Feingold Disagrees

There’s a letter to the editor in the Daily News from Senator Feingold in which he disagrees with one of my columns.

Owen Robinson’s recent column is right to point out that we don’t have clear objectives in Afghanistan, but wrong to suggest our brave troops should stay on indefinitely as policymakers try to decide what those objectives should be. Instead we should look seriously at concerns that our massive troop presence in Afghanistan is undermining our efforts to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban in two important ways.

This doesn’t make much sense to me.  We should yank out our troops before we decide what to do?  Huh?  What if we decide that we need MORE troops over there?  We ship them all back and then some?  We shouldn’t instigate large troop movements without first deciding what their purpose shall be. 

1. Nothing Feingold says or does ever makes any sense.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 0732 hrs




2. We shouldn’t instigate large troop movements without first deciding what their purpose shall be

   Something GWB shoulda thunk of before he sent troops to Afghanistan, eh?

   Posted by dad29 on September 09, 2009 at 0817 hrs




3. Our whole strategy seems silly to me, but admittedly, I’m not a general. I’d drive the bad guys toward Pakistan but be waiting at the border with heavy armory when they got there. Too simple?

   Posted by Jack Lohman on September 09, 2009 at 1059 hrs




4. Yes.

   Many of the bad guys are already in Pakistan.  We lack the forces to do what you describe and it is inherently difficult to identify the bad guys in the population.  It’s not like they are wearing a red hat so that we can know that they are the bad guys.

   Posted by Owen on September 09, 2009 at 1141 hrs




5. If they are running with guns in their hands, they are bad guys.

   Posted by Jack Lohman on September 09, 2009 at 1144 hrs




6. I can’t remember the last time a U.S. Senator took the time to disagree with me. Nice job, Owen!

   Posted by elliot on September 09, 2009 at 1149 hrs




7. “If they are running with guns in their hands, they are bad guys.”

   That pretty much describes most of the population of Afghanistan.  Well, and come to think of it, it also describes Northern Wisconsin during deer season.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 1206 hrs




8. Afghanistan is Pashto for quagmire.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 1313 hrs




9. That pretty much describes most of the population of Afghanistan.  Well, and come to think of it, it also describes Northern Wisconsin during deer season.

   Hunters do not run with guns.  It is ignorant to suggest…

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 1615 hrs




10. Cops run with guns.

    Posted by Mike Gallo on September 09, 2009 at 1632 hrs




11. Well Jeeezzz, I guess we’ll just have to wait for the bad guys to walk up and tap us on the shoulders.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on September 09, 2009 at 1648 hrs




12. Between Owen and Feingold there seems to be the most thoughtful discussion on this important but ignored topic. Keep it up Russ and Owen.
    , I would have to read Russ’ article again but I think he is talking about putting our troops in a relatively secure area until the US decides what exactly the strategy, goal and mission. My read only.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 1731 hrs




13. Seems to me that the last people that you want running military strategy and tactics are politicians.  The troops would be getting yo-yo’d all over the place depending on only whether that politican’s poll numbers are going up or down.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 1911 hrs




14. My sons have been lucky enough to spend time at those vacation spots: Iraq and Afghanistan.  If we leave they can re-establish their control and use this as a base for terrorism.
      We will never win there, but we must keep them on the run so they cannot stabilize and come after us.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 2246 hrs




15. “When you’re left wounded on Afghanistan’s plains and the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, And go to your God like a soldier”  Rudyard Kipling

    Some ideas aside from hunting down insurgents…

    1. Provide basic protection, food, water, employment, immunizations, and education to the people in the refugee camps so the Taliban loses this vital source of soldier recruitment.  Encourage international adoption of refugee camp orphans.  Have 5 year build up and pull out time and stick to it.
    2. Decriminalize possession of small amounts of heroin and opium worldwide, take monies saved from eliminating imprisonment of small time offenders and spend the monies on drug addiction treatment (cheaper/more effective).  Focus law enforcement on taking down smugglers, manufacturers, and big moneyed criminals - especially banks participating in money laundering.  The price for opium/heroin will quickly drop, wiping out a vital source of Taliban income.
    3. Provide low interest loans for construction of reliable sources of clean water and make sure immovable, stainless steel U.S. flags are visible on U.S. funded wells and sewage treatment plants. 
    4.  Negotiate nuclear arms reductions in India and Pakistan and/or buy the weapons grade uranium from them.  Give/sell us uranium or lose U.S. and other’s financial aid and “fair” trade agreements.
    5. ...

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 2321 hrs




16. Decriminalize small amounts of heroin and morphine?  Great idea, been tried many times before: total disaster.  All of these things have been tried.  they don’t work.
      Buy the heroin and burn it.

    Bob Dohnal, RPh

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 2330 hrs




17. Ah, burn it and drive the price UP when by legalizing it you drive the price (and profits) down and reduce the crime involved in acquiring it. Make it free and you eliminate the pushers profits and incentive to walk the grounds of high schools hooking the kids.

    Netherlands did, and they have 1% of adults using drugs, compared to 5% in the US. But oh, I forgot. We don’t follow the lead of other country’s successes.

    See   The drug war: When to stop digging?  Drug users need treatment, not incarceration.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on September 10, 2009 at 0700 hrs




18. Ignorance of the history of drug use in this world is no excuse for blather.  Everything has been tried by every country, including the Netherlands experiment, and the results are far different than what you talk about.  The history of drug use goes back hundreds of years and those that have tried legalization, especially the Muslim countries have cracked down real hard. 
        Most countries are much tougher than we are on drugs.
      It is an old problem and ignorant people keep coming up with answers that have been tried many times by many countries and have not worked.
      As a pharmacist I was first exposed to this back in the 60’s and have written extensively. I have read hundreds of books and articles.
      It is a problem without a solution a some people, those that tend to have addictive personalities are drawn to drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, what ever.
      The problem is never going away, so all you can do is contain it.  Yes, drive the price up as high as you can so that people cannot afford it.  it is working with cigarettes.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 0850 hrs




19. “If they are running with guns in their hands, they are bad guys.”

    That pretty much describes most of the population of Afghanistan.  Well, and come to think of it, it also describes Northern Wisconsin during deer season.

    Don’t forget a good portion of Milwaukee.

    I wonder what his thoughts are on running with scissors?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 0857 hrs




20. As one of those “ignorant people” to which our esteemed pharmacist refers, and as one of those formerly addictive smokers who never tried even marijuana, I am not so blinded by my own arrogance as to believe that we have all the answers. The Netherlands has a different view and experience: “Most policymakers in the Netherlands believe that if a problem has proved to be unsolvable, it is better to try controlling it instead of continuing to enforce laws with mixed results.” See
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands 

    And Kelly, if our troops can’t vet the bad guys with guns, we should indeed pull out of all battle areas. If you have a better idea offer it up.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on September 10, 2009 at 0914 hrs




21. Yes, Jack, opinions without knowledge make for ignorant statements.  Legalization, which has been advocated by many Libertarians, Bill Buckley and other people, has been tried many time.
      The Netherlands is a very small country with a very small underclass that is taking a long look at this right now.  Walking downtown in Amsterdam or other places in the Netherlands and seeing drunken people staggering all over the place is not exactly a tourist draw or tribute to your country.
      The last thing that we need around here is some opium dens in downtown Milwaukee right across for the PAC or other places.
        It is just a very stupid idea but only one of your many stupid ideas.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 0924 hrs




22. Yes, Bob, and I feel very inferior because of those stupid ideas of mine. Like my single payer support (which 59% of doctors and over 60% of the public supports), and campaign finance reform (which 90% of Wisconsinites voted for in the 2000 referendum). But none of these people really checked with you before developing their stupid support. Go figure.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on September 10, 2009 at 0935 hrs




23. I have to say that I agree with Dohnal on this side topic. Having read a few books and articles on drug abuse in the past 60 years just in this country, I would have to see Mountains of hard evidence supporting Jack’s claims before I would agree.  Sorry Jack, but you’re not going to convince me with a link to an Op-Ed, and a quote from a Wikipedia article.

    I do agree that there are much more efficient, and probably better ways to deal with drug use, but legalization doesn’t seem to be one of them.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 0936 hrs




24. If you ask if we need healthcare reform almost everyone agrees, than the problem is in the details.
      No one agrees on what to do for many reasons.
      History has spoken on what to do-about drug use and has said that there isn’t any answers much less easy ones.
      Anyone that thinks that legalizing drugs will solve the problem is just a damn fool.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 0945 hrs




25. Jason, you’ll note that my op-ed did not say “we must do it.” It said that we need to be more open-minded and “study it!” Having had a brother (now diseased) who got hooked because of drugs given to him by a pusher at school, I am sensitive to this problem. Not yet convinced myself, but not so closed minded as to ignore the successes in other countries. Bob would call that ignorant, but he can do that because he is so perfect.

    For those with open minds, here’s a web site created by law enforcement: http://www.leap.cc

    Posted by Jack Lohman on September 10, 2009 at 0947 hrs




26. List the successes and in which countries. What do you consider to be successes?  What has each country tried, when and what happened?  If this is such a great success that why aren’t other countries doing it?  It has been tried before many times.
      In the nursing homes where i was a clinical practitioner, I have seen the results of excessive drug use, HIV and the other venereal diseases endemic to drug use. The destruction of body organs.  Yes, many people in nursing homes are not necessarily old anymore, but they are full of people that have followed the road advocated by Jack and others.
      They are dead early on and live a horrible life.
      Take a look at someone after they have been on meth for a year, they age 30 years in that time and destroy their lives and those around them.
      One tour around these people, and I toured them every day wil tell you that giving people something that will destroy them is really stupid.
      You might as well put them in front of Barak’s “Death Panels” after six months, cause that’s how long they have to go in many cases.
      In the last 5 years the mortality rate for drug users of Rx drugs has gone up 500%.
      Where would that go if we gave drugs away to users.
      But then that would solve the problem Jack, just kill off the junkies by giving them all the drugs they want.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1007 hrs




27. Anyone that thinks that legalizing drugs will solve the problem is just a damn fool.

    I seem to recall that this would include our blog host Owen. This is very rich coming from a “legal” drug pusher. Just like finding our that all the major liquor corporations financially support the Partnership for a Drug Free America.
    So Dohnal, you crazy druggist, how about alcohol? caffeine? aspirin? Should only YOU have the right to decide? Sounds like another voice for “BIG MOTHER” government to me.
    Many of the problems you cite have to do not with the drugs, but their illegality. Remember Prohibition? That was when a bunch of prissy old ladies enriched the most violent sector of our society. Maybe you should be out there reincarnating the Temperance League.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1054 hrs




28. Charlie, please don’t be too hard on Dohnal. They’ve been including free stupid in happy meals and he caught it.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on September 10, 2009 at 1100 hrs




29. Blather away guys but show all of us something besides bad opinions that legalization will work.  Anyone can have an opinion.  Knowledgeable opinions backed up by some facts and research will tell the tale.  In other-words facts talk and BS walks.
    There are lots of countries in this world that have tried lots of solutions.  Check them out and show us some real data that these birdbrain ideas have ever worked.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1130 hrs




30. Dohnal - answer the question. Should we make alcohol illegal?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1210 hrs




31. I never did understand the legalization rationalization/comparison of alcohol.  Alcohol, when used beyond moderation is bad; that does not mean we should legalize maryjane.

    Posted by Smeety on September 10, 2009 at 1309 hrs




32. No, there is a fundamental difference between the two, though that sometimes get blurred.  I might go out for a beer with Jack and have a good time insulting his ideas and wondering about his logic and intelligence and not get high. 
        I have a glass of wine with a meal to enjoy it but do not get high. 
        If I smoke a joint I am only doing it to get high.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1451 hrs




33. Decisions, decisions, Bob, what is a guy going to do?

    Posted by Jack Lohman on September 10, 2009 at 1729 hrs




34. Decisions, decisions, Bob, what is a guy going to do?

    Yeah, like post some tripe answer, or some detailed facts and figures.  Hmmmmm

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1938 hrs




35. The Netherlands drug use rates are far lower than the United States - 25% or fewer have tried cannabis.  Cannabis users are treated with disdain by nonusers, but they are tolerated.  Amsterdam, a beautiful, clean, safe city in the Netherlands, does not have opium dens and is not awash in addicts.  Legal Cannabis use is restricted to the red light district inside coffee houses.  Light a joint on the street and risk being seen by 10 cameras, being fined, and having a citation visible to international authorities.  The police quietly move the rif raf out of sight as they alarm the tourists.  I have been to 10 major European cities: A drunk here and there in an alley is similar to the drunk count in NY, Chicago, St. Paul, etc.

    I never wrote legalize heroin,  I wrote decriminalize heroin use and possession of heroin in small quantities.  Penalties for dealing, transportation and manufacture and driving under the influence should remain the same.  Take the money saved on arresting, processing, and incarcerating nonviolent “little people” and spend a much smaller portion of the savings on treatment for the nonviolent little people.  Do the homework: Incarceration keeps drug users cycling back into drug use and incarceration.  Treatment breaks the cycle and is far cheaper.  Google “Treatment or Incarceration? Drug Addiction” to start and see the trusted names advocating this well researched concept.

    The effects of using Heroin and other recreational drugs would still have to be taught in schools.

    This goal of decriminalizing possession and use of heroin and opium is to knock the price down on heroin/opium so that in this particular Afghanistan situation the Taliban lose a major resource for funding their operations and recruiting soldiers.  Bonus: Drug profits for Drug lords in central America drop too.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 2201 hrs




36. Amsterdam is not particularly beautiful, have been there several times some on business and some for tourism.  The prostitute district is filled with pick pockets, the coffee shops sell several different types of hash and mj. 
      Saw numerous intoxicated people downtown and around the shops..  Happily they were not driving but weaving around on their feet.
      A bunch took swims in the canals right next to our hotel and were very loud, our window as open.
      Amsterdam is virtually devoid of the underclass that is present in most American cities.  Find some people of different colors and it is as rare as downtown Ottawa.
      There is some local color around some of the other cities for tourists but I have no interest in going back, even it was a free trip.
      Historically Amsterdam has been a wide open city cause the Dutch were very mobile, with of lots of sailors who traveled   around the world.  It is nothing like Paris which is really beautiful.
      Comparing Amsterdam to places like New York or Chicago is a joke.
      The only thought that is sensible about legalization is the possibility of closing down some of the drug lords but there is no guarantee that they will go away.   

      There is plenty of drug sales of cocaine and heroin in Amsterdam.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 2225 hrs




37. Not legalization.  Decrimnalization.  Lower the fine.  Eliminate felony penalty for personnel use.  Require drug rehab program instead of jail or prison time.

    Dealers, producers, muels, etc., keep current punishment(s) in place.
    Violent nuts, driving while on something: keep current punishment(s) in place.

    If we legalize, buy shares in Heroin/Cocaine Incorporated.  The US will look like China hooked on British controlled Opium during the time of the Boxer rebellion.  No F-ing way.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 11, 2009 at 2201 hrs