HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » UN asks the question, &qu...

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:25 AM

 

UN asks the question, "why the war is still being fought at all."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/19

And a probing question it is. Over eleven years into the war, there simply doesn't seem to be any sort of rationale for our continued presence. Al Qaeda is virtually non-existent, bin Laden is dead, oh, and let's not forget, none of the 911 hijackers actually came from Afghanistan.

Yet the war grinds on, with no foreseeable end in sight. Despite the much touted 2014 withdraw date, the actual fact of the matter is that Obama committed US forces to stay in Afghanistan until 2024.

So again the question becomes "why?" Why are we continuing to engage in an illegal, immoral war that is accomplishing nothing except making more and more people pissed at us, to the point where they are chomping at the bit to strike back at us? Why are we continuing to kill men, women and children? Why are we continuing to waste money and lives on a war with no purpose?

The sad fact is that Obama is engaged in a war for the profit of the MIC, a tradition that encompasses every post WWII conflict that this country has been involved in. We are involved in a war that profits the merchants of death, and pauperizes everybody else. As with other presidents, both Republican and Democrat, Obama doesn't have the courage to stand up to the MIC, and say enough is enough, because he doesn't want to risk looking like he is "soft on terra". In fact this has been a particular plague with Democratic office holders. They have gotten tagged with the label of being soft on defense, so they have, time and again, compensated. So much so that they have been just as bloodthirsty as Republicans.

Someday, somehow, hopefully we will find a president who is willing to stand up to the MIC. The only one who came close was JFK, but then he was shot, and LBJ went in and ratcheted things up in Vietnam again. Every other president since then has toed the line, making sure that the MIC is well fed and cared for, even though it costs the rest of us dearly. Right now half, actually more than half, of our federal budget is devoted to the military. Just think of what we could accomplish with that money. Hell, not building one modern fighter jet would save us one hundred million dollars alone. Just think of what education could do with that sort of money.

But we need a president who is willing to take a stand, and sadly, Obama isn't that president. In fact he has committed us to at leasst one military campaign for another eleven years. Worse, none of the current early names being bandied about for 2016 looks promising in this regard either. Clinton, Kerry, Biden, all look more than willing to properly care and feed the MIC.

So ultimately it is up to us. We have to organize, agitate, make our voices and our will heard. Make it so dangerous politically for a politician to condone the MIC in any way that they are finally starved to death. If not, then we will continue to slide into ruin, spending all our wealth on wars that accomplish nothing, nothing except making a few rich, and turning the world against us.

21 replies, 1146 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply UN asks the question, "why the war is still being fought at all." (Original post)
MadHound Feb 2013 OP
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #1
ProSense Feb 2013 #2
MadHound Feb 2013 #3
ProSense Feb 2013 #5
MadHound Feb 2013 #8
ProSense Feb 2013 #12
MadHound Feb 2013 #14
ProSense Feb 2013 #15
MadHound Feb 2013 #16
Kolesar Feb 2013 #9
MadHound Feb 2013 #11
Kolesar Feb 2013 #20
MadHound Feb 2013 #21
Kolesar Feb 2013 #4
MadHound Feb 2013 #6
Kolesar Feb 2013 #7
MadHound Feb 2013 #10
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #13
hughee99 Feb 2013 #17
MadHound Feb 2013 #18
hughee99 Feb 2013 #19

Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:32 AM

1. You starting DU's "Progressive Prez 2016" group?

Candidates for Prez in 2016 will start to pop up probably around this time next year.

Time's a wasting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:38 AM

2. Wait, the report

Though the report released by the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) says the casualty rates were down from 2011, it was cautious to note that the level of ongoing death and injury was nothing to celebrate.

...you linked to is about the decline in civilian casualties. Yet you state this, which has nothing to do with the piece.

Yet the war grinds on, with no foreseeable end in sight. Despite the much touted 2014 withdraw date, the actual fact of the matter is that Obama committed US forces to stay in Afghanistan until 2024.

<...>

But we need a president who is willing to take a stand, and sadly, Obama isn't that president. In fact he has committed us to at leasst one military campaign for another eleven years. Worse, none of the current early names being bandied about for 2016 looks promising in this regard either. Clinton, Kerry, Biden, all look more than willing to properly care and feed the MIC.

Are you still campaigning against the President? He just won re-election, you know? Kerry? WTF? LOL!

Oh, here's some updated information:

Obama: 34,000 Troops Will Return From Afghanistan By Year’s End

President Obama announced that 34,000 American troops in Afghanistan will return home by the end of 2013, during his State of the Union speech Tuesday.

"Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan," Obama said, according to prepared remarks. "This drawdown will continue. And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-34-000-troops-will-return-from-afghanistan





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:53 AM

3. Just love how you cherry pick,

 

Completely ignoring the status of forces agreement that was signed by Karzai and Obama last year. You know, the one that binds us to keeping troops in Afghanistan until at least 2024. The link to that is in my OP, but you conveniently overlooked that.

But another question is, why are we still in Afghanistan? We shouldn't have gone over there in the first place, but the warmonger Bush wouldn't have it any other way. But why didn't Obama get us out of there in his first term? Better yet, why is he committing troops to stay over there for another eleven years? Furthermore, why is he continuing to endanger this country, not only with the war in Afghanistan, but with drone strikes in the Middle East, Africa, and upon our erstwhile ally Pakistan? Does he want that kind of blowback visited upon US soil, because you and I know it will. Then again, such blowback will provide the convenient excuse to put boots on the ground in some other part of the world, and make more obscene profits for the MIC. Is that what you want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:02 AM

5. This

"Completely ignoring the status of forces agreement that was signed by Karzai and Obama last year. You know, the one that binds us to keeping troops in Afghanistan until at least 2024. The link to that is in my OP, but you conveniently overlooked that. "

...one:

To be clear, the Strategic Partnership Agreement itself does not commit the United States to any specific troop levels or levels of funding in the future, as those are decisions will be made in consultation with the U.S. Congress. It does, however, commit the United States to seek funding from Congress on an annual basis to support the training, equipping, advising and sustaining of Afghan National Security Forces, as well as for social and economic assistance.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/01/fact-sheet-us-afghanistan-strategic-partnership-agreement

The war is going to end. It should end sooner, but it's going to end so no need to introduce bullshit spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:08 AM

8. Really?

 

"US veteran Sgt. Jacob George, who served in Afghanistan but now speaks out against the war, argued the agreement speaks to the futility of US military efforts in Afghanistan that began with the US invasion in 2001. “The agreement actually allows for sustaining a ‘post-conflict’ force of 20,000 to 30,000 troops for a continued training of indigenous forces. They are pretending this is something new, but it’s not. That’s what I was doing in 2001 — and 2002, 2003 and 2004. This is just disastrous, for ten years, with the greatest military the world has ever seen, we’ve been unable to defeat people with RPGs. And a year after Bin Laden was killed, we’re still planning to keep tens of thousands of troops there.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/02-6

Show me one post post WWII "training mission" that didn't involve US troops on the ground. Who is going to do the training, flying monkeys?

Even if there were going to be no US troops in Afghanistan, we would still be footing the bill for the ongoing war, making money for the MIC. Don't you think it's time to stop?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:19 AM

12. LOL!

"US veteran Sgt. Jacob George, who served in Afghanistan but now speaks out against the war, argued the agreement speaks to the futility of US military efforts in Afghanistan that began with the US invasion in 2001."

So your argument is not the SOFA, but this soldier's opinion?

"Show me one post post WWII "training mission" that didn't involve US troops on the ground. Who is going to do the training, flying monkeys? "

Ooooh, you got me there. Bad FDR.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:25 AM

14. And again, instead of acutally answering the tough questions, all you have is ad hominems and insult

 

Of course you can't answer that question because you already know the answer and it doesn't fit into your tidy little narrative.

So, when it is 2015, and we still have thousands of troops in Afghanistan on "training missions", what will your response be then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:28 AM

15. Easy

"So, when it is 2015, and we still have thousands of troops in Afghanistan on "training missions", what will your response be then? "

...that clearly the OP is bullshit. From the OP:

"Yet the war grinds on, with no foreseeable end in sight. Despite the much touted 2014 withdraw date, the actual fact of the matter is that Obama committed US forces to stay in Afghanistan until 2024."

To your WWII point, how's that war going? Training is not war.

You need to reread the SOFA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2398074

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:32 AM

16. You apparently didn't understand what I was trying to say,

 

Post WWII "training missions", like those in Vietnam, various S. American countries, etc.

And again, you're not answering the question, "So, when it is 2015, and we still have thousands of troops in Afghanistan on "training missions", what will your response be then? " Again, you're just tossing out insults and ad hominems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:09 AM

9. Did you just start researching this issue this morning?

why are we still in Afghanistan? We shouldn't have gone over there in the first place, but the warmonger Bush wouldn't have it any other way. But why didn't Obama get us out of there in his first term?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:15 AM

11. Do you have an answer for the question,

 

Or just more insults?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:13 PM

20. President Obama didn't say we're leaving Afghanistan in his first term, Mister Cheerful...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:14 PM

21. No, he didn't, and that's part of the problem,

 

We knew Afghanistan was a fuck up for years now, and in addition to getting us out of Iraq, we should also have been getting out of Afghanistan as well. Instead, here we are, still in Afghanistan, and it looks like we'll be there for another eleven years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:00 AM

4. You didn't put the right url in your post ... eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:03 AM

6. Umm, both of my links work, care to explain your comment? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:06 AM

7. This:

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:09 PM - Edit history (2)

Afghan Civilians Bear Brunt of Death, Injury as US War Continues...

- Jon Queally, staff writer

In a war that the US refuses to end in Afghanistan, the civilian population of that country continues ...

Though the report ...

"The human ...

“It is the tragic ...

The UN report ...


...


Does not equal this:


And a probing question it is. Over eleven years into the war, there simply doesn't seem to be any sort of rationale for our continued presence. Al Qaeda is virtually non-existent, bin Laden is dead, oh, and let's not forget, none of the 911 hijackers actually came from Afghanistan.

Yet the war grinds on, with no foreseeable end in sight. Despite the much touted 2014 withdraw date, the actual fact of the matter is that Obama committed US forces to stay in Afghanistan until 2024.

So again the question becomes "why?" Why are we continuing to engage in an illegal, immoral war that is accomplishing nothing except making more and more people pissed at us, to the point where they are chomping at the bit to strike back at us? Why are we continuing to kill men, women and children? Why are we continuing to waste money and lives on a war with no purpose?

The sad fact is that Obama is engaged in a war for the profit of the MIC, a tradition that encompasses every post WWII conflict that this country has been involved in. We are involved in a war that profits the merchants of death, and pauperizes everybody else. As with other presidents, both Republican and Democrat, Obama doesn't have the courage to stand up to the MIC, and say enough is enough, because he doesn't want to risk looking like he is "soft on terra". In fact this has been a particular plague with Democratic office holders. They have gotten tagged with the label of being soft on defense, so they have, time and again, compensated. So much so that they have been just as bloodthirsty as Republicans.

Someday, somehow, hopefully we will find a president who is willing to stand up to the MIC. The only one who came close was JFK, but then he was shot, and LBJ went in and ratcheted things up in Vietnam again. Every other president since then has toed the line, making sure that the MIC is well fed and cared for, even though it costs the rest of us dearly. Right now half, actually more than half, of our federal budget is devoted to the military. Just think of what we could accomplish with that money. Hell, not building one modern fighter jet would save us one hundred million dollars alone. Just think of what education could do with that sort of money.

But we need a president who is willing to take a stand, and sadly, Obama isn't that president. In fact he has committed us to at leasst one military campaign for another eleven years. Worse, none of the current early names being bandied about for 2016 looks promising in this regard either. Clinton, Kerry, Biden, all look more than willing to properly care and feed the MIC.

So ultimately it is up to us. We have to organize, agitate, make our voices and our will heard. Make it so dangerous politically for a politician to condone the MIC in any way that they are finally starved to death. If not, then we will continue to slide into ruin, spending all our wealth on wars that accomplish nothing, nothing except making a few rich, and turning the world against us.
...
Jon Queally, author of such commondreams malaise as:

Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Aims to Gut Social Security
prn.fm/.../jon-queally-obamas-ugly-new-deal-aims-to-gut-social-secu...Jon Queally — Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Aims to Gut Social Security. December 18, 2012 | Filed under: Economics · English: President Barack Obama ...
...
Didn't miss a quote when Cornel West called the President a war criminal:

by Jon Queally, Common Dreams

Philosophy professor, social critic and activist Cornel West says that like Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that President Obama—due to his execution of foreign wars and direction of clandestine military operations overseas resulting in the direct and foreseeable death of innocent people—should be called out for what he is: a ‘war criminal’.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/02/let-us-not-be-deceived-cornel-west-names-obama-as-war-criminal-2455652.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:14 AM

10. Well, first of all, I would like you to cut back on the amount that you cut and pasted,

 

I would hate to see this thread locked due to copyright violation and your foolishness in doing so. Second of all, I'm expressing my opinion, not regurgitating an article. I used the articles(please note, there are two that I linked to) as a jumping off point. Third, can you point out any statements that I made that weren't factual?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:21 AM

13. Because it is embarrassing for politicians to admit to losing a war...again.

The world's most expensive military, with unlimited resources, fights an enemy with no air force, basic infantry equipment, no real supply lines, broken into small groups and loses after 10 years of fighting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:34 AM

17. 2024? What? I heard VP Biden say in the debate we'd be out by 2014.

"Come hell or high water" I believe was the term he used. He was countering Ryan who said we shouldn't set and end date and that we may need to stay longer. Now it turns out not only was Ryan closer to describing the Presidents position (on this) than Biden was, but the agreement was signed MONTHS before the debate, and neither one of the candidates mentioned it?

I agree with much of what you say, and I don't think the MIC will allow us to close out this war at least until they have a new one ready to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:43 AM

18. According to the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed by Karzai and Obama last year,

 

We will continue to provide the Afghan forces with money, supplies, weapons, and an undisclosed number of US troops to conduct "training missions" at least through the year 2024. Check out the link to the article in my OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:56 AM

19. I did already, it was very interesting.

I had heard the rough outline of this already (though the link was much more informative), and this was a little fake outrage on my part since I had been aware of this for some time. It still bugs the hell out of me that Biden said it during the debate given that he knew it wasn't true, and it was a huge softball to Ryan if he was "on his shit" (of course, if he knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't be Paul Ryan, and wouldn't have been the repuke VP candidate).

Hearing others repeat the 2014 fabrication is like listening to people who think Gitmo was closed with the stroke of a pen right after the President took office or how the terrorists "hate us for our freedom".

Excellent post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread