…"
And I suspect that what women in Afghanistan do or don't condone don't matter one whole hell of a lot. Unlike occurred on this occasion, they don't often have much interaction with foreign male soldiers.
In what would have been an impossible, unthinkable public coördination just a few years ago, Roger Ailes, head of FoxNews and Donald Trump will be meeting in person next week to work out the recent tensions in their relationship, to get their relationship back on track.
And I can't imagine his lawyer bothering to mention it to either reporter, or either of them bothering to mention it in their articles if they found it out on their own.
I suppose that would be the job of the prosecutor.
And I suspect that what women in Afghanistan do or don't condone don't matter one whole hell of a lot.
Probably one of the reasons they're in the trouble they're in.
"Washington (CNN) ―The U.S. intelligence community now thinks
Russia may have embarked on its military buildup in Syria because
Moscow…wants to position itself to back a proxy if the [Assad]
regime were to collapse. It is a view shared by the Pentagon,
Defense officials told CNN."
CNN
Or, as I put it earlier, if they put themselves in a position to prop him up, they'll also be in a position to sell him out.
Another take on the situation in Syria.
Notwithstanding this ‘other take’ on the Syrian situation: Damascus isn't in Alawite territory. All the ethnic maps I've seen show it solidly Sunni and the territory around Damascus also solidly Sunni.
I can't see much else in there that I'd argue with except what appears to be the casual conclusion that of course the Russians will drive back the regime's enemies using whatever force necessary. The Sunni Gulf States might not accept that so casually as the author seems to think, not to mention the Turks may disapprove, and given that, I'm not sure Obama could resist the pressures to get involved in opposition to the Russian efforts.
WaPo has a third take on the Russian move into Syria. (Basically that Iran was also getting tired of backing Assad, it wasn't just Hezbollah. And the Ayatollah is quite content to give that job up to the Russians.)
It appears that Iraq, Iran, Syria and Russia are going to share intelligence, regarding ISIL. Hmmm...and I wonder where this leaves the United States?
France has launched air strikes in Syria against ISIS. This will do little to stem the flow of refugees, most of whom are fleeing from Assad's forces (either from conscription or as targets)
"…...and I wonder where this leaves the United States?"
Perhaps we can back off a little. Kick back and let ‘em go at it while we watch. (The more I think about this, the more I think Putin is probably gonna regret steppin’ up when he did).
That WaPo piece was interesting, Lee.
I remember reading a piece on Russia, about what Putin might do if backed into a corner. The speculation was that sanctions would cause Putin to lash out and perhaps engage militarily in another country, besides Ukraine, that is. The author was considering another country in Europe, but perhaps Syria was the choice.
It does sound as if Iran, and even Hezbollah, are tired of this war. So now Russia is stepping in to pick up the pieces. While this may not be a repeat of Afghanistan, which eventually broke the Soviet Union, it may prove very costly for Putin's Russia, which is already feeling the financial strain of the current economic situation.
Perhaps we can back off a little.
I have thought that in passing too. There are certain problems with that, one of which is if Russia begins to hammer the opposition even harder than Assad you will end up with even more displaced people, either in other Middle Eastern countries, or fleeing to Europe. Russia will almost most certainly not contribute any financial assistance for them. Any help will have to come from the west. The other, of course, is how does that leave the United States' reputation as a potential partner in future endeavors? Also, do we really want to let the Russians take the lead, or not, as they please, in the fight against ISIL, in that region of the world?
I think it is still in our interest to maintain a presence there. Putin, by his actions, has shown he is not to be trusted. It is that simple. He, and the Iranians, will always go their own way, despite any agreements they may have with us on other issues.
"It does sound as if Iran, and even Hezbollah, are tired of this war."
Even the Alawites are tired of this war. They've increasingly been heading for Europe. I'd already been reading that there were increasing noises from the Iranian/Hezbollah/Alawite side about perhaps negotiating an end to the war, including the removal of Assad. Then the Russians step up all of a sudden. Now they're in a position to demand that they keep their bases in Syria as the price of backing Assad, or, of not backing Assad.
"I think it is still in our interest to maintain a presence there."
Backing off a little is not quite the same thing as withdrawing totally from the region, as not maintaining any presence at all.
Again, I would still propose we make it clear that the Kurds are ‘our guys’ in the Middle East (so long as they continue to act reasonable, and that includes reining the PKK back in after the Turkish elections if that is at all possible). We have little interest in which Muslim religious radical sect wins over which other one, but the Kurds are our guys in the Middle East. Erdoğan and the House of Saud both in thin ice here. Sanity is approved of, and the Kurds at least appear sane (making it clear that they've got a government corruption problem and we know that and would like to see that cleared up before it eats them from the inside).
"…make it clear that the Kurds are ‘our guys’ in the Middle East…"
By which we would mean don't fuck with the Kurds; they'e not the problem. "No" we don't pretend to have any sway over them, nor do we want any, but they're at least sane and secular and we approve of sane and secular--fuck with each other if ya want; don't fuck with the Kurds. Negotiate with the Kurds.
They interviewed Putin tonight on 60 Minutes. He made it clear that he supports what he calls the legitimate Syrian government, meaning Assad.
Again, I would still propose we make it clear that the Kurds are ‘our guys’ in the Middle East...
Apparently we are deciding about a move on Raqqa, with one of the Sunni tribes in the region as well as the Kurds (YPG).
I recall Petes routinely touting the environmentally friendly aspects of diesel engines for cars. It seems he may have been overstating the benefits of diesel vis-á-vis gasoline.
Sitting right now having a beer in an irish pub in Dubrovnic, Croatia. Lovely spot. The Stones under My feet are older than the USA.
"… in Dubrovnic, Croatia."
Gonna be goin’ inland to check on the progress of those soon to be your new neighbors?
According to Republican Presidential candidate, Ben Carson, cutting taxes is the single most important thing the United States can do to challenge the Chinese aggressive moves in and around the South China Sea. This guy is now running even with Trump, tied for first place, in the Republican primary polls.
Huh! Looked on Sunday for the "Blood Moon". Didn't see it, probably wrong timing. I did see the gradual eclipse, though.
And, since we are all still here, I assume those who were thinking it was the end times are now seeing the error of their ways.
Guidebooks rarely mention it, but Paris is one of the most polluted cities in the rich world. The Eiffel Tower is periodically shrouded in smog, and there's one key culprit: France's disproportionately heavy reliance on diesel fuel.
Hmmm...yes, if you are starting to look like China then there must be something not right. Someone falsifying tests will do that for you.
The Stones under My feet are older than the USA.
I think there are many things in Europe older than the USA. Croatia? Interesting choice. I would guess there are some good deals to be had there. And, as Lee mentioned, you must be seeing the refugee crisis up close and personal. So very sad for all of the people being shunted back and forth. I read that Croatia was originally very welcoming, but soon ran out of supplies for so many people.
According to Republican Presidential candidate, Ben Carson, cutting taxes is the single most important thing the United States can do to challenge the Chinese aggressive moves in and around the South China Sea.
Some people's though processes are rather interesting...and kind of scary.
"…you must be seeing the refugee crisis up close and personal."
Not quite what I said. The the Dalmatian Coast isn't exactly a refugee hub; the main refugee route is way inland, over a mountain range and beyond.
@ Lynnette,
Sean Hannity is on the radio just now trying to drum up enough resistance to prevent Kevin McCarthy from getting the Speaker's post.
They're trying to figure out, on air, who might be persuaded to run for the post against him.
I can easily see a scenario where the Republicans are unable to come to agreement on anybody and simply lock up and can't elect a Speaker.
"The Stones under My feet are older than the USA."
So are the stones under my feet.
[Marcus]: "The Stones under My feet are older than the USA."
[Lee]: "So are the stones under my feet."
Lol! Quick.
The the Dalmatian Coast isn't exactly a refugee hub; the main refugee route is way inland, over a mountain range and beyond.
As you can tell I've never been to Croatia, or read up on its geographical nuances. But I suppose Marcus could be touring the country.
I can easily see a scenario where the Republicans are unable to come to agreement on anybody and simply lock up and can't elect a Speaker.
It would be par for the course.
"I suppose Marcus could be touring the country."
One of these days we shall have to familiarize you with Occam's Razor.
@ Lynnette,
Apparently Rush Limbaugh has determined that the recent discovery of liquid water on Mars is a political plot intended to advance ‘the liberal agenda’ in some fashion, probably having something to do with global warming.
I kid you not.
Sargent Charles Martland has been discharged from the Army for beating up the Afghan police commander, Abdul Rahman.
While the body of the article acknowledges the beating, FoxNews headlines it as only ‘shoving [the] accused Afghan rapist’. I'd guess the guy got either an honorable or a general discharge; I'm sure FoxNews would have highlighted it if he'd been dishonorably discharged for ‘shoving’ somebody.
Apparently Rush Limbaugh has determined that the recent discovery of liquid water on Mars is a political plot intended to advance ‘the liberal agenda’ in some fashion, probably having something to do with global warming.
Typical. Well, if global climate change is real it will happen no matter what Rush theorizes.
Sargent Charles Martland has been discharged from the Army for beating up the Afghan police commander, Abdul Rahman.
Sending a message that such conduct is not going to be allowed.
I find it curious that Marcus was so intent on being ‘outraged’ and ‘sickened’ and ‘digusted’ and such as that and all because the Army would not tolerate two American officers beatin’ the shit out of one of the indigenous people. Normally Marcus would be ‘outraged’ and ‘sickened’ and ‘digusted’ and such as that if the Army let its officers and non-coms get away with such conduct.
I guess its got something to do with the homosexual thing, but I'm not sure how exactly that works out in his mind. Not even gonna pretend I can figure that one out.
"Well, if global climate change is real it will happen no matter
what Rush theorizes."
But, will it cause the appearance of liquid water on Mars? How the hell does that work?
Why beef is the new SUV
I guess its got something to do with the homosexual thing,...
Probably more to do with the kid thing.
But, will it cause the appearance of liquid water on Mars? How the hell does that work?
You ask for logic from Rush Limbaugh?
"Probably more to do with the kid thing."
He hasn't been making any noises about the child-bride tradition, and we've known about that for a long time. In fact, he's still not made any noises about that. Girl-kids are kids too, and yet he's never made a peep ‘bout it.
This marine Colonel Brezler, who was discharged for taking home classified documents regarding one Sarwar Jan… His lawyer, Kevin Carroll, was just on the Sean Hannity radio show arguing that Hillary Clinton now be charged with multiple felonies (this on the basis of he assumes she's taken home classified documents which assumption will be proven to be true, or so he promises, when the FBI actually gets around to recovering the deleted ‘personal’ e-mails; but he's sure about it already). Turns out the lawyer is working the Brezler case pro bono.
I suspect a political motivation for how the lawyer's framed the story he's been giving the press. Quite possibly the story's he's been telling aren't the whole truth.
Okay that one bothers me:
"Quite possibly the stories he's been telling aren't the whole truth."
According to NBC Nightly News, it took only 400-500 Taliban fighters to drive over 3,000 Afghan soldiers and para-military police out of the of Afghan city of Kunduz. Resistance in much of the city was minimal; it was not a spirited defense in any sense of the word.
A Turkish publication analyzes the Russian intervention, and concludes it's bad for Erdoğan. By this analysis Erdoğan and Putin have not only different, but contrary, goals. (They think the air defense system is intended to force the Turkish air force to back off and allow Assad and even the Russians to bomb rebel camps near the Turkish border and across into Turkey.)
Resistance in much of the city was minimal; it was not a spirited defense in any sense of the word.
Why does that sound familiar?
By this analysis Erdoğan and Putin have not only different, but contrary, goals.
Of course. Putin wants Assad to stay and Erdogan wants Assad to go. Why do I have a feeling there's going to be a hot time in the old town tonight? Sheez! I'm starting to wonder who isn't fighting in Syria?
Try this Lee: rape kids=as bad as it gets.
Beat the shit out of kiddie-rapists= always a good thing to do.
Universal rules. That I apply even to occupiers.
Questions on that? Sumthin' not clear 'nough?
None of them are going to jail for what are obviously criminal offenses. You might take note of that.
But undisciplined soldiers who can't follow orders can't be tolerated. You had no problem with noting that Kim Davis should not keep her job, ‘cause she couldn't meet the job requirement. Discipline, following orders, and keeping security regs are job requirements for our soldiers.
Post a Comment