I'm not part of the choir any longer ... Obama's recent boost to The War Machine has lost me.

[ShortnFiery]

I can't support any continuation of this immoral and illegal occupation of either Afghanistan and Iraq.

At this point I'm so depressed and disgusted with Obama's rhetoric.

Am I alone, or do you believe OBAMA HAS A PLAN that will assist us in withdrawing our combat troops from these nations?

[dionysus]

1. you haven't been part of the "choir" for quite some time...

[ShortnFiery]

5. Oh stop! I've been supportive of Obama. You know that, I'm just a person who does not ADORE

any politician. That's where we differ.

[dionysus]

16. my opinion is that once in office, he found out that it will take longer to get out than he planned.

[Ken Burch]

277. "We Seek No Wider War!"

[happygoluckytoyou]

338. OBAMA IS NOT A GOD... but i believe he is looking for a greater good

WE ALL KNEW that in running for office you need to run on SOUNDBITES

THAT MEANS that we can only hope that there is a good deal of truth within each statement

WE AS PROGRESSIVES tend to discuss the pro and con of every issue, including the nuances of our own positions

---------SO TO SOME DEGREE we should give OBAMA some latitude to choose his battles, change his mind with new information, and learn as he goes

HOWEVER----> he promised an OPEN administration as a MAJOR PLANK... we should expect NO LESS FROM HIM ! ! !
he promised a DIRECTION of the war... we should expect the DIRECTION, but accept some of the changed details
he promised a certain approach to civil and social issues.... we should expect no less

BUT WE ALL NEED TO KNOW THAT HE HOLDS HIS MORAL GROUND... and we need to hold him ACCOUNTABLE to that ! ! !

(i hated bush from day one of year one.... but i tried to allow him the option to show me wrong.... that took until day three of year one...
OBAMA is way ahead)

[LittleClarkie]

293. I hope you are not suggesting that anyone who supports Obama

adores him. That kind of talk is a tad too Rush-like for me. As if he had no supporters, only worshipers.

[SkyDaddy7]

374. You are part of the choir!

More people on DU are against Obama and several say they are supporting a challenge to him in 2012. So, you are part of the choir!

[DaLittle Kitty]

406. Koolaid Has Gone Stale and Rancid... The Numbers Are Increasing Daily!

[mkultra]

407. your an died in the wool Obama basher.

[scheming daemons]

6. Nevermind...

Not worth it.

[rcrush]

2. We'll leave when we run out of people to bomb.

[Soylent Brice]

26. or until it's no longer profitable.

whichever comes first.

[chimpymustgo]

101. Jobs and manufacturing, baby. Military Industrial Complex RULES.

[Ken Burch]

279. Or perhaps Phil Ochs said it best:

"We own half the world, O Say Can You See,
And the name for our profits is "democracy",
so like it or not, you will have to be "free".
'Cause We're The Cops of the World, Boys,
We're The Cops of the World".

[spiritual_gunfighter]

423. Phil Ochs was brilliant

I wonder what he would think of Obama, I have a strange feeling he would echo the OP.

[aquart]

377. Our war materiel is also made overseas.

Or haven't you examined that?

[earth mom]

228. The warmongers won't be happy unless there is complete and total annihilation

of everyone in the middle east save a few.

Those wars are nothing but Genocide.

[Baby Snooks]

250. But genocide is good for the economy...

The more you kill, the more you make. Just ask the Bushes. And I guess the Clintons. Starving people and denying them medicines under sanctions is still genocide. What Madeline Albright meant when she said the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it. Eventually, you see, we will get the oil. So it will be worth it. The problem is we will not get the oil. Any more than we got the oil in Iran when we deposed the Shah and installed a maniac believing he offered a better deal on the oil.

We are, again, a shameful nation. And again a shameful nation with a shameful president. The Iraqis will most likely force us to leave. And probably do so in the sea of blood Saddam Hussein promised. He knew his people much better than we did.

I really have given up all hope for this country. Barack Obama campaigned with a promise of HOPE and I pass by that mural each day.

I cannot stand to look at it any more.

[DeeDeeNY]

318. Madeline Albright's exact words

From her book "Madame Secretary", on her remark in a TV interview concerning the half million Iraqi children -
"As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into the trap and said something I simply did not mean. That was no one’s fault but my own." (p. 275)
Otherwise, your post is dead on correct.

[Javaman]

359. or as moron* stated back on Feb 14th 2007, "money trumps peace". nt

[waiting for hope]

319. You forgot to add they won't be happy until

they have extracted every last dollar too .... feeding the pig, that's what it's all been about.

[DJ13]

3. Obama's "plan" seems to be to allow Republicans to keep running their wars

[scheming daemons]

4. Meh.

To each his own.

I'm still with him.


Unwinding from a 7-year war takes time.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? If so, the "unwinding" is eerily similar

to what occurred with that war.

You can't WIN an occupation with an entrenched enemy who can live in abject poverty.

Nationalism provides the natives unbelievable strength and staying power.

We have fully lost "the hearts and minds" of the Afghani and Iraqi people.

Therefore, we have LOST THESE WARS OF OCCUPATION.

The only question would be, "How many more of our soldiers must die for an occupation that has already been lost?"

[scheming daemons]

12. He's working on an orderly exit to Iraq..... not fast enough for you, apparently...

To each his own....


I'm still with him.

[ShortnFiery]

18. I've studied military history. There's no orderly exit from an occupation that has been LOST.

Again, once you've lost the hearts and minds of the people, you've lost the war.

The vast majority of natives of both nations hate us (USA invaders) with every fiber of their being and they are not going anywhere.

It's time to declare "victory" even if a hollow one, and leave.

If we don't leave now, then when?

BLOODSHED will escalate on both sides fomenting more HATRED and KILLING.

Perhaps we'll learn before we reach 52,000 American Casualties ... but with medicine as good as it is, we'll have unthinkable veterans coming home maimed for life before the American people have had their fill.

It's beyond time.

[cliffordu]

42. We bow to your voiciferous intellect,

Your unlimited knowlege of all military campaigns and your unceasing willingness to instruct lesser intellects, such as we mortals here on DU.

Here's an honorary degree...:

[Occam Bandage]

84. Hey, do you have a link for public polling in Afghanistan?

I haven't seen any in the last year, and it sounds like you're on top of things.

[Dr Fate]

124. At one point, 90% of the public supported the invasion of Iraq.

Who knows- maybe the multi-national corporations who write the checks know what they are doing, and all these occupations are really the right thing to do.

Even still, just b/c the corporations who own the media can convince some of the people, some of the time, to agree with something in a poll, does not necessarily make it a good idea.... (See the Iraq war for example)

[Occam Bandage]

135. I don't mean polling of Americans. I mean of Afghans.

I recall seeing some polls a few years back that were generally supportive of US presence, but it's been a few years of setbacks, and SnF seemed pretty convinced that Afghans are now united against us. If there's polls showing that, I would honestly be very interested in that, and that would go a long way towards swaying my perception of whether the Afghan war is "winnable."

[Dr Fate]

137. LOL! I'm sure that participating in polls is a top priority over there. n/t

n/t

[Occam Bandage]

138. The most recent poll I can find shows a narrow majority of Afghan support for the mission,

but the peripherals (US image, blame for the current situation, US effectiveness, blame for civilian deaths) are all trending solidly against the United States. It's not an unreasonable assertion that Afghans are now against American presence in Afghanistan, but I'd like to see evidence of that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[Dr Fate]

142. Good to know that foreigners know how to spend my tax dollars.I just don't see how we can afford it.

n/t

[Occam Bandage]

146. I'm not using approval of the war in Afghanistan to support any particular point. nt

[Dr Fate]

148. I am. nt

nt

[Occam Bandage]

201. That doesn't make sense. You haven't referenced Afghan polling yet. nt

[Dr Fate]

218. Let me clarify: I use my questions & answers to make points.

I guess you asked questions and answered questions in order to somehow *not* make points.

In case you are wondering, I was making the point that just because poll participants want us to be in one war or another war does not mean it is a good idea, or that we can even afford it.

[grahamhgreen]

344. Yeah, can you pole displaced people, is it by phone, cell phone, knock on doors?

[vanbean]

368. They have tin cans and string strung all over the place there.

[conscious evolution]

172. the rightwing noise machine did its job

along with the 'Pearl Harbor'attack called for in the american enterprise institutes policy paper Policy for a New American Century (aka PNAC).
Thats why 90% supported the war.They were still in shock from september 11 and were easily manipulated as a result.

[Dr Fate]

173. From the looks of this thread, seems like it is still is doing it's job.

I say this because this is the 1st place where I've seen people agreeing with the slicked up talking heads on TV who want to stay in Iraq. No one I know in person talks this way.

Weird that DU of all places is one of the last hold outs to support the Iraq War.

[conscious evolution]

175. Its all of the paid trolls

and gatekeepers who have infested this place.The only people I know who still support the wars mostly do so because the war machine keeps their rice bowl full.Can't be fucking with the rice bowls.Someone may get mad or something.

[Dr Fate]

185. Good to know that someone besides multi-national corporations are copping a buck.

I know that most of the pro-occupation people on this thread could not possibly be trolls, but point taken.

I will say again that I cannot fathom why anyone, even someone who otherwise supports Obama, could argue that throwing another billion( that we do not even have )to Iraq is a good thing.

To be fair, no one is really going that far- they merely attack the OP as disloyal and leave it at that.

[earth mom]

233. Yep-paid trolls are playing DU like a violin & working overtime trying to make shit smell

like a rose.

Funny how some are more than willing to give up their integrity and morals to play politics with peoples LIVES.

Obama's political career is NOT worth more than one single persons LIFE who will be killed in the middle east for the LIE of 9/11.

What's going on around here is Absolutely Disgusting.

[closeupready]

386. Agree 100%, earth mom.

Wish I could recommend your post.

[ChiciB1]

186. Funny How That Happened, Isn't It??? Makes Me Wonder All The Time... n/t

[ChiciB1]

182. Not Fast Enough Fro Me Either.... AND I REMEMBER Viet Nam!!!

I've made a statement a while back that I want to get my 10,000 posts, but I may not make it! I'm with the OP! Actually, I've seen our posts are very similar of late!

And I WORKED MY BUTT off to get him elected!! Never my first choice, not Hillary either... but in this very RUBY RED county it was HARD work pounding the pavements, making phone calls, registering voters, standing on corners with signs and all the meetings involved! I was consumed and caught a lot of flak from my husband because I was gone so much! He even gave me an ultimatum when I first began my involvement! He said.... "I'll give you til November, then it's time to get back to running this family!"

He's not the political one in the family, but he did get behind the ticket... and actually tells me TODAY, that I should "wait" a while! Seems we're NEVER on the same page! I say, MORE TIME, MORE SHOCKERS I didn't see coming!

I was once SO BLUE, now I don't know what to do!!!

[cliffordu]

37. You'll probably need to look up how many south vietnamese died after we left..

without a truly stable government in place.

And the North emptied the cities, hospitals, everything....

Mebbe a million, maybe more. Who's to say???

Maybe that lesson needs to be applied before we leave Iraq.

Unless you'd like to see a return to the ethnic cleansing in Iraq (which is all it was, really..) that took place after Saddam was dead.

Unless you think it's alright we give Pakistan AND afghanistan over to the taliban,

We could just bail out. THEN you could say we didn't learn our lesson from Vietnam.

But not yet.

Colin Powell said "you break it you buy it" and he was never more right about anything in his life.

I know it's a righteous feeling to say "Get out now" but really, how many will die if we walk away???

[rug]

134. Should we have stayed, then?

[JuniperLea]

169. You'd think someone with such strong intellectual powers...

And all that learnin' about wars and history and such would know these things.

You nailed it.

[ShortnFiery]

248. Yes, easier to make a personal attack. I know that we killed close to 2 MILLION Vietnamese

before we left in 1975. With these protracted occupations where the populace considers you INVADERS, there's no GOOD way out. You just have to leave and let the natives "work out" the rest.

But of course we can't trust those little yellow and brown people to sort it out themselves ... because WE, are their intellectual superiors?

[JuniperLea]

362. Why should they be left to fix what we broke?

Don't you feel any empathy at all? Any sense of responsibility?

And for the record, I wasn't talking about Viet Nam prior to our leaving. What would that prove? I'm talking after we left them to fix what we broke. Get it?

[Mithreal]

286. Colin Powell was an idiot for saying that.

Question whether or not the item being broken was for sale in the first place. And no one ever responds to that and would rather ignore the point.

You do not know the future and may be a fool for saying you do. The responsibility to run those countries resides in their people. Yeah, I get it, you want to pretend we are doing some noble purpose by continuing occupations. If President Obama wants to stay in Iraq and further escalate Afghanistan than he deserves no soft words. If you want to maintain an American empire while bankrupting the country than join the Republican party.

Rationalize all you want, freedom wasn't a present, and warmongers can go fuck themselves.

[Lasher]

324. The aftermath was a consequence of going in.

Not getting out.

[RaleighNCDUer]

340. Actually, the purge after the fall of Saigon is best estimated to be

between 5000 and 20,000; and there WAS a stable government - the North Vietnamese government was in solid control.

That said, the situation in Iraq would be completely different, as there are at a minimum 4 major armed factions that would be vying for control or autonomy - the Sunnis, the Iraqi Shia, the Iranian-backed Shia, and of course, the Kurds.

The sad fact is, that is not going to change whether we leave in 16 months or 16 years, so we may as well leave sooner than later.

[RaleighNCDUer]

89. Do YOU remember how long it took to get our troops out,

once we began pulling them out? The first major troop reductions were in '72, and it took TWO YEARS from that time - and that was with S Vietnam having a large and relatively competent army to take the place of the combat troops - and there were still several hundred there in 75 when we evacuated Saigon.

He changed his schedule from 16 months to 20 months.

What a warmonger.

[ShortnFiery]

251. Well, I don't have the exact numbers but the withdrawal was a massive clusterfuck at the bitter end.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-...

April 29, 1975 - NVA shell Tan Son Nhut air base in Saigon, killing two U.S. Marines at the compound gate. Conditions then deteriorate as South Vietnamese civilians loot the air base. President Ford now orders Operation Frequent Wind, the helicopter evacuation of 7000 Americans and South Vietnamese from Saigon, which begins with the radio broadcast of the song "White Christmas" as a pre-arraigned code signal.

At Tan Son Nhut, frantic civilians begin swarming the helicopters. The evacuation is then shifted to the walled-in American embassy, which is secured by U.S. Marines in full combat gear. But the scene there also deteriorates, as thousands of civilians attempt to get into the compound.

Three U.S. aircraft carriers stand by off the coast of Vietnam to handle incoming Americans and South Vietnamese refugees. Many South Vietnamese pilots also land on the carriers, flying American-made helicopters which are then pushed overboard to make room for more arrivals. Filmed footage of the $250,000 choppers being tossed into the sea becomes an enduring image of the war's end.

April 30, 1975 - At 8:35 a.m., the last Americans, ten Marines from the embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam. North Vietnamese troops pour into Saigon and encounter little resistance. By 11 a.m., the red and blue Viet Cong flag flies from the presidential palace. President Minh broadcasts a message of unconditional surrender. The war is over.

[redqueen]

353. deleted

[Jakes Progress]

224. It's unfair to ask him how many more should die.

He's not over there. His kid's not over there. Why should he care?

(Do I need a sarcasm thingie?)

[Wickerman]

7. My guess is that Obama is running up against the cold harsh reality of how

fucked GWB left both situations and that pulling out of either now is pretty much impossible. How can you actually extract the last 10k troops? The last 1,000, the last 100, the last 10 when the battle is still being actively waged? I do see an attempt to establish a plan to end the hostilities and get the troops out of there but I think it will take much longer than anticipated. I can't suggest he either knew or didn't know what a mess things were going in.

[Richardo]

8. He's complying with the Status of Forces agmt in Iraq; and he told you he was going to Afghanistan

It was a major talking point of the campaign: troop reductions in Iraq, escalation in Afghanistan.

So what's the big surprise?

[TBF]

11. We're not surprised, just disgusted. n/t

[Richardo]

15. You could have been disgusted 10 months ago

Why now?

[ShortnFiery]

19. The Surge to include increasing numbers of mercenaries and troops from Columbia.

It's just vile how the Pentagon ghouls have our legislators in their back pockets ... nothing but continued death and destruction ... mostly to people who had not a damn thing to do with 9/11.

[laugle]

402. All I know is

if there was a draft, like during the Vietnam war, some people around here would be singing a very different tune......

And yes I remember that war well, it changed our family forever, and we had the FBI over a few times, can't elaborate further on that though.......

BTW, just how are we going to pay for this continuation when our country is bankrupt?? It's a bad situation no matter how it ends up, I'd rather we end it sooner, than later........

[asphalt.jungle]

20. their disgust would have meant more back then

it's one thing if he lied to you. but he told you, so you could have supported someone else. it's not "wasting" your vote if you don't select a major party candidate. if none of them have your values, support someone that does.

[ShortnFiery]

24. I was hoping that we could change his mind.

This will NOT work out well.

Nothing but hatred, death and destruction.

The Military Generals will blame seemingly ALL the civilian casualties on "the taliban" or "al quaeda" but THE NATIVES know the truth.

Again, the average Iraqi and Afghani DESPISE US and they will lie low and pick off our troops ... time is on THEIR side ... they will NEVER hate us less than the insurgents because it is THEIR NATION and we are THE INVADERS.

[Egnever]

67. so you are pissed he didnt change his mind like you wanted him to?

That seems pretty strange.

[redqueen]

78. I'd like him to change his mind on a few things too....

howver, if he doesn't... I'll just keep pushing for change.

I guess that throwing your hands in the air and giving up is another option.

[asphalt.jungle]

152. oh so executing the plans he campaigned on is only good if you agree with them

if you disagree with it you don't mind him going against those "campaign promises." if he changes his mind then that would mean he lied to some voters.

there will always be people who wish he changes his mind to support or oppose an issue.

[TBF]

23. For me personally it has been ongoing on this topic for as far back

as I can remember. Granted it's personal. My father came back from Vietnam over 100% disabled (no idea how they calculate these things but that's how they categorize him). It's particularly difficult for me to hear a dem president saying "increase troops".

For others they may have just reached their breaking point, but they'd have to speak for themselves.

[tan guera]

300. I was

turned off and disgusted during the campaign - by all of them.

[mkultra]

409. they where and they called themselves PUMA

[styersc]

9. Can I have your parking spot?

.

[grantcart]

13. I dibbs on the robe

[ShortnFiery]

14. LOL, I didn't know you cared.

[grantcart]

25. I don't, I have a robe fetish

[ShortnFiery]

27. Yes, it will match that big ass CROSS that you love to drag around.

[grantcart]

30. well we all have to do our part,

BTW you didn't have have silk screened it on:





Hey that doesn't look like a cross at all.

[ShortnFiery]

54. No, it's called taking a principled stand albeit unpopular,

perhaps say ... YOU and some of our Congress Critters consider it sometime?

[grantcart]

56. Right, now talking about crosses you may need a forklift .

[ShortnFiery]

128. But it's your cause that's deemed *righteous* as it conforms with the blessed Party line? NT.

[grantcart]

132. your rant has become increasingly incoherent

the only cause I have addressed is getting your robe.


What in the hell are you talking about?

[stray cat]

17. I can't sing either - but I sure prefer our current president to McCain Palin

I don't agree with everything he does - but then again no one elected me president

[ChiciB1]

183. But "We KNEW" What We Were Getting With McCain/Palin... We THOUGHT

"We Knew" what we were getting with Obama! There IS A DIFFERENCE!!

[redqueen]

354. Think harder.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[scrappydo]

410. That is the dumbest comment I have ever heard......

NO president can bring all the changes campaigned upon. President Obama is but one man and he deals with facts and intelligence we will never be privy to. Neither was Obama privy to facts before the election - what he thought was possible to do and what is actually possible to accomplish are two different things. If you believe everything Obama promised is attainable, you are living in an alternative universe.

[wyldwolf]

21. here... this is a guide for your journey

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Nice selection here. I'm sure you'll find a home. See ya.

[ShortnFiery]

29. Yes, wyldwolf, LOYALTY and party adherence to rules and authority are important to you.

We are not the same kind of democrats. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon for a delusion of "the big win."

[wyldwolf]

31. I'm not a democrat. I'm a Democrat. I believe in loyalty

[ShortnFiery]

35. I know you do wyldwolf. That's fully understood.

I'm also a populist.

Perhaps "The Democratic Party" BIG TENT doesn't have room for both of us?

Time will tell.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. This "my party right or wrong" routine is getting old

not to mention cynical and immoral.

[Political Heretic]

110. It's actually just cheap laziness masked in a shroud of "nobility"

Blind loyalty is easier than critical thought and analysis.

[bvar22]

200. CENTRISM !!!!

...because it is so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING, and get to insult those who do!

[Mithreal]

287. What a dumbass statement. The largest caucus in the Dem party

is progressives, no?

I'll paraphrase Barney Frank, the minority of Corporate Dems, DINOs, blue dogs, DLC'ers, NEW Dems should get the fuck out of our party.

Show THEM your page, not the fellow DU'er.

[vaberella]

22. This is dramatic. You're lucky I don't sing or I'd offer to take your spot. I'm in the band. n/t

[Odin2005]

28. We all know you are one of the naive pacifists so that doesn't suprise me.

People in the Reality-Based Community, however, see a fucking mess in Afghanistan and Pakistan caused by W going on his BS Iraq adventure instead of concentrating on pwning the Taliban and AQ. The Taliban must be kept from taking over Pakistan at all costs and if the Naive Pacifists don't like that or want to delude themselves that all the problems would disappear if we left I don't really care.

[ShortnFiery]

32. Hello?!? I'm a former regular army officer. I graduated in the upper 5% of my

Military Science Class.

Yes, I'm neither naive nor a pacifist. I loved the army and my dad was battlefield commissioned during A REAL WAR (WWII). I have no regrets for my service. In fact, it helped pay for my masters degree.

However, I know the signs of a nation that is becoming controlled by those who would seek perpetual war ... for the sake of keeping the corporations within the Military Industrial Complex Stoked.

No, these two occupations are not JUST.

Worse, they are not winnable.


Here's some wise words from President Eisenhower, 1961:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

[Odin2005]

34. Iraq wasn't. Afghanistan is.

I protested the Iraq war, it was a BS war based on a lie. Afghanistan is a just war on both traditional and Wilsonian principles of Just War.

[conscious evolution]

171. bullshit

Afghanistan is about securing pipeline routes for texaco,enron and haliburton.We invaded after the Bridas Corp of Argentina won the bids for the work.

[Odin2005]

181. *YAWN*

Right, everything is a big corporate conspiracy and there would be no war in your wonderful socialist utopia.

[conscious evolution]

336. If you woulde pull your head out of your ass

and wake up and smell the grits you would realize you are being lied to on a daily basis.
Of course we all know that will never happen.

[ShortnFiery]

257. Yep, that's why we emplaced our trusty puppet leader, the Mayor of Kabul, one each,

Hamid Karzai, Unocal fame and fortune.

BTW - Karzai's government is massively corrupt and NOT respected by the populace. Think GRAFT.

[Jennicut]

36. Obama has nothing to do with building up the miliary complex, you play the hand you are dealt with

Bush made the region more unstable.

[ShortnFiery]

43. No, the region is continuing to be unstable because ...

SURVEY SAYS .... "USA is occupying two sovereign nations."

I don't think you realize how the HATRED increased each and every day "the invaders" remain in these countries?

Really? How would you feel if China occupied the USA? Would you hunker down and bide your time?

We can't win this ... it is just a money making machine for those who have stock in War Machine Trade.

No good can come of this because "the natives" HATE US.

We can't undo "blowing up grandma into kibbles n' bits, raping mommy and torturing daddy."

[Jennicut]

53. You have a point. Do you think the Taliban will back off going into

Pakistan when we leave or is the boat already up the creek? Is the President in Pakistan willing to do anything on his own? If its a lost cause, I guess we have another screwed up country on our hands (to add to North Korea, etc.)

[ShortnFiery]

57. IMO, the Taliban want their niche. However, they KNOW that any nastiness occur in the USA,

we will bomb the living shit out of them, just like before. No, IMO, they would have no reason to PUSH into cities of Pakistan if they have their niche.

The Afghani, Iraqi and Iranian LEADERS are not stupid.

Again, I fear that we are keeping this ramped up to FEED the beast that has become the Military Industrial Complex.

The above THOUGHT is very uncomfortable if not frightening, but IMO, valid.

[Jennicut]

63. Well I live in CT, we have fed the beast here in many different ways.

That is a Dem AND Rethug issue.

I wonder if Obama had anyone speaking out to him about being cautious in Afghanistan and drawing it down, not up?
From an article that I read about the major discussions on Afghanistan, only Biden warned him to be cautious and avoid a quagmire, others like Clinton, Holbrooke, Gates and Mullen advocated that he draw the troops up. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/politics/28prexy.h...
I guess time will tell but you have very valid points regarding that our presence there is making it worse.

[democracy1st]

339. Pres Obama stated in a interview recently that he was fully aware of the Afghanistan

historical trappings,so I'm hoping the same mistakes will not be made

[Odin2005]

165. I don't care what the Taliban want, they need to be destroyed.

[ShortnFiery]

253. Yeah, bomb them into the Stone Age Son.

COL Kilgore: I love that smell ... that smell ... that gasoline smell ... smells like .... VICTORY.

Someday this war's gonna end.

[mkultra]

411. they already control regions of pakistan.

[Jennicut]

33. Pakistan is about to turn into a bigger mess then Iraq and Afghanistan

Bush sure left Obama and co one quagmire after another. I am not sure we can do any more in Iraq but we are on the schedule the Iraqi's want. We will be out in 1 1/2 to 2 years. It will be over.
If Pakistan falls it will be bad news, its Bush's fault, his War in Iraq led to increased recruitment and he turned a blind eye to the problems of Afghanistan. We are changing the way Afghanistan will be fought, seeking out the middle of the road in the Taliban to cut deals with them. Who knows what will work.
However, Obama never ever lied about how he felt about Afghanistan. I never thought he would "change his mind". If anything, he may be very worried that leaving would make Pakistan worse.

[ShortnFiery]

39. Part of the reason Pakistan is becoming increasingly destabilized is because ...

our "illustrious surge" of combat troops is pushing the more radical elements of the Taliban from Afghanistan across the border into the tribal areas of Pakistan and beyond.

We need to withdraw to the periphery (out of those two nations) and let them know IF anything bad happens in the USA, the RSVP will be exactly where they reside - hopefully back across the border into Afghanistan.

It's OUR surge that's helping to push the most radicalized taliban into Pakistan. No, if push comes to shove, I'd bet the leadership of Pakistan would LOVE for us to withdraw completely from Afghanistan.

[Jennicut]

44. Yeah, but now we made the mess. If we leave and the Taliban still keeps crossing over

what do we do then?
Also, how did Dick Cheney ever become Sec of Defense (let alone VP later on) under Poppy Bush? He sucks at strategy. He did not make anyone more "safe".....GRRRR
I hold my anger for Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush, the architects of these crappy wars.

I understand where you are coming from though. The situation is complicated now but you have more experience in this sort of thing having been in the military. My father joined during Vietnam but never had to go, thankfully.

[mkultra]

424. pakistan has a history of letting Al queda fester

They will continue to do so until Pakistan is unstable, then they will call for help. If we are chasing them into Pakistan, then we need to kill them NOW while we have the troops on the ground. We have to get these people and pulling out then redeploying is NOT going to make it work.

[bvar22]

47. The "fanatization" of Pakistan....

...is a DIRECT result of our hostile occupation of Afghanistan.
It WILL escalate until we leave.

[Odin2005]

164. That is simply not true.

The Taliban are the spawn of what we did there in during the Russo-Afghan War, they have nothing to do with what we are doing now. The vast majority of Pakistanis are Sufis that hate the Taliban.

[bvar22]

180. This IS simply true.

The hostile occupation of Afghanistan with the attendant killings of tribesmen and civilians in the East and Southeast has driven many across the border into Pakistan's Northern areas, including (if you believe it) Osama himself. The bloody Occupation has been a wonderful and effective recruiting tool for the more militant sects that have lived in this area for generations.

[Odin2005]

184. That boarder has always been extremely porous.

Now that Pakistan is finally starting the deal with these nut-jobs we can surround them and destroy them.

[bvar22]

211. Yippee!

Another Tora Bora, only Obama and The Democrats will own this new, improved disaster.
"The Taliban" is NOT some monolithic Western Army with a direct chain of command that can be "surrounded and destroyed". The MORE we bomb them and kill their families, the more we will spawn.

If they came here, killed my friends and family, installed their pet Millionaire as the new governor, I would be in the mountains with a rifle and IEDs.

Afghanistan belongs to Afghanis.
It is none of our business.

It is time to bring our soldiers home.

[sandspur]

254. So what about the foreign fighters?

This is not a simplistic situation. THAT is the mistake Bush made. Any why would the taliban settle for just some of teh country, when they might be able to take it all, and get to be a nuclear power. That idea makes me feel all warm inside.

[ShortnFiery]

258. Nobody has INVADED Afghanistan and kept it for long. We only need to LEAVE. It will be bad

but it will be FAR WORSE given thousands more USA casualties as well as countless dead natives and their relatives who will continue to hate us for generations.

Leave now to the periphery and provide humanitarian support when the dust clears.

It's horrid, but the BEST of all the lose-lose solutions.

[mkultra]

426. we will leave when we kill Bin Laden

[avaistheone1]

430. He already dead.

[mkultra]

425. if that be the case

then we need to chase them across the border and kill them. Its time to finish this by killing the real cause of these problems. Letting them get away will NOT make them go away.

[jonnyblitz]

41. so have you enlisted yet, tough guy? I bet not....

fucking POS...

[jgraz]

38. The reaction here is so predictable... and so pathetic

I don't even necessarily agree with the OP on this point, but the knee-jerk, authoritarian bullying of anyone who dares question Dear Leader (yeah, I said it. That's exactly how the bullies here view him) has got to stop.

Really, there are a lot of places that could use people who like to follow orders. Look into it.

[uponit7771]

40. Maybe people, like the OP, should pay the fuck attention and people would take

...them seriously.

Obama hasn't diverged far enough from his campaign outline for me to be disgusted yet, I paid attention to what he was saying.

[ShortnFiery]

46. Obama should "reaccess" and stop taking his order from Wall Street and the Pentagon. NT

[mkultra]

427. wow, the "wall street" meme is a RW talking point

You have crossed over?

[geek tragedy]

45. Oh boo fucking hoo.

Express a whiny petulant opinion, and you'll get criticized. That's the way things work on a discussion board. If you don't want people to disagree with Democrat-bashing, there are websites for that.

[ShortnFiery]

51. I'm not whiny, but I'm also not an "authoritarian lover" here. I've noted more than not

those who like ORDER are also the ones who will take it upon themselves to discipline.

Take it for what it's worth.

After four years of active duty, I was ready to tender my resignation. Since I despise unbridled authority, counseling and survey research endeavors proved to be a far more satisfying career for me.

[Mithreal]

288. Some here are really good at using the Repub tactics, no?

Call an argument whiny or petulant even when it is not when that is all one brings as a sort of preemption and confusion generating tactic meant to diminish the original point without any substance to a counterargument required.

Hell, just ignore rational points, pretend ya never heard em.

Congrats, skill +1

[Jennicut]

50. Oh Geez. Its called a discussion board. I am having a reasonable discussion.

Also using "Dear Leader" is a Rethug talking point, why use that here?

We need to stop calling each other names when we don't agree on an issue, that much I agree on. Many people need courses on anger management on the internet.

[Occam Bandage]

76. Yes, discussion is bullying. How dare people discuss things on a discussion board.

[redqueen]

139. LOL... yeah... who could have imagined a thread talking about 'the choir'

would be met with anything but the gentlest treatment, no matter how obtuse?

[jefferson_dem]

143. There are plenty of criticisms of the Democratic President here on the Democratic Underground.

I think the problem some may have (myself included) with this OP is that it's "look at me...now, i'm really really really off the Obamawagon" tone when the poster has a recent history of opposing him already.

[HughMoran]

255. Thanks for posting, so I don't have to

I agree with you.

[LittleClarkie]

309. Sort of like "I'm never going to drink and stay up all night ever again"

"and this time I MEAN IT!"

[ChiciB1]

187. Well Said... They're Hiring For Points Unknown OR Known Very Well!!! n/t

[Moochy]

237. very predictable and the usual suspects are snapped-to attention

with plenty of "Deleted Subthreads" left in their righteous wake.

[L0oniX]

238. Pot kettle black ...you n/t

[jgraz]

265. Sorry, I was waiting for someone to pay for my crack

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

52. Obama IS planning to pull "some" troops out.

They are going to be replaced by mercenaries.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

He will NEVER meet his "campaign" goal of "a brigade per month",
but most of us already KNEW that before the election.


What are the Anti-WAR people going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahahahahaha!

[Uzybone]

55. Good for you

I am quite happy with President Obama so far. I never expected instant withdrawal from either Iraq or Afghanistan.

[ShortnFiery]

61. Another Soldier from our area died. A friend recently returned with hearing loss and traumatic

brain injury. Another friend's son required 9 MONTHS of rehabilitation after his unit was hit by an IED. But now, instead of Iraqi, he's now in Afghanistan, so "no worries?"

Perhaps, if you are a veteran married to a retired Marine with FRIENDS and FAMILY over in the Middle East happy is not a word that you use with regard to the continuation of these two LOST occupations.

Early on, there was a chance to win the people's support. NOW, they will hate us for generations.

Talk to any thoughtful military person, in a quiet moment who's under the rank of Colonel (O5), then get back to me?

[SKKY]

393. I AM a thoughtful military person, well below the rank of O5...

...who has lost a shipmate in AFG, and has 4 others in IRQ as I type, and I think BO is pretty much doing what we all in the military wanted to happen in the first place- take care of AFG, and get out of IRQ as quickly as possible. The fact is, you simply can't turn back 7 years of massive military operations in as short of time as most on DU would like. It's just not realistic. BO was handed a shit sandwich by GWB- AFG, IRQ, and the economy. And that's just the stuff he has to fix before he can implement HIS agenda. Give the guy some time. Everyone I'm stationed with, save for the few exceptions who are die-hard GOP, are quite happy with our new CiC.

[ShortnFiery]

397. Yes, I can understand the thought of giving Obama some time.

But every protracted occupation and/or counterinsurgency, save for the homogenous populations during WWII, has turned out badly.

We can pull out quickly if the people had the will to do it.

I don't think that there is any viable agenda given that we have squandered our good will in both countries.

But perhaps Obama and the Pentagon have a viable plan. I hope so too.

Thanks.

[SKKY]

399. And this has turned out badly. No doubt about it...

...but for the love of Pete, let Obama do work. He's going to get us out of this- is getting us out of this. It's just going to take time. If we were to rush out of both, the result would be horrific beyond imagination.

[ShortnFiery]

401. Yes, you have a valid point. I hope that this new strategy works with the peoples

of those rural areas. To help them raise their standard of living so they don't feel that we are the problem.

Yes, we should give Obama a year at least but I'm very uncomfortable about the highest-tier leadership within DOD, both civilian and military.

However, patience is a virtue I'm lacking in this regard. Understood.

[salguine]

58. You're not alone. Obama lost me over a whole bunch of issues. I won't vote for him again.

[jenmito]

60. So you no longer support him?

[Cha]

62. Good..see ya.

We'll all do this without you.

[salguine]

117. Yes, you will.

[Thrill]

69. You never fully supported him then

If you already decided that after four months. You're just full of shit

[salguine]

118. I don't support an official. I support ideals and principles. If an official embraces and

strives toward and fights for those same ideals and principles, I support that official. If the official doesn't support those ideals and principles, I move on to a candidate who does.

If more people did so, we might have something resembling an accountable government, rather than the same fucking problems we had three generations ago.

[spoony]

334. Excellent post! n/t

[dionysus]

129. and we have a

[ShortnFiery]

72. Thank you. I'm dropping off and lurking. It's sad to see how many people are afraid to

even THINK that we may be on a dangerous path. That we are going to have to hurt bad before the people will elect truly populist democratic candidates.

I know, it's frightening, but it's part of coming to terms with reality.

It sucks, but I can't continue to pretend - to be willfully ignorant although it would be much more comfortable.

[redqueen]

80. We've been on the same path for decades.

That this is news to some here is kinda sad, but whatever.

Remember the line about turning a tanker? In case you don't, it's done very slowly.

I hope you'll keep working locally with anti-war groups.

[salguine]

119. The problem with that analogy is, in order to turn the tanker

you need to turn the rudder, not leave it where it is...with too many of the old crew on the bridge.

[redqueen]

126. I thought announcing a timeline of getting troops out was turning the rudder.

You saw how much effort it took just to get that done wrt Iraq... as for Afghanistan, it seemed to me that most on this site agreed we needed more of a presence there, that we'd left them hanging... somewhere between his nomination and now, apparently many changed their minds, and wanted to just pull out of there too.

[dionysus]

127. peace then....

[Odin2005]

166. Then get off this website. Now.

[salguine]

174. Why?

[Odin2005]

179. Because you are saying that you won't support the Democratic candidate in 2012.

IIRC that rules say that warrants a Tombstoning.

[salguine]

191. If you can point out where I said that, I'll go on my own. Deal? You know,

when you wrote "Then get off this website. Now", I could actually see your little nostrils flaring and hear your little feet stamping. It was fantastic.

[VespertineIconoclast]

194. More detail as to why

Found here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detai...

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

If you are not going to vote for Obama in 2012 (since he will obviously be the Democratic candidate for the presidency in that year), then you are implying that you will vote for someone else. Who? I do not know. However, this suggests that you will be actively trying to defeat the Democratic Party nominee for the General Election and thus, DU is probably not the place for you.

[salguine]

198. I don't know who the Democratic nominee will be in 2012, and neither do you. Obviously

there's a presumption surrounding any incumbent President running for reelection, but 2012 is along way off.

But if things continue in the direction they're going, Obama is well on his way to blowing the huge reserve of goodwill he carried into office. There is a massive groundswell of anger boiling over in the public over insurance, health care, credit cards, mortgages, the Occupation of Iraq and the War in Afghanistan, bank bailouts,—hell, I don't need to tell you that—and the solutions Obama seems to be embracing are feeble half-measures when drastic action is called for at best, and a feverish ramping up of the same policies that caused the problems in the first place at worst. His approval is going to suffer badly—don't believe me, just watch—and it is by no means inconceivable that he may have a challenger, or challengers, for the nomination.

In fact, as things stand right now, I would be very surprised if he DIDN'T have challengers for the nomination. And if he does, he'll have a hell of a time convincing me to vote for him again. A lot depends on who the possible challengers might be.

I don't see how anything that I've said violates the rule you posted. If the moderators disagree, then, hey. That's how it goes.

[VespertineIconoclast]

204. You asked the question of why, so I merely provided the answer of why...

that poster may feel that you should leave DU. ...I hope that you weren't surprised that someone would have a reaction to your statement that you would not vote for Obama in 2012.

You are absolutely correct that Obama may create such ill-will amongst people that he may have several challengers within in the Democratic Party for the nomination in 2012. However, I believe that it is highly unlikely that any possible future challenger will have enough political momentum to overcome the nomination of Obama in 2012. President Obama has the sort of political and genuine charisma that so many politicians wish they possessed. He knows how to try to negotiate and accommodate people of vastly different backgrounds. Is he doing everything to the standards that those on the far-left approve of? No, he does not. But then again, I would not expect that of him. President Obama will bow to big corporate and military interests, but he will also try to push for more progressive social and domestic issues - with these he takes baby steps and tries for incremental change. I believe it is unreasonable to believe that he will advocate for most/all the progressive issues in the very beginning of his presidency. He is trying to cement himself in the majority of Americans minds as being a "reasonable" President unlike Bush who made sure that only right-wing interests were considered and implemented.

I kind of see voting for a politician as like entering a relationship. Certain concessions must be made. You can't just do everything you want to do because you have to accommodate the other person in the relationship. There are certain things you will love/like/dislike/hate about what President Obama does or does not do. However, that is what having a President of the USA is all about. He represents everyone in the USA from the fat-cat CEO who doesn't give a damn about anyone to the homeless person who lives on the street.

But as you previously stated, no one can definitively know what the future will bring.

[salguine]

219. So I should get off DU, then?

[VespertineIconoclast]

231. You do whatever you want to do.

It's up to you or at least until you post something that the mods interpret as inappropriate for DU and the decision is taken away from you.

But, I do feel that your initial response that you would not vote to re-elect President Obama in 2012 was meant to provoke some sort of response - whether it be posts showing support for your decision which you may have hoped to see or posts showing disagreement which you most likely knew you would see.

[UrbScotty]

232. President Palin thanks you (nt)

[jenmito]

59. From one of your posts above, you said you hoped he'd "change his mind" on the

position he took on the wars for two years. That's not HIS fault-it's YOURS. If you regret your vote because he's doing what he campaigned on, I guess you should take it up with yourself.

[redqueen]

65. +1

This is so fucking pathetic.

Yet as ever, people line up to high-five the person who didn't pay attenion, and is now oh so disappointed.



Spare me.

[jenmito]

85. +1

[Mithreal]

291. "who didn't pay attention"?

I worked voluntarily every day for months up to the election. I ran two local phone banks DAILY and on a lot of the same days canvassed. I registered voters across two counties and put every bit of my heart in the election.

It really pisses me off when people say, "You should have known, you just weren't paying attention."

I knew and was troubled by the President's plan to escalate. One of my fellow organizers worked in DC until recently when his wife died, worked with the Defense Department and with the White House, his personal friend who brought him on board the Obama campaign was on the short list for National Security Advisor. This is a guy who I worked many days with, knocked on doors with, cried with at the election, shared friendship in his home and I confronted him and expressed my worries about Obama a couple times. He reassured me that President Obama needed to send a message that he was tough but that behind the scenes he knew for a fact Obama was really just saying what he needed to say to be elected which reassured me. My friend is now so frustrated with Obama that he seems to have lost nearly all trust he had in him. I would like to pull my friend back but he isn't even very communicative anymore except in expressing disappointment.

So, when I hear people say you should have known, it makes me sick and angry. You don't know that someone ignored his campaign rhetoric. So, keep it up, all it does is divide us. I still have my Obama sign out front. I still email and phone the White House and agencies. I still "lobby" my congress people. I am against certain policies of the President and even aggressively, but aside from particular policies still support him. All the people who put politician first before policy really make it harder to be a Democrat.

[redqueen]

355. If that description doesn't fit you then ignore it.

Obviously the OP wasn't paying attention, or the situation wouldn't be so shocking that she'd ask so dramatcially if Obama HAS A PLAN.

[Mithreal]

361. As a meme, it doesn't need to "fit me" for me to reply and

you are taking words out of context.

The op says "HAS A PLAN that will assist us in withdrawing our combat troops from these nations." If what you stated were true I would agree. President Obama has talked about removing "combat" troops from Iraq but I do not believe we will allow Iraq independence or do much more than rebrand our troops and with regard to Afghanistan I suspect no exit strategy.

I think the writer of the op may have been venting and a little careless with words, that's all, not necessarily naive or ignorant.

[redqueen]

364. The plan has only changed slightly.

As for being careless with words, I guess that's only okay if you're ready to stop voting for Obama...

"the choir" indeed.

[Mithreal]

366. The choir comment in the op was unnecesarily inflamatory.

The op writer also said he or she believed would not vote for Obama, that is not an outright vote against, seems more like venting frustration than anything else. I can see how it would seem threatening.

Both of those remarks detract from militarism and occupations.

The choir may be a matter of degree. Among my RW'er family members I was said to idolize Obama. Any activist Democrat could at some point and among some community be considered part of the choir.

[redqueen]

367. It's something I expect from RWers...

but here?

[Mithreal]

370. Agreed, it needs to stop. nt

[ShortnFiery]

68. No, it's NOT my fault. I bet you fought "tooth and nail" to support Obama's CHANGE OF MIND

with regard to the release of "torture photos?"

Well, it's not my fault that I wanted to believe that he would see what a VICE grip the war machine has on our policy. At the very least, I BELIEVED that he wouldn't keep the same IMO, evil men who worked for the previous "corrupt" Administration, i.e., Gates, Petraeus and McCrystal.

I don't believe that I will be voting for Obama in 2012.

Fascism with a velvet glove ... is still fascism.

[Thrill]

70. Facism? Get out of here with that RW bullshit

[ShortnFiery]

75. Ok, let's define it ... the FULL meshing of corporations with a government is ...

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

[Occam Bandage]

83. Socialism. Obama is nationalizing corporations left and right.

He nationalized several banks, he's nationalized AIG, and he's nationalized GM. Even Hugo Chavez hasn't gone on a nationalization binge like this.

[redqueen]

93. From the RW: "He's a socialist!"... from the left: "He's a fascist!"

This would seem to indicate he's exactly where he should be.

[jenmito]

91. Yes, it IS your fault...

and the people he kept on agree with HIS agenda which THEY will implement. I understood his reasoning for withholding the photos.

And you can "want to believe" anything, but again, that's YOUR fault-not his.

And your accusation of fascism tells me you probably shouldn't even BE here anymore (which I assume this thread is about-a "goodbye").

[salguine]

196. See, when I said the same thing, I got told...well, see #166.

[olegramps]

328. Are you serious? Fascism with a velvet glove?

Just why did you vote for Obama in 2008? If you can not fathom that he inherited a gigantic catastrophe then you are not very cognizant of the reality of the situation. It is my sincere hope that the problems that he faces don't overwhelm him. He is sailing in unchartered and dangerous waters and what he needs most at this critical period is our support and throw in a couple of prayers to boot even if you suspect that be childish.

People here are saying get the hell out of Iraq. Get the hell out of Afghanistan. If we left tomorrow please tell me what will take place. Didn't we essentially ignore the situation in Afghanistan until the Taliban attacked us. In fact didn't the Bush administration give them something like 40 million as some form of appeasement.

Now I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the manner in which it was conducted by arming the citizens who opposed the Taliban. The way I viewed it was it was a victory of the citizens over radicals who had hijacked the country and intimidated the citizens. I do not believe that the majority Afghanis would welcome the Taliban back as evidenced by their reaction to their overthrow. What I understand is that President Obama's policy is not based on military conquest since he realizes that we must win the support those people who would not welcome the return of Taliban extremist rule. It as a dramatic change from the "shock and awe" policy of the Bush-Cheney administration and it certainly appears that he has the support of the military.

Obama is venturing into the Middle East this coming week and many in the Islamic world are very hopeful that he will chart a new course of diplomacy that will diffuse the situation and bring the major of Muslims, who are not radicals, into a consensus of opinion to oppose radicalism.

You may wish to abandon him, but I would caution you that his failure to succeed will extract a heavy price on every American. He is the best hope that we have for extracting us out of this deplorable situation. If anything, you should be thankful that McCain and Palin are not running the show if you oppose the policy of military conquest as a diplomatic policy.

[SKKY]

395. Good, then don't. Check out this website. You can get a jump on things...

http://www.bobbyjindal.com

Fascism??

[Thrill]

64. Whatever. You knew Obama's plan for Afganistan throughout the campaign

He never hid it at all

[redqueen]

66. And don't you love "part of the choir"?

That's just fucking lovely, that is.

[ShortnFiery]

71. What's your problem? You're notorious for pot shots. That's you MO.

So swaying any opinions is not really happening ... it's just you, well being YOU.

[redqueen]

73. Not all "pot shots" are equal.

Where have I maligned all the oh so disappointed people here as "whiners" or anything else?

But whatever... I guess you can consider me part of the choir... I guess just because when Obama laid out his plans I actually fucking paid attenion.

[Occam Bandage]

74. You've never been part of "the choir." You've been a shrill, angsty sort since he took office. nt

[ShortnFiery]

77. Oh stop. This isn't about me. I'm just stating my opinion. Nothing more - nothing less.

[Occam Bandage]

79. You say "I" or "me" five times in a very short OP.

Each of your first four sentences is a statement about yourself. The first and the fourth are purely statements about yourself. If you want to have a thread that "isn't about" you, then consider starting a thread with a post that doesn't fixate on your own emotional state.

Starting a thread about yourself in which you rather obnoxiously misrepresent your emotional position is an invitation for people to discuss your emotional position. And frankly, you've done very little on this board but complain about Obama since he was elected. That's fine in and of itself; of course criticism is allowed here. However, I think it's childish to pretend that something has changed in your position on Obama, to say nothing of claiming that you are now "no longer part of the choir." You're very much still a part of the same choir you've been a part of since January.

[scheming daemons]

88. "I'M not part of the choir..." and "...he has lost ME".... but "This isn't about me."

[Occam Bandage]

92. "I'm not part of the choir...he has lost me...I'm so depressed and disgusted..."

Just silly. SnF has absolutely no ability to look at herself or what she's written. She'll post months of unending shallow criticism and then say "I'm not part of the choir anymore! Obama just now lost me!" She'll post a thread in which she does nothing but talk about herself and her emotions, and then reply with "this isn't about me."

[ShortnFiery]

115. I'm commenting and ASKING if others have the same impression.

But it's so much easier to take it personal, and fits you to a T.

No, it's about what OTHERS think, no, not me.

[Occam Bandage]

122. Only you could write a post in which you do nothing but talk about how you feel,

and then claim it's all "about what others think."

[ShortnFiery]

130. I've talked about events and facts to while asking for input, not personal attacks because I have

opinions, and yes <shriek!> feelings.

[Lord Helmet]

82. Thanks for the update. Please keep us advised of your disappointment.

[WI_DEM]

86. Well then you fit in pretty well with the majority of active posters around DU

No big deal.

[Dr Fate]

121. Or old moderate to conservative dudes at the Barber shop, bar and bus stop, for that matter.

I don't know anyone who supports staying in Iraq, except for well payed, hair-sprayed people with flag-pins on the TV, and multi-million dollar multi-national corporations.

I don't even know any Republicans (except ones on TV) who think that dropping a few more billion in Iraq is a good idea.

It aint just Duers who are tired of this war.

Oh well-it's clear that we will be in Iraq as long as the billionares of the world keep paying DEMS and Republicans to keep us there.

[Puzzler]

87. Why were you part of the "choir" in the first place?

Obama made his positions on Afghanistan quite clear during the campaign.

(Please don't misunderstand me, I do respect your opposition to the occupation of Afghanistan)

[Occam Bandage]

94. She wasn't. She's been an extremely vocal critic since day 1. nt

[Puzzler]

96. OK then, she should have made herself clearer.

The line "I'm not part of the choir ANY LONGER" is very misleading (emphasis mine).

[Zynx]

90. How is our "occupation" of Afghanistan illegal?

[redqueen]

358. Apparently the logic is, since the war was illegal, the occupation is as well.

Which means... he should suddenly decide to go back on what he said he'd do during the campaign.

[Zynx]

379. How was the war illegal either?

[SpartanDem]

95. Obama has already outlined his plans

In fact just today there are reports that we are on track to withdraw from Iraqi cities on June 30.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21018278.htm

[bvar22]

206. The plans are "on track" ?

I guess that means we HAVE withdrawn 5 brigades from Iraq?
..."draw down one brigade a month"...

[Lasher]

332. No.

A modern brigade consists of 2000–5000 soldiers. Being generous by using the lower number of 2000, an equivalent of one brigade per month has been withdrawn from Iraq since the end of January this year. But that doesn't mean we are on schedule.

Obama promised during the campaign that combat soldiers would be out in 16 months.

That would have been by May 20, 2010. But in February, just 5 weeks after taking office, he broke that promise, changing the 16 month timeline to 19 months. A sizable residual U.S. force of 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq after that. These are to be 'non-combat' solders, you see.

These 'non-combat' soldiers are to remain in Iraq as long as the end of 2012, pursuant to an 11th hour agreement that GWB entered into with the Iraqis. I wonder if any of the Bush administration neocons were aware at the time that this would keep US soldiers in Iraq until the end of Obama's first term.

Now that 3 months have gone by since Obama announced his new timeline, let's see how we're doing with getting the combat soldiers out by August 31, 2010. At the end of February this year we had 140,000 soldiers in Iraq (scroll to the bottom of page 24). If 50,000 of them are to remain until the end of 2012, that leaves 90,000 combat soldiers that are to be out in 19 months. That's an average overall troop reduction requirement of 4,737 per month.

At the end of last month the US troop level was 134,000. That's a reduction of 6,000 in 3 months, less than half the 14,211 quarterly average needed to meet the new deadline.

Now maybe I'm being overly skeptical and maybe I should just trust Obama to keep his word. But with me he used all that up on his first broken promise to get the soldiers out. And it looks like he's not going to keep this new promise either.

[jeff47]

376. Withdrawls aren't linear.

Military withdrawals aren't linear. At least, not when done in an organized fashion.

The idea is you get ready to hand off the area you're policing to the locals. You hand it off, then you pull out. Then you leave the country.

Preparing to depart is the important thing here. We're leaving in a way to not leave a power vacuum. That's not going to happen at a nice linear rate.

[Lasher]

381. They've had six years to withdraw in an orderly fashion.

Based on the many related lies of the Bush administration, and based on Obama's lie that I have chronicled, skepticism is justified. Logic suggests the drawdown will trickle on until 'events in the field' will dictate another buildup, and/or extension of withdrawal deadlines, whatever it takes to perpetuate an illusion of meaning to get out of Iraq while doing the exact opposite. It's not complicated.

Just read up on the Vietnam war, how many times the Viet Kong, et al, were in their last throes, etc. Iraq is just like Vietnam, except with sand. This is exactly how it works, this 'nonlinear drawdown'. Since Obama has shown he cannot be taken at his word in this respect, watch what he does - not what he says. The evidence is compelling.

[Beacool]

97. This is fun.............

[Forkboy]

100. Yes, it's a negative OP about Obama, which you always find fun.

[Beacool]

102. You kill joy!!!

Shoo!!!



For the record, she doesn't like the Clintons either.

[wyldwolf]

103. "she doesn't like the Clintons either" - UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR!

[Beacool]

104. That's why this turn around is even more fun.

We are all in the dog house with Shortie.

[ShortnFiery]

125. Why do you consider this fun? No, you'd be in the doghouse if I valued your opinion.

I don't get your genuine opinion, only your ire. Therefore, with respect, I don't care what you or others who incorrectly believe that I'm just here to "question authority" of his beloved, one each, Barack Obama.

Truth is, I respect him but fear that he does not have the courage to change the leadership within the DOD.

No, this doesn't make him "a bad man" but instead, just another politician who I had mistaken for a populist leader.

[Beacool]

159. Question all you want.

Every president should have his feet held to the fire.

[Bonobo]

98. Strange. In my memory, you one of the "Primary" people who hated Obama. nt

[jesus_of_suburbia]

111. I can't imagine that.... she certainly hated Hillary more!

[Beacool]

160. Yeah, she still can't forgive her for not dumping Bill.

[ShortnFiery]

116. Too funny, I sided with Obama over Hillary.

But thanks for playing.

[Occam Bandage]

123. That's very true. You did always hate Hillary more than Obama. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. Oh no.

However will the rest of us get by without you?

Dear oh dear.

[Political Heretic]

105. As long as the ME is profitable to the United $tate$, will be bombing the shit of someone's kids

under the mask of a "war on..." fill in the blank. For this generation the blank is filled with "Terror."

[Dr Fate]

109. Correction- as long as it is profitable to multi-national corporations who bribe DEMS and the GOP.

I'm not sure how this illegal war is profitable for the U.S. proper at all.

[Dr Fate]

106. Other than a few DUers , bribed DEMS &Bush Republicans, most people agree that we should leave Iraq.

The only people who think we need to stay in Iraq are multi-million dollar corporations, Conservative lobbyists, Conservative media, Chicken-Hawk egg-heads, Bush Republicans and sadly, a few DUers who think that expressing other opinion amounts to disloyalty or "Dem bashing."

Go to a barber shop, bar, work-place water cooler-even in a conservative town- anywhere but DU or a Tea-bagger rally, and your normal, mainstream, every day position on leaving Iraq would not be met with such hostility.

I have not given up on Obama's presidency, but it's clear that the monied powers that be will keep their war, no matter how many regular people oppose it.

[mvd]

107. Hi, ShortnFiery - let me talk to you as a fellow leftist

I am frustrated, too. I think meddling in the ME got us into this situation in the first place, and that a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will not help. My belief is that diplomacy and peace are the best ways to defeat Al Qaeda. Obama campaigned on Afghanistan so I'm not surprised about the strategy. I hoped he would have a faster timetable on Iraq. Still, I give Obama credit for not having as much of a controlling focus in Afghanistan, and wanting to rebuild the nation (economic aid.) And I believe he still wants out of Iraq. You may see all bad, but there's some hope for an ending. We must keep making our voices heard and not give up.

[ShortnFiery]

120. Thank you. I wanted to see if I could get some ideas from those like minded. I appreciate

you taking the time to explain.

Understood about not giving up. I'm helping take people to the polls for the upcoming Democratic Primary here in Virginia (June 9th).

When I entered the military, I was a Reagan Republican. It's amazing being one of the first women officers integrated into the regular army of the late 70s and early 80s, to include graduation from Airborne School. My experiences were sometimes *intense* and I emerged from those four years with a SADNESS for all the oppression and cruelty of those who demand absolute authority. I guess I came out of the service a newborn "punk" of sorts. Perhaps we all take something different away from our military experiences.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response.

[TankLV]

108. Don't kid yourself - you were NEVER part of Obama's choir - just another excuse to bash him...

but you still don't see it - and that's hilarious...

If you ever declared that you SUPPORTED Obama - EVER - then THAT would be news...

but you've ALWAYS been bitching about him since the election.

just go already...we don't fucking care...

[jesus_of_suburbia]

112. She certainly supported him when it was down to him and Clinton!

[Dr Fate]

114. Opposing an illegal war based on lies is an "excuse" to bash politicans?

Seems to me that it's a pretty good reason to bash politicians, question politicians, say insulting things about politicians, etc- whether that politician was ever supported by the OP or not.

But I hear ya. Give Obama a chance, etc. As far as Iraq goes, I'm willing to do that for a few more months. Not that I have choice. I'm just tired of spending BILLIONS of dollars on a war that only politicians and TV people even support any more.

We could pull out today, and 90% of the public would not even bat an eye- it's the multi-billion dollar lobbyists & corporations who keep this going.

I'm not familar with the OP's history- but opposing this war is a very mainstream position.

[ShortnFiery]

131. Oh, not because attacking a country who is not an immanent threat is ILLEGAL but also

continuing to occupy SOVEREIGN NATIONS is ILLEGAL.

Well, unless you're the biggest bad-asses on the block. First world countries - with large militaries never commit war crimes because the victors write the history books.

However, nobody in THEIR RIGHT MIND (who isn't looking for a promotion or increased war profiteering) will tell you that there's a chance in hell of winning two occupations when the vast majority of both nations' people HATE the INVADERS.

Too many people do not live in military communities or close enough to "give a damn." The foregoing is the point. People see this as "a movie" that doesn't effect REAL lives.

[Dr Fate]

133. Mainstream America, voters both DEM and Republican, are also tired of spending BILLIONS in Iraq.

Interesting that this is now seen as such a radical, anti-DEM position on DU these days.

People on TV (and aqpparently at DU) can give a thousand excuses for burying billions more in that God-forsaken desert, but I can't see how we can afford BILLIONS of dollars anymore.

[Occam Bandage]

145. Our current military operations are absolutely not illegal. We have explicit legal authorization

from both countries. (Again: do you have polling showing that Afghans are now against us? The most recent polling I can find shows a narrow majority of support)

That doesn't mean that the "occupations" are a good idea, but you can argue that they're a bad idea and tell the truth at the same time.

[redqueen]

149. Just having to read sutff like that... "ILLEGAL"

in all caps no less...

Is there really any point in trying to spread facts, when emotion and hyperbole are so obviously preferred?

[Dr Fate]

153. I've never heard DUers indicate that the Invasion of Iraq was perfectly legal & above board.

This is all brand new news to me.

I thought Bush intentionally faked info and lied literally hundreds of times- I'm not sure why we would want to argue that these were legal acts.

[redqueen]

155. Oh, are we discussing the invasion now again?

I thought we were discussing current events... you know, stuff that Obama actually has a hand in.

[Dr Fate]

156. Yes. The invasion and therefore the war was and is illegal- or at the least immoral & Un-American.

Not to mention impossible to pay for without nearly everything else suffering.

Not to mention EXTREMELY unpopular with everyone but paid liars on TV and apparently a few well intentioned DUers.

I never claimed Obama had a hand in the illegal invasion- I merely claimed that this current war in Iraq is based on lies and yes, broken laws.

Yup- the war is a current event, and I doubt there would be a current war in Iraq without previous illegal acts.

I'm not willing to split hairs and say this is all legal & hunky dory-it just doesnt appear that way.

[redqueen]

157. *sigh*

Nevermind.

[Dr Fate]

158. Hard to argue that the Iraq War is perfectly above board & legal, isn't it?

If that was my best argument, I'd be siging, backing down and ignoring counter points too.

[redqueen]

161. Yeah, that's exactly what's going on here.

[Dr Fate]

163. What's going on is an attempt to characterize the Iraq war as legal and above board.

At least that is how I read it. Why anyone would be motivated to say this war is anything but illegal is beyond me.

Splitting hairs over the current, multi-billion dollar occupation of Iraq vs. the entire history of the war as a whole does not make anything legal, moral or any less expensive.

These are not 2 separate wars in Iraq- but one big, ugly, expensive, illegal one.

I'll give you this much-the public is tired of throwing billions away in Iraq, whether one guy says it's all perfectly legal and another says it is not won't change that.

[Occam Bandage]

207. No, not really. Or at all, in fact.

The argument is simply that the current operations--those going on at this very moment--do not violate international law. They don't. It is almost inarguable that the original invasion was and remains illegal, and that the American occupation of Iraq up until we secured UN authorization and signed an operational agreement with the sovereign Iraqi government was illegal. That does not mean that the current operations are illegal.

"Splitting hairs over the current, multi-billion dollar occupation of Iraq vs. the entire history of the war as a whole does not make anything legal, moral or any less expensive."

Doesn't make it moral? Right. Doesn't make it expensive? No. Those are both very good arguments for leaving Iraq. Doesn't make it legal? No, actually it does. Looking at "split hairs" like international treaties and United Nations authorizations and resolutions and such actually do change whether things are legal, believe it or not.

There are many good arguments against the Iraq war. It is quite possible to form a convincing argument against the Iraq war without lying.

[Dr Fate]

214. Why bother to characterize the war as legal at all, unless it is to justify support for it?

The invasion was illegal, the war was illegal, and therefore any thinking person can see the entire war- not just the "good" parts of it- as illegal- despite any UN paper work or semantics.

In any event, it doesn't really matter. How many BILLIONS more are we going to spend on that shit hole? My guess is this is the question most voters are asking or will be asking soon- whether the "current operations" are legal or not.

[Occam Bandage]

215. Yes, why bother to tell uncomfortable truths? Better to tell pleasing lies.

Seriously, are you actually arguing that we shouldn't bother telling the truth if it doesn't support our politics?

[Dr Fate]

220. You can state facts all you want- so can I.

You say that the occupation is legal, and therefore we should have every right to continue spending billions on it. I suppose that is a true statement.

I say the war as a whole is illegal and that we cant afford it. I suppose that is a true statement too.

Voters will decide which position rings true to their ears- which one do you think it will be?

[Occam Bandage]

221. You can state facts, but I have not yet seen any evidence of that ability.

You continue to say, "the war as a whole is illegal." This is patent nonsense. The invasion was illegal. The occupation was illegal. The post-occupation period is not illegal, because it is explicitly authorized by the UN and by the sovereign Iraqi government. It makes sense from a rhetorical standpoint to claim "well it's all one war," and certainly that is how most people see it. But legally? Legally is an entirely different matter, and if you're going to make explicit claims of what is and what is not legal, then no, it is not true to say "well I suppose that's the case from a certain point of view." When you're making claims of legality, the only point of view that matters is that of the law.

You continue to say that I am claiming "we should have every right to continue spending billions." I've said no such thing. We should leave. I've said this many times in this thread. I'm saying "the ongoing operations are legal" because it is true. That is why I am saying it. Not because I'm pushing for the war to continue (it shouldn't), not because I'm justifying the invasion (I'm not), not because I want to see money wasted (I don't), but because it is unambiguously true, and because the claim that the current operations are illegal is unambiguously false.

You talk about voters. This is not a lie, but this is bizarre nevertheless. Nobody will be choosing between "the ongoing operations are illegal and we should leave" and "the ongoing operations are legal and we should leave." Plus, it hearkens back to your strange claim that international law is dependent on what "the Joe on the street" says, which is certainly not true.

[Dr Fate]

223. So I'm not allowed to see the war as one long, whole, FACTUAL event?

Just b/c you and the UN wants to view this event as several isolated events or stages does not mean that I have to view it that way.

I'm here to tell you that voters dont see it that way either. Voters know the invasion and the war was illegal to begin with, and they dont look at what is happening now as something different. Costs the same one way or the other.

You educated me to the fact that the current occupation is sanctioned by the UN, while I was already aware that the events leading up to that point were seen by most thinking people as illegal. I have conceded to that point.

I never saw the need to split the war into different sections to make my points to begin with.

LOL! I never said that international law is dependent on what voters think- but I did make that the case that voters know the invasion was illegal and that they dont really care if the UN sanctions the current occupation or not.

Talk about how this stage of the war is UN approved all you want- that is not going to make anyone continue to support it.

[Occam Bandage]

205. Nobody has. Certainly not in this thread.

Or are you deliberately conflating the current operations and the invasion? Because quite a few things have happened in the intervening time. An Iraqi government has been recognized by the world community, the United Nations has authorized our ongoing actions, and the recognized-as-sovereign Iraqi government has authorized the actions as well.

The war is still a terrible idea and we should leave, but the current operations are not illegal.

[Dr Fate]

210. I just don't see the need to strain & split hairs or justify this illegal, bull-shit war.

Even if you could somehow make a believeable arguement that this occupation is as wholsome as farm-fresh milk, the American people wouldnt believe it.

Everyone but paid liars on TV and the corporate big wigs are sick of spending the billions in Iraq, and the excuses will only work for so much longer.

You say that the "current operations" are legal- I say the war as a whole is illegal. Either way, the public wants out sooner rather than later, and the public also knows we cant afford it in the now.

The voting public doesnt really care about the semantics, and unless the economy shapes up, they are not going to buy nuanced excuses for sending BILLIONS of dollars over seas for much longer either.


"The war is still a terrible idea and we should leave..." You said a mouthful.

[Occam Bandage]

212. You seem outright threatened by the fact that the current operations are legal. Why?

Do you think that nobody can oppose the war unless they think the war is illegal?

Many things are legal and still terrible ideas. If you knew someone who was alcoholic, it would be correct to say that their alcoholism was harming them and their family. It would be incorrect to say that their drinking was illegal, even if they started drinking before they were 21 and therefore their drinking was, in fact, at one point illegal.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about "excuses" for the war. I'm completely in favor of leaving Iraq. I just don't like bullshit arguments.

[Dr Fate]

216. I see one war in Iraq- not one "illegal" part and a subsequent "legal" part.

Guess what- the man on the street agrees with me. If you think the average Joe feels the need to split this BILLION DOLLAR money pit into a "good, legal" occupation and a "bad" rest-of-the-war for the sake of those who want to keep it going, then keep kidding yourself.

If I'm threatedned by anything, it's the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars that the multi-national corporations are going to squeeze out of our treasury while you are worried about justifiying the invasion as something that is legal.

You want to split the war into an "illegal invasion" and a subsequent "legal" occupation.

Fair enough, but I see the war as one whole, long event. So do most voters.

I'll concede that it boils down to semantics and the stroke of a pen.

At least we agree that the war should end- we probably agree more than we do not.

[Occam Bandage]

217. That's very nice, but has nothing to do with international law.

If you're going to make a claim about international law, as SnF did, the opinion of Joe Sixpack is not a good basis for that claim.

Again: I haven't justified the invasion, and I wouldn't have brought up the legality of the ongoing operations if SnF had not explicitly and falsely said that the current operations were illegal. "Well I see the invasion, the occupation, and the post-occupation military operations as the same thing" does not mean they are legally identical.

The difference is not purely semantic. Under my reading, Obama is not a war criminal. Under yours, he can be tried in the Hague. I highly doubt any such thing would ever happen (for several reasons), but when we're talking about the law, words do indeed matter.

[Dr Fate]

222. Be sure to quote International law to voters as you spend a few more billion of their money.

So the first part of the war is arguably illegal, while the new part of the war gets the okay from the UN. Fair enough.

Legal or illegal-tell it to the swing voters as you spend a few more billion dollars of their tax money.

I'm sure they will be happy to hear that the current part of the war is legal, justifiable operation, while the other parts of it were not.

Am sure the war will seem much better to them when they know that the war itself and the occuaption are not "legally identical."

I never argued that Obama is a war criminal, I stated that the Iraq war is illegal and based on lies. You pointed out that the UN says that the current occupation is okay with them and legal- lol- I never doubted that.

Fair enough- the occuaption is sanctioned by the UN, while the invasion and the war itself is arguably illegal. The UN does not see the Invasion and the occuaption as legally identical, while the people footing the bill certainly do.

The end, you still have people who dont like the war and who want out.

[Dr Fate]

151. Bush lied us into the Iraq war. That is arguably illegal and at the least, un American & immoral.

And above you said that you were not asking about Afgahn support for war in order to prove a point- I might bne wrong, but it seems like you are trying to prove a point.

To argue that everything is on the up and up and that the Iraq invasion was all perfectly legal & above board is to re-write history as I saw it unfold in front of my eyes.

I have a very simple and honest argument for why we can't afford to pour BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars into a couple of deserts-and at least Iraq: We are almost broke!!!

[Occam Bandage]

199. Yes. The war against the nation of Iraq was illegal. The current operations are not.

The war against Iraq was unsupported by international law and was therefore illegal. The current war in Iraq has the explicit blessing of the UN and of the legitimate Iraqi government.

I was asking about Afghan support because SnF is repeatedly making the point that Afghans oppose the war, in service of her claim that we must leave immediately. In the interest of better information, I am providing what I currently know about Afghan support, and am asking where she is getting her different information.

Your arguments regarding Afghanistan and Iraq are sound, and I agree with your conclusion regarding Iraq. Hers are not, though she has a similar conclusion. It's possible to reject someone's argument while partially accepting their conclusion.

[Dr Fate]

225. I'll bet one could quote UN paper work to argue that even Bush's invasion was not illegal.

Maybe this is why I dont see it as intellectually dishonest to view the entire war as a whole, with the illegal parts bleeding over into the UN sanctioned parts.

Even still, point taken. I concede that the UN sactions the current occupation.

As I said, be sure to tell the voters about how "legal" spending their billions is. I'm sure they will be impressed.

[Occam Bandage]

297. Which voters would I be talking to and why?

When is the "legal but we should pull out" versus "illegal and we should pull out" election being held?

[Dr Fate]

417. The politicans who might say what you say will be the ones talking to voters.

But also avoiding the subject as best they can as well.

And you are right- no one will lose an election based on any obsessing over what parts of the war are UN sanctioned- which is why I'm not sure why you think it is such an important part of the debate. LOL! That was my point- no politician is going to use any of your legal arguments to get support for spending money we dont have.

Elections are being held in 2010 and 2012- and they are always won & lost based on the economics.

In this case, Americans are tired of paying for Iraq- just check any poll.

LOL! If DEMS think they are going to smooth this over by arguing that its all legal, then we are trouble.

This was the point I was trying to make, I was not being literal as to you personally.

[eridani]

176. HItler had specific authorization from this Quisling fellow to occupy Norway, too n/t

[Occam Bandage]

202. There wasn't really much of anything regarding international law in the 1930s and 40s,

as the only apparatus of international law had collapsed. Hard to make any claim regarding legality except from the sense of natural rights and wrongs, but in the current day "this is wrong" is not the same as "this is against international law."

[olegramps]

333. You make some very radical statements that are not supported by facts.

Do you actually believe that President Obama is pursuing the same policies of the Bush administration? I certainly have a much different take on the situation. His policy is not to bomb them into submission, which our military have informed us time and time again is impossible, but to seek reconciliation. I take especially exception to your statement that we are illegally occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. That is pure bull crap since we have negotiated agreements with both of these countries concerning our military involvement. Lastly, I would like to see the results of your fathom polls were every one of these people despise us. I will agree that they had the right to object to the "shock and awe" policies of the Bush administration, but are you implying that they oppose the attempts by President Obama to radically change these policies into one of mutual understanding?

[NYCGirl]

113. The fact that you were ever part of the choir will come as a great surprise to

the choir.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

136. Not true... she was a fierce proponent in the Primaries and the General Election.

Let's not rewrite history.

[ShortnFiery]

141. Yes, and I hope that I'm wrong.

As a person who's mostly of average intelligence and insight, I hope that I'm wrong.

Perhaps Obama is playing Chess and it's going to END these occupations sooner rather than later.

Regardless, I grieve for the increasing numbers of casualties.

I want to be wrong ... but I fear that I'm not.

In the interim, we can encourage our legislators and President Obama to SCALE DOWN and withdraw from these countries.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

241. "As a person who's mostly of average intelligence and insight, I hope that I'm wrong."

I've read your posts for quite some time now, and you are hardly average in ANY way (that is a compliment).

I respect you, and trust me, we differ on some things.

[jefferson_dem]

144. Self-Delete.

[olegramps]

428. She was part of the choir all right. The one who sang out of tune.

[jefferson_dem]

140. Thanks for clarifying...

but you have been a frequent critic of Obama since he took the oath. That's fine...but I just think this post is a bit disingenuous.

[ShortnFiery]

147. Point taken.

I've known people whose lives have been destroyed by these occupations. Yes, I could have toned it down a bit but I do feel saddened and sometimes depressed about the senselessness of all the killing and dying.

Understand your point and agree. Thanks, I'll try to KEEP IT REAL next time.

[jefferson_dem]

150. Hey now.

Keep fighting the good fight, ShortnFiery. Your strong voice is an asset to the cause.

[democracy1st]

154. dayum girl give him at least 1 yr ! if you get frustrated go watch a movie

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

167. Should I support spending billions in Iraq b/c the OP is stupid, or because Dick Cheney is smart?

LOL! I just want to make sure I'm on the winning team here!!!

[Blue-Jay]

168. That's EXACTLY what I was thinking!

kudos!

[Dr Fate]

170. LOL! In that case, where do I put in nominations for the 2nd stupidest?

LOL! I keed! I keed!

[Occam Bandage]

208. You seem to believe that the validity of an argument is entirely dependent

on the conclusion that argument reaches. This is not so.

[Dr Fate]

229. No- I seem to believe that attacking the OP as "stupid" was all the poster could come up with.

Perhaps this was his best strategy- to attack the OP's intelligence as opposed to making pro-Iraq war arguments that Dick Cheney types might happen to agree with.

[Name removed]

244. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EndElectoral]

177. I'm almost there as well. Not yet, but I am quickly becoming disillusioned

[AtomicKitten]

178. Sorry to hear you've thrown in the towel.

This entire pile of shit laid at Obama's doorstep is a work in progress. Your conclusion is reactionary which is understandable but narrow in focus. I suspect it will take some time for Obama to untangle the mess left to him.

[rustydog]

188. Syand alone and uninformed. It will take a while to extricate

troops from the morass Bush put them in.
Be finished with Obama if you wish, that is your right.

[Bluebear]

189. It's like an Amway convention where a member stood up and questioned the new product line.

[cali]

192. yes, yes. people here who generally support Obama are mindless cheerleaders

and those who don't are mindless little haters. blah, blah, blah.

the stupid continues to pile up.

[Bluebear]

193. Wow you really misinterpreted that one blah blah blah

It's like when a former member in good standing questions the rest of the group. This poster was a firm supporter of Obama, and is now being accused of never having been.

But thanks so much for calling me stupid again! Why are you so miserable?

[Dr Fate]

195. Notice the pattern on this thread? Very few people are saying that the Iraq War is a good thing.

B/c they know it is not.

I notice that no one is talking about how we are going to pay for it either. I know, I know, such a nit-picking, minor detail.

Most of the posts are just personal attacks on people who are justifiably tired of stalls & excuses.

I have no idea what the OP's posting history is, so all the attacks on the OP just look like distractions and ways to dodge the issue from my POV.

I don't agree with throwing Obama under the bus or giving up him, so perhaps I find disagreement with the OP too- even still- the OP's basic frustration is arguably mainstream, middle of the road thinking.

Most mainstream voters are also frustrated and agree that we need to leave Iraq sooner, not later. I would hate to think that our response to those swing-voters & moderates would be to make fun of them or accuse them of being disloyal to politicians, etc.

[Occam Bandage]

296. Here's what I don't get in this post.

You admit you are completely unfamiliar with SnF, as you have elsewhere in the thread. Then you say that "most of the posts" in this thread are all referring to SnF's posting history. Then you say that since you don't know the OP, it all looks like "distractions." Have you considered the possibility that, oh, I don't know, we aren't all independently making up the exact same "distracting" criticism out of thin air?

Here's what's distracting to me: the OP has been a longtime critic of Obama, dating to the day he took office. Before he took office, she was a hardcore and vitriolic critic of the Clintons. There's a pretty clear and long-standing pattern of behavior: SnF generally strongly dislikes any Democrats who are in office. Well, that's fair enough, compromise is part of governing and some people hate compromise. But what's setting off the "distracting" response is how the OP pretended she has only now decided to stop supporting Obama. It's an obnoxiously disingenuous argument. What makes it even more transparent as disingenuous is how she uses the disparaging phrase "the choir" to refer to Obama supporters; nobody who was part of "the choir" would use that phrase to refer to themselves.

There have been many threads on Iraq on DU. Thousands of them. It's not as if it's a controversial issue here. We're all against it. SnF made the OP about herself, lied obnoxiously in the process, and now (unsurprisingly) a major issue at hand in this thread is how she represented herself.

[Dr Fate]

418. Good for the you and the OP- I'd rather talk about whether we should leave Iraq or not.

Sooner, rather than later, for me and the average voter.

Point taken- but when it's time to talk to actual voters who will also be fed up with Iraq, someone's posting history or other "choir" issues will not mean a damn thing.

[cali]

190. who cares? how sad that you're depressed. as for angry, nothing new there.

[Dr Fate]

197. Maybe we shouldn't care how the OP thinks- but shouldnt we care about voters who agree with her?

Last time I checked, just about everyone in the US (except war profiteers & their paid blabber mouths on TV) is tired of throwing billions of dollars into Iraq as well.

This includes loyal DEMS, moderates, swing voters and 2 time Bush voters who voted DEM for the 1st time in decades- not just people who never liked Obama to begin with.

I doubt most of these voters care much about the nuances & excuses that we can line up. They could care less if we accuse them of being disloyal to DEMS or Obama as well.

[earth mom]

234. You should care that people are dying in the Middle East because of a LIE.

Though, it's no surprise that you don't give a damn.

FYI-Obama's political career is NOT worth more than any one single persons very life.

And

If Obama really cares about his political career so much he would get the hell out of the Middle East.

[BlooInBloo]

203. *yawn*

[solstice]

209. Just seems like Obama has the same plan Bush had. I was never part of the "choir" but I was

thrilled when he won the election. I used to watch his campaign speeches online and believe he meant every word of them.

It's been awhile since I thought that.

I have never been one to blindly follow any politician - even one I voted for. In fact, I hold them to the highest standards. And so far, Obama has failed miserably in too many respects to count.

I'm sure I'll attacked by the bullies who can't tolerate dissenting opinions on Obama, but I don't give a damn. I see that more and more people are becoming as disillusioned with him as I am. It's sad but it's not surprising.

[Occam Bandage]

213. So, er, which of Obama's promises regarding Iraq/Afghanistan has he gone back on?

The only one I can think of is that he promised 16 months, and recently has been suggesting that he might have to extend that to 20 months. But he was always for a slow drawdown in Iraq, and he was always for increasing American presence in Afghanistan. And was quite clear about that in his speeches, to boot.

Perhaps you should have paid attention to those speeches you "believed" in.

[Dr Fate]

227. You are right. As long as he keeps it his basic promise, no huge problems from me.

And as long as any war in Afghanistan does not take money away from other things he promised, I wont have much to complain about there either.

Search my posts if you must- you wont find me taking Obama to task on much of anything at all.

If in 20 months we are still getting excuses, justifications and hair splitting over what is legal and what is not, you can count or more regular people talking like the OP is talking- for better or for worse.

[Skip Intro]

239. Oh come on. He was painted as the anti war messiah while his opponents were demonized as warmongers.

He was held up here, and elsewhere as all but a pacifist.

Hillary voted for "the war."

Obama stood up and said "no to war."

Please.

During the primaries I posted several times about his call to put troops "where they belong" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I was shouted down every time.

I posted several times that he didn't want to bring troops home, he wanted to shift them from Iraq to the proper "battlegrounds." I was shouted down every time.

Sure, he said he was going to end the war in Iraq, and he said he was going to increase troops in Afghanistan, with an eye on Pakistan, with or without that government's approval, as I recall. But the whole time Obama zealots were dangling peace ornaments and waving change flags and spinning hope noisemakers, so it was easy for most to miss.

And it is a bullshit tactic to jump all over anybody who dares to mention the reality of it all now.

[Occam Bandage]

294. While I appreciate the desire to bitch about the primaries,

and your candidate's horrendously frustrating inability to control the message during that timeframe, none of that has anything to do with the conversation at hand--or at least not in any way that contradicts me. As you point out, Obama was quite clear about his position, and it would seem people like the dolt to whom I was responding were more swept up in what they wanted Obama to say than in anything Obama actually said.

[Fire1]

387. Oh, you'd be surprised at the number of folks who swear they

were paying attention the whole campaign and now dog the man out for doing exactly what he said he would do. I call em the 'lesser of two evils' supporters who were never part of the choir but just 'hoping' the president would 'change his mind.' Voters such as these will not be missed.

[olegramps]

341. Why don't you list all these failures so we can be as misinformed as you.

I believed that anyone who desired the presidency was a fool to what to inherit what appeared to be a hopeless situation created by the most catastrophic administration in recent history of the nation.

We hear from his detractors that the just can't understand why he hasn't been able to correct policies that extended from Reagan to the present and are directly responsible for putting the nation in peril.

Just what has he been doing these last five months they ask? Are these people so damn naive that they think that he can magically end two wars and solve one of the biggest financial implosion in the history of mankind in five months. I assume that maybe they expected him to do it in two months since they have been bitching for the last three months about his failure to wave his magic wand and make it all go away.

If you don't think that President Obama has the best chance for pulling this nation away from the brink of disaster, then just who would you vote for being the nation's savior. I can't help from thinking that some of these detractors are really Republicans in sheep's clothing. Perhaps just another one of their dirty tricks campaigns.

[VespertineIconoclast]

385. I really liked your response and I agree.

I honestly don't understand what the President Obama detractors were expecting to happen in FIVE months?! It's true that Obama has put himself in front of a massive steamroller of catastrophe that was not necessarily all started by Bush II's administration. As you suggested, many of these misguided policies were started years prior to the previous administration. I find the situation analogous to expecting a morbidly obese person to somehow run a 26-mile marathon after having years of a sedentary lifestyle. Gradual progress has to be made to get incremental success to achieve the final goal. Change doesn't occur over night - it happens bit-by-bit.

[Jakes Progress]

226. If he had campaigned on increasing the troop deployment

he would not have won the nomination.

[scarletwoman]

230. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.The National Security State & the MIC are the real powers.

No "change" is ever going to come from the top.

sw

[HughMoran]

256. Yes, he's exactly like Bush

No change at all! Nice!

[scarletwoman]

259. Apparently it's too far a stretch for you to read the 2nd sentence in a 2 sentence subject line.

You know, the sentence where I say that "the National Security State and the MIC are the real powers".

Maybe it's just too subtle for you to grasp.

[HughMoran]

262. Your implication is that change cannot be initiated from the top

What most people who know what the "top" was saying ALL ALONG is that this is what you should have expected if you were paying attention.

[scarletwoman]

269. What "implication"? I said it straight out. Geeze.

Quote from my post: No "change" is ever going to come from the top. That's not an "implication", that's a flat out declaration in plain language.

So, what's your argument?

[HughMoran]

270. You're right

No change can come from the top.

[Zenlitened]

235. What a riot

The decline of DU can be traced DIRECTLY back to your behavior during the primaries. You parachuted into virtually every thread that had something nice to say about HRC, shrieking and scathing and generally spewing poison all over the board. Day in and day out, bludgeoning any hint of opposition to Obama.

And now you're having doubts? Here's what I doubt: that any of this is sincere. I think you're actually an unusually patient species of griefer, slipping the mask off slowly for better effect.

[Uzybone]

242. +100000

its not really about policy. Or Obama. Or HRC. Its about the posters.

[ShortnFiery]

245. Bingo. I tend to type my mind and methinks some people have not forgiven my passions

during the Godforsaken Democratic Primaries.

Problem is, I don't hold a grudge, no matter how insulted I may have felt in the past. Unfortunately, others may not be so inclined.

[ShortnFiery]

246. Your contention re: the decline of DU, is ALL my fault?!?

You give me far too much credit.

Let the past be the past?

[Zenlitened]

252. I'm saying you bear a great deal of responsibility...

... for turning this place into a quagmire. I've long since given up being amazed that someone with your history -- not to mention volume -- of flamethrowing had not yet been tombstoned.

"Griefers, True Believers and Useful Idiots" was the phrase I used to describe DU back then. And you seemed to embody the characteristics of them all, at various times.

I assumed you avoided granite because you seemed to side with the keepers of this site in supporting Obama. Now that you've declared yourself in opposition, to the point of declaring you will not vote for him in 2012, I imagine your continued membership is a bit less secure. Time will tell.

But now, at least, you've ensured that fewer people will miss you. So I guess that's something.

[ShortnFiery]

260. My God, you honestly take my breath away. You take message board posting far too personal.

I am not to blame for DU being not "the panacea" you perceive it to be. If only, "people like me" were not a part of it.

Honestly, whomever I may remind you of or whatever slight I have given you, please just move on.

This is HUGE multi-dimensional message board and no one person or collection of people run the place.

It is amorphous ... DU does not have one democratic personality.

I'm sorry, but IMO, your resentments are misplaced.

[Zenlitened]

345. You project quite a bit in that post.

All I'm saying is, your name was practically synonymous with the DUchbaggery of the primaries. So it's kind of funny to see you claiming to have gained a glimmer of insight now, a slight feel for nuance and shades of gray -- then being shocked-just-shocked when your expression of doubt is greeted with fiery retribution by the True Believers you once cozied up to.

[ShortnFiery]

369. With respect.

You need to have more hobbies and NOT focus on censoring individuals.

Sure, I look within quite often and will readily admit to often having to "check" my ADHD tendencies.

You make some valid points.

However, I do MY BEST to improve and don't believe that your JUDGMENTAL assessments of MY CHARACTER are appropriate or in accordance with the spirit of this message board's rules.

The last thing I want to do is get in a flame-fest with you because when that happens - we all lose.

Again, stop hyper-focusing on "my character" because it's not only presumptively rude but also not healthy on many levels.

[Zenlitened]

384. Gosh, that was respectful.

It seems you were responding to criticisms made by other posters in this thread... in addition to your concern for me and my presumed lack of hobbies.

As well as projecting your own shortcomings once again.

Oh well.

But in any event, please don't sell yourself short.

There was no need for "hyper-focusing" in order to notice your presence on this board.

You were about as subtle as a jackhammer.

Which is what makes your new-found love of nuanced conversation and chummy solidarity such a sight to behold.

[ShortnFiery]

388. Thanks. I'm glad that we were able to reach détante.

I have been doing my best to be respectful toward your person. You've flung a lot of disrespect my way and I've deflected up to a point.

Yes, I have a "strong" personality and some people may take an instant dislike to my behavior. That's cool but it does not make me a troll or a "DUbag." Yes, I'm highly competitive and am aware that can be very unnerving, if not rude. You won't believe me, but I've mellowed over the years.

There are people whom I find obnoxious from "start to finish" and I work to avoid them.

Please feel free to IGNORE me.

FWIW - I promise not to spread "smack" about your person elsewhere.

Best Regards, SnF

[Zenlitened]

390. "FWIW - I promise not to spread "smack" about your person elsewhere."

Well, thanks. But don't feel unduly restrained out of concern for my feelings.

If you ordinarily find it helpful, useful or therapeutic to spread 'smack' about DUers on other websites... feel free. I'll be fine.

[ShortnFiery]

391. Thanks much! I know that you are the kind of person who will extend to me the same courtesy.

I don't gossip about people because I believe in being open and honest ... right up front.

Have a good one buddy.

[Zenlitened]

421. Right smack -- er, back -- at ya!

[earth mom]

236. I'll say it one last time in this thread: Obama's political career is NOT worth more than

any one single life. Period.

If he wants to salvage his political career and get re-elected, he'd best get the U.S. out of the Middle East-STAT.

[LittleBlue]

240. I just want out of the Middle East. I really don't care how

Just get out.

[ChiciB1]

243. Reading This Thread I Keep Wondering How The FREEPERS Must

be ROFL at us!! We're getting EVERYTHING BushCo gave us AND more!!

Why should THEY be upset?? The OP and I think alike... sorry Du'ers who don't agree! Wishing that in the future I'll have to eat my words, but at this rate... I DUN SINK SO!!

Don't bother with the attacks... I'm just some DUMB, stupid, leftist, commie, marxist SOCIALIST!! Better yet, GET THE FIRING SQUAD... I'm A Terrorist, off to GITMO for me!

[zulchzulu]

247. What is your REALISTIC alternative....

Granted, it's easy to play Parlor Talk Purity and say all wars should end now. Oh, and all hate should end. Heck, all bad shit should just fucking stop. Now.

But...

Obama inherited two wars and it's not just a Greeting Card Bumpersticker World where all he does is just "stop it".

In case you haven't been paying attention, both wars suck. And both wars are being addressed with policies that have timelines to get out... except that it doesn't just happen like you change the channel on your remote.

It's complicated and it's going to actually take time.

[Dr Fate]

249. While we are on the subject of hard realities, how many more BILLIONS should we spend in Iraq?

...and what are the top 5 domestic or other programs that you would be willing to cut to provide those billions?

Or am I mistaken, and we have a surplus of money for everything we need to do?

We are funding a multi-billion dollar war-this isn't just some bumper-sticker world where we say: "If it feels good, just do it", after all.

What is a realistic date and money amount for you?

By all means, give us a clear eyed, realistic amount that you would be willing to spend, and what programs you would want to eliminate, cut or ignore in order to get to that amount.

Questions concerning pragmatism, exact details and looking at this realistically shouldn't just be asked of the people who oppose the war.

[Turborama]

261. I'd like to hear a lucid answer to that question, too. n/t

[Dr Fate]

266. I'd like to hear some realistic alternatives from the pro-occupation voices....

What happens if we do not pull out of Iraq in the next 16-20 months. What is our "realistic alternative" at that point? Stay longer? Keep wasting literally billions? Neglect programs at home? Keep trusting politicians who take bribe money from the defense industry?

How many more billions you would be willing to spend up to that point, and then what your "realistic alternative" is if we are still there?

I hear lots of DUers accusing anti-war people of not being pragmatic- but no one can give me a hard, lucid answer on just how many BILLIONS we need to spend over there (and EXACTLY what domestic programs should suffer as a result) b/f it is finally time to leave, much less how many more they would be willing to spend if we don't meet the timeline...

Can you give me a hard number on just how many more billions you think we should spend? Can you give me a hard, pragmatic, realistic list of the domestic spending programs that should take a back seat to this multi-billion dollar occupation?

Sorry, but if anti-war DUers need to answer the tough, detailed questions, maybe those opposing them should too.

[Turborama]

276. I'll play the answering questions with questions game. Why are you avoiding the original question?

[Dr Fate]

280. Why do supporters of a multi-billion dollar occupation based on lies get to ask all the questions?

Shouldn't the anti-war folks expect you guys to have all your details & "pragmatic" alternatives all lined up as well?

You mean you cant tell me how many billions we will need to spend, and exactly what programs should suffer to get those billions?

Sounds to me like you have not thought out this occupation thing too well.

[Turborama]

283. An exclusivity made up in your head, anyone is entitled to ask whatever they want. However...

...the way a normal conversation runs is: someone starts with a question, someone answers it and then lead into another question of their own. Continually answering the original question with questions of your own show that either you don't have an answer or you do know the answer but, due to cognitive dissonance, want to avoid it at all costs. Kind of like of debating evolution with a creationist.

I would like to get into a debate with you about this but not until the 1st part of the conversation has actually started. I haven't heard an answer on DU yet to the 1st question and that's the only reason I joined in.

Re: "supporters of a multi-billion dollar occupation based on lies"

Which occupation are you talking about?

BTW You don't know where I stand regarding either Iraq or Afghanistan, two completely different wars.

[Dr Fate]

285. First, we have to define what "realistic" means.

Or "REALISTIC" as was said.

Realistic as in "only if Republicans, the media and multi-national corporations approve of it."

Or realistic as in-what an extrmeley popular commander and Chief and leader of the free world has the power to order.

Also- sorry to lump you in- I was trying to say that the "pragmatists" and centrists always want details about how we "just pick up & leave"- but they are rarely prepared to give me any details for how we pay for staying...

I'm mainly talking about Iraq, but I'm not totally convinced if we can afford any other war right now either. I know that I'm not personally willing to go to Afghanistan, I can tell you that much for sure.

[Turborama]

292. Seeing as the OP doesn't appear to be around, let's go for the dictionary definition

How about this one?

1: concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realistic )

I do have some ideas about how the costs of finishing these wars properly are paid, by the way...

[Dr Fate]

295. The second one.

Doesn't matter- my answer is the same for both anyway!

He needs to get out sooner rather than later-it costs too much money.

He should spend a few months taking the case to the public. Talking about exactly what programs we will be able to better afford if we divert funds from at least Iraq.

He could get experts to crunch all the numbers and have all the talking points lined up- it's a no brainer:

Most voters would prefer to spend billions on homeland security & border security than occupying Iraq.

How about a billion or so more for energy dependence?

Most voters would prefer to spend billions on emergency preparedness in the USA, not occupying Iraq.

Most voters would prefer to spend billions on healthcare than occupying Iraq.

Most voters would prefer to spend billions on crime prevention here at home than occupying Iraq.

Most voters would prefer to reserve billions to save for a rainy day here in the USA, etc, etc, etc as opposed to occupying Iraq.

Hell- some voters might even want to build some schools, hospitals, fire stations or roads in their own communities- LOL! Think we can talk them into it?

Stuff we need in the USA-not stuff the multi-national profiteers need. Obama can easily get the public behind it if he frames it right.

He would not have any trouble getting on TV- and could probably find a measuarable number of credible people to line up to agree with him. The public already opposes the war, and if you framed it in terms of wasted money, it drives home the point even more.
Maybe the money we save will be a huge boost to the economy- if so, then Obama keeps his promise and remains more popular than ever.

I have a nagging feeling that they are just going to keep on stalling and giving us excuses for why we have to stay there. Hope I'm wrong! 16 months sounded good to me- somewhere around that seems fine-but it seems like we are out of money as it is.

I hope you know where the Afghanistan money is coming from. It's not like WWII where the war equipment is made in the USA- so I'm no even sure how all this benefits the economy too much...

If he does get us out in a few months, then I have nothing to worry about, at least as far as Iraq goes...

[jeff47]

378. Your plan is a tad flawed

Your "realistic" plan is a tad flawed. All you're discussing is how Obama could market withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan to us. That's trivial. One speech and it would be done.

What you seem to ignore is what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan if our troops just "poof" back home. The folks who are actually in charge of the situation don't have that luxury.

In Iraq: we get a return to the post-invasion lawlessness, followed up by a nice civil war & genocide. We'll also have all sorts of problems with Turkey, which we can't ignore as they are a member of NATO.
What we should do: A controlled hand-off to the Iraqi government. That's what we're doing. It takes time, and nobody's estimate of that time is going to prove accurate.

In Afghanistan/Pakistan: Afghanistan collapses back into stone-age warlordism. Pakistan becomes a rigid theocracy - now with nukes!
What we should do: Airlift a bunch of bulldozers to Afghanistan. Build them a road system. Build them a lot of infrastructure. Once they have a country that is possible to govern, hand it over to their government. In Pakistan, support the central government and the moderates, while helping said government eliminate the theocrats. Shockingly enough, this is what we're doing.

As for this:
"I hope you know where the Afghanistan money is coming from. It's not like WWII where the war equipment is made in the USA"
Actually, that's not the case. The vast majority of our military hardware is made in the USA. The only major exception being the off-the-shelf electronics we import and then assemble in the USA into military hardware.

[Dr Fate]

414. No, it's perfect. And you have yet to present a plan to pay for this, flawed or otherwise.

As far as Iraq goes, I'm very sorry that Conservative Democrats, Republicans and multi-national corpoations lied to the world screwed the Iraqi's over, and now we have no money to help them.

I can offer my apologies, but not money. Money you have yet to account for, BTW.

The guilty parties should have told the American people how much all this was going to cost instead of lying-not that it matters now- we are broke now, even if they had been straight with us.

Perhaps Obama should use the bully pulpit and ask the multi-national corporations who wanted the war so badly to foot the bill. The innocent American people who were lied to and are now broke have no obligation what-so-ever to pay for this.

You claim our hardware is made in the USA-but you dont specify by which multi-natioal corporation, or how much of the profits actually benefit the US economy. I dont see an Afghan war or iraq occupation boosting our economy in a noticable way at all.

Afghanistan? I never made a hard claim that we should not be engaged there. You never said how we pay for it. I did state that I'm not personally willing to go. How about you?

Also, I see that you glossed over my discussion of how many months we will need to be in Iraq, or any of your "alternate plans" for supplying the BILLIONS, b/f or after the 16-20 month mark, flawed or otherwise.

[jeanpalmer]

272. You're making it too complicated

It really isn't. For someone who has the political will to get out. Just pick up and leave, like we did in Vietnam. We had 500,000 soldiers in Vietnam, and we just took them out. And let the chips fall. It was a great decision.

If we can take 500,000 out of Vietnam, 130,000 out of Iraq is a piece of cake. The problem we have is a president who can't make the decision.

[Dr Fate]

274. The REAL complicated questions involve how we PAY for continuing to stay in Iraq.

And what programs suffer as a result of paying to stay.

Something tells me that our clear-eyed pragmatists in D.C. who "know something we do not" don't really want to talk too much about that one.

[jeanpalmer]

278. Dr, when you price out these wars

there's no way to get people-oriented programs like universal health care enacted. There's no money for them. Iraq, Afghanistan and the military in general eat up too much money. Until we stop the wars and downsize the military, all that other stuff is just a pipe dream.

[Dr Fate]

281. I'm not even sure we can price out this one.

We only know of the BILLIONS that they are willing to tell us about. Plenty of reliable news stories about missing Iraq funds if anyone cares to argue. Anyone have something realistic or lucid to say about EXACTLY where all of that cash went?

[Turborama]

298. Re: where all of that cash went

If you haven't seen them already, there's a couple of good documentaries here that you'll find interesting....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[tiny elvis]

308. Good Dr Fate

You are wise and I admire your reasoning.

[LittleClarkie]

299. I'm thinking anyone who was there for the fall of Saigon

wouldn't necessarily agree that how simple you make it sound. Several of those "chips" were people, you do realize. It's probably not as hard, or as simple, as either side is making it sound.

But I do think it's a fubar mess either way. Never shoulda gone there in the first place. Pottery barn is in full effect.

[zulchzulu]

360. The problem with the Vietnam analogy is that it took three years...

...for an incredibly unpopular war to actually have the troops withdraw. The first legislation (remember that we are talking about actual democratic government principles and not some instant-gratification Wii game) started in 1970 and it took several pieces of legislation leading up to 1973 with the withdrawal. It didn't happen overnight.

As for the complications in the Middle East, just "letting the chips fall" is indeed a foolish strategy. Vietnam is in no way as important a strategic location as where Iraq and Afghanistan are.

Do we just leave an area that we blew up and destroyed the infrastructure and beheaded the leadership as well? Are you for the Shiia performing genocide on the Sunni and the Kurds? Are you for letting innocent Iraqis left for dead after we destroyed their country? We need to leave in a timely and RESPONSIBLE manner.

Besides the fact that it took over three years for the troops to withdraw in Vietnam, it will just as long for the troops to SAFELY leave.

I was against both wars and protested in the streets. I also think that you don't just wave a magic wand and it all cleanly goes away. As Obama has correctly stated, we need to carefully get out of what we carelessly got into.

[olegramps]

429. We did not have 500000 troops in Vietnam at the time we abruptly left.

We had drawn down our troops and didn't have one combate battalion in Vietnam when Saigon fell.

[grahamhgreen]

346. The realistic solution is to go third party, so the dens will lose the elections unless they

Prosecute for war crimes.

Get us out of the wars for profit.

Single payer health care.

No $ for billionaire corrupt bankers.

[Fire1]

394. I'm for that. And when the republicans get back in I can take my

to another country. lol!!!

[grahamhgreen]

412. The dens can't win without us. And we need more than lip service

[Fire1]

392. They have no fuckin clue. NONE. They spew idealistic

utopian bullshit with no alternatives, no plans and minimal knowledge and understanding of issues. That is all.

[Dr Fate]

416. Do you have clue as to exactly how many more BILLIONS we will need to spend?

And EXACTLY which domestic programs WILL suffer cuts as a result?

Or is your multi-billion dollar occupation based on utopian bullshit and minimal knowledge and understanding of the issues?

Feel free to offer exact & specific details as to how much we need to spend and what programs will in fact take a back seat- you would be the first in this thread to do so.

[McCamy Taylor]

263. I learned long ago not to vote for a politcian based upon what he says. That way

I do not get disillusioned when they do not keep their campaign promises. Hunter S. Thompson was correct when he said that the race for the presidency will turn a sane, decent man int