This American Will Not Support Obama's Escalation into More War in Afghanistan. And I Am Not Alone.

[David Zephyr]

As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, the great rationizing cometh.

There will be one hellova hullabaloo here of rationalizers when President Barack Obama tells the nation that he has decided to escalate even further into the Bush/Cheney failed folly. Eight years wasn't enough, I guess. I can already sense the keyboards clicking away with smug justifications for what is unjustifiable: the ramping up even more military warfare in Afghanistan.

It will now be Obama's War. It didn't have to be.

And I will find that rationalization sickening and disgusting.

Karzai's crooked and vile government does not merit the death of one single American boy or girl, man or woman to defend it. He's not only not worth one drop of their blood, he's not worth shit.

LBJ lost the American people when he escalated our involvement in Viet Nam. And LBJ lost the support of his own party over it.

The happiest two men in America will be Dick Cheney and George W. Bush when Obama announces his decision. Almost as happy will be the leadership within the GOP because they know that Obama will be setting them up for a 2010 victory.

Oh well, here we go again.

That Republican shit-ass, yahoo from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, was wrong when he said that health-care would be Obama's Waterloo. But just wrong about it being health-care.

Obama will have a political Waterloo and probably a military Waterloo and it will be Afghanistan. Eight years already and we're in the same place the Soviet Union found itself. Only they finally left.

You know, the original flaw in the Obama Administration's tapestry that is now unfolding was in right there in his early choices of the people he picked to surround himself with in his Cabinet and Staff positions.

I believed Obama when he said he liked to hear opposing views. Well, with the Cabinet he chose and the Secretary of Defense that he kept on board, he's not hearing any real opposing views on this very stupid and delusional escalation into the hell of war. He's hearing variations on the same theme: how to escalate.

Maybe, just maybe President Obama should listen to the late, great Marvin Gaye tonight before he makes a decision he will regret:

Mother, mother
There's too many of you crying
Brother, brother, brother
There's far too many of you dying
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today - Ya

Father, father
WE DON'T NEED TO ESCALATE
You see, war is not the answer
For only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today

[tekisui]

1. Politcally, he is leaving himself open to be hit from both sides.

He is setting it up so that it will be very difficult to come out politically viable. His best option would be to end it.

[David Zephyr]

2. Yes.

The right wing will sit back and say he wasn't robust enough.

And the Left, well, we already know how this will play: badly.

And the Independents who are sick of eight years of wars, who are losing their homes, who can't find jobs are hardly going to be impressed with this shit.

[SHRED]

3. well said

[glitch]

5. The only ones to be impressed with this shit are the ones who make money off of it.

We the People need not apply.

[SammyWinstonJack]

106. The War Profiteers -- Obama's true base.

:evilgrin:

[glitch]

113. "Are you a prisoner?"

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/20/blase

AMY GOODMAN: So, your thoughts on Latin America, as you describe the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas—

BLASE BONPANE: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —ALBA, the new leadership in Latin America, and how the US, you feel, should be dealing with Latin America?

BLASE BONPANE: Yes, I think the whole new movement is irreversible. It’s not going to return back where it was. And it’s a very exciting development. We shouldn’t be afraid of it. We operate on paranoia, of great fear, you know, of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales and all the way down to Uruguay and Chile. The movement is in process. And it is such a shame that we can’t be part and parcel of that movement. When Obama went to the meeting with the thirty-two countries, Trinidad, Tobago, the parting shot from the ALBA nations was, quote, “Are you a prisoner?” They really felt that—

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean?

BLASE BONPANE: Well, they felt that Obama seemed to be under the spell of the military.

AMY GOODMAN: Who said to him, “Are you a prisoner?”

BLASE BONPANE: I think it came directly from Hugo Chavez—“Are you a prisoner?”—because they’ve seen prisoner. And I’ve seen presidents who were prisoners in Guatemala, that were elected and then immediately told by the military, “You will do what we say, or you’re out of here.” And we almost feel that happening with Obama now. It’s quite frightening.

I go back and forth on how willing a prisoner he might be, if in fact he is a prisoner.

[rhett o rick]

148. That's too tough for me to deal with. nt

[glitch]

165. I know. When I heard him say it my blood ran cold.

We could learn a lot from south of the border, they've already been through a lot of what we may be facing.

[Ysabela]

70. We control the world supply of opium. We're NEVER leaving Afghanistan. n/t

[avaistheone1]

108. True.

[pundaint]

137. Bad Geography lesson here

Australia, Turkey, India are the big medicinal sources, only the illegal stuff comes from Afghanistan produce.

edited to fix bad spelling lesson

[Lilith Velkor]

166. The illegal stuff is much more lucrative.

Same Opium War, different century (and different empire).

[stray cat]

4. OK

[liquid diamond]

6. Fuck it.

Let's just leave. Let's let the Taliban take over Afghanistan. Let's give Al-Qaeda their haven back to plot another 9/11. Let's leave Pakistan and their nukes vulnerable. Great ideas! Seriously, "bring'em home" ain't that fucking simple. Obama has been handed a pile of shit and is doing his best to bring this war to an end. It's taken him weeks to think this decision through. Be grateful we have a president that actually thinks!

[David Zephyr]

9. Al-Qaeda is in Somalia. Should we invade there, too?

And the Taliban is no worse than the Saudi dictators. Should we invade there, too.

Having our troops in Afghanistan to "save" Pakistan from the Taliban is as stupid as invading Iraq after 15 Saudis attacked us on 9/11.

As I said in the opening of my OP, the rationalizing cometh. It's already here.

[liquid diamond]

27. Al-Qaeda operates in several countries,

but Afghanistan was one of their strongholds and will be again if we leave prematurely. Bitch away. I'm glad you peace freaks aren't in power during a time like this.

[closeupready]

31. Hear that, guys? We're "peace freaks" now. Remember "Jesus freaks"?

Wow, everything old does become new again. Peace freaks. Sheez. You sicken me.

[liquid diamond]

35. Yes. Peace freaks. People that don't support any military action under

any circumstances. You people would have protested the Civil War if you were alive back then. PEOPLE ARE DYING! STOP THE WAR!

[gateley]

62. I think this is a mistake and that we should leave, but I don't NOT support

military action under circumstances where I feel it's warranted. It's just that so many times, it's not -- it's only a grab for oil or power (read: Iraq).

And yes, I'm not a military strategist who knows all the facts that went into Obama's decision, it's just a gut feeling -- come to think of it, the same gut feeling I had when we went into Iraq.

So there are those among us who aren't 'peace freaks' but who will disagree with this action. I think that's reasonable.

[paulk]

71. a simplification worthy of a Republican

reduce everything to black and white, either/or

[liquid diamond]

172. My point is that this is a complex situation.

I guess that went over your head. Simplification? What the fuck is "bring'em home"?

[paulk]

189. if that's your point then make it

you've done just the opposite in this thread - it is a complex situation, and calling people "peace freaks" because they've looked at this "complex situation" and arrived at a different conclusion than you have is just flat out stupid and insulting.

[Mithreal]

84. And if you were living in the criminal states that could be justified

And who here said they were against war under any circumstances?

I hope you and your straw man are happy together.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. So tell us your history of fighting wars

Tell us how you have expressed your love of conflict. When did you join up? Or are you just typing in the blood of others?

[fascisthunter]

102. "People that don't support any military action under...."?

you know this because? "You people"....

[liquid diamond]

173. Yeah, you people. Was I not clear?

Believe it or not, there are people here that would support an escalation of the Afghanistan war. This is not Iraq.

[Mari333]

104. Under the circumstances

I suggest you enlist.

leave other peoples kids out of it.

[democrank]

141. Peace freaks, liquid diamond?

Don`t support the military? Too bad you weren`t here to chat with the Vietnam War vet in the other room. He`d have a great response to your callous "you people" blather, liquid diamond. He fought for his country and opposes both invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Or, I could introduce you to the young soldier I know who got both his hands blown off in Iraq. He`s a "peace freak" too.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Raineyb]

144. When did we start letting chicken hawks in here?

You think it's so great, I'm sure you'll be leaving the comfort of your keyboard to volunteer right? Right?

[niyad]

156. probably a member of the 101st chairborne div--pajama-hadeen brigade

[oge]

161. DUZY!

:rofl:

[liquid diamond]

174. Chicken hawk?

Afghanistan is a just war. Al-qaeda is a serious threat. Remember 9/11? This isn't Iraq--a war that I DISAGREE with. Peace freaks think both wars are wrong despite the distinct circumstances of both. So much for critical thinking. I guess it's just easier to say "bring'em home."

[Raineyb]

187. Yes chicken hawk. That would be the term for those who support war

but are too cowardly to get up off their lazy asses and fight in the war they support so much. Put your ass where you mouth is.

If you want to call people who are against the war peace freaks then you damn sure can take the chicken hawk moniker.

Easier? It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than blowing the shit out of people who haven't done shit to us. And for what? A corrupt government that the people don't want? A president who can't leave the capital city while his brother is a drug dealer? What we need is to prioritize what the hell we're going to spend money on and there's not a damn thing in Afghanistan that warrants us pending trillions of dollars which would be much better spent here getting universal health care (not bloody insurance) improving our infrastructure, and putting people to work.

Peace freak? Take your peace freak moniker and shove it up your ass. Is that understandable enough for you?

[niyad]

153. wow--you really do paint with a broad brush, don't you--where in the HELL do you come off

assuming that just because people oppose stupid, irrational wars, they automatically oppose all military action--if actually, legitmately required? and, just for the record, sweetie, maybe people SHOULD have been protesting the civil war.

remdi95

[liquid diamond]

175. Exhibit A

[niyad]

191. sweetie, you are in WAYYYYYY over your head here, because you have no f****** idea who you are

talking to, what they have gone through, what they actually think.

if you are so fired up and certain that this debacle in vietnamistan is correct, then explain to us what your service has been, or when you are going over, or WHY, since you think this is such a great idea, YOU ARE STILL SITTING HERE TYPING instead of carrying a weapon.

remdi95

and just in case you missed the point the first time I made it, I have been around this game a VERY long time, and attempted insults from little twits trying to throw their weight around impresses me not one little bit.

[TankLV]

168. fucking WAR MONGERS - like YOU!!!

thanks, but US "peace freaks" were PROVEN RIGHT!!!

[closeupready]

183. Amen to that.

n/t

[rhett o rick]

188. Duh. Of course I would have protested the Civil War. The people that died were not the ones

that benefited from the war. The rich benefit from war, not the poor bastards that die. Wars dont solve anything.

[Thothmes]

195. In the case of the Civil War, it did solve the

question of chattel slavery in this country. It also settled the issue of Federal Government supremacy over any combination of states. Both very useful outcomes.

[niyad]

152. wonder why this person thinks "peace freaks" is an insult? think the poster wandered over from

another board?

[liquid diamond]

176. It's an insult because you think ALL wars are wrong.

Obama has taken his time, consulted with his advisers, and made a thoughtful decision on how to address Afghanistan. There are people here that support Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Are they freepers too? Why can't you handle a little opposition from your own side without calling someone a freeper? I guess this thread is a prologue for the meltdown that will take place next week. We'll be eating our own when Obama sends more troops.

[closeupready]

182. Yes, I do wonder that. I put him on ignore right about the time I posted this last night, disgustin

freaky warmongering reichtard that he is. :mad:

But yeah, of course I don't mind being called a 'peace freak'; it's just the very idea that Democratic Underground has opened its doors to douchebags who think those who want peace are freaks. Almost makes you wonder how they refer to Jesus - 'Prince of the Hippie-freaks'?

[niyad]

151. wow-- "peace freaks" is an insult, you think? DAMNED RIGHT I am, and DAMNED PROUD of it.

been dealing with people like you all my life, sweetie, and all the name-calling, and attempted insults in the world isn't going to make me change my mind.

oh, HOWEVER will I bear up under your disapproval?

[closeupready]

12. Are we going to bomb Iran too? Or outsource that to Israel?

And then what?

[Mithreal]

87. Hell, why not Black Water or another mercenary army?

Oh wait, they are too busy in Pakistan.

[wuushew]

14. You are inventing unlikely future events as a basis for war in the here and now

this is not only unethical and illegal but is also no different from the the arguments used to destroy Iraq.

[cravermi]

19. I totally agree!

[LooseWilly]

21. At this point, it might be cheaper and easier to let the Taliban re-take Afghanistan...

If they then convince Al Qaeda to come back... it would be like a "do over". Then a new argument can be made to re-invade, and if anyone pays attention to the argument... then at least the Taliban and Al Qaeda will all be back in a consolidated place, in power in Kabul... and maybe the Second Invasion will be handled competently, and the leadership of both will actually be caught.

In the meantime, the US can save the money being spent on maintaining a troop presence there propping up an illegitimate government... and use half to pay down some debt, and half to help subsidize the states so that they can actually use some of the stimulus money to create jobs.

"Fuck it." indeed!

[L0oniX]

39. Yes ..the Taliban are Al-Qaeda. The Taliban are responsible for 911 ...yuh ...ok.

Mix it up much?

[arcadian]

46. As far as I can tell Al Qaeda could plan an attack on America from DC

They are everywhere, right? The boogie men.

[anonymous171]

54. Taliban =/= Al-Qaeda. They are two separate entities.

Also we can negotiate with the Taliban once they regain control. Fuck, we could even get them to help us hunt Osama down.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. For all we know, some sort of deal might be in the works with the Taliban right now.

They put out feelers to the AP a while back, indicating they were open to a deal.

I'm annoyed they harbored al-qaeda in the first place, but if something can be worked out to end this war, even if it means some sort of concessions to the Taliban, hey, that option should be on the table.

Frankly I can't think of any other reason Obama is 'considering' options this long, other than a possible diplomatic deal on the side.

[niyad]

154. remember that they offered to turn OBL over during the cheney admin--they wouldn't accept.

[Mithreal]

86. There are lies in your post. I would like to think they are not willful.

The Taliban has taken over most of Afghanistan. Why does next to no one talk about the civil war that has been going on there since long before Dubya? I expect the US to give the Taliban both weapons and money so they will stop shooting at us. Wanna make a bet, a year from now it will be common knowledge we are arming the people who shoot us?

The US has been destabilizing Pakistan. Other than rightwingers, what credible sources on the left dispute this? It's not a chicken or egg thing. Black Water is kidnapping and bombing people in Pakistan. Think that actually helps?

Obama should be making compost with that shit by now.

Weeks to consider what he would do? Believe that and be as naive as they come. He knew he would escalate and has been timing this announcement.

The President is not the only person who thinks and I will not be grateful that he is a warmonger.

[thehardtruth]

118. destabilizing Pakistan?

Because everybody knows fighting the Taliban there "destabilizes" Pakistan. Get real. The Pak government is happy Blackwater is doing the dirty work.

[Mithreal]

126. Putting words in someone else's mouth makes for an easy win, eh

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/why-pakistan-wont-fight-afghan-taliban

I didn't say fighting them destabilizes Pakistan, the very presence of the US occupation does.

Rightwingers love that "dirty work" phrase. Why use it here.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/scahill

"The US military intelligence source said that Blackwater's classified contracts keep getting renewed at the request of JSOC. Blackwater, he said, is already so deeply entrenched that it has become a staple of the US military operations in Pakistan.

According to the former executive, Blackwater operatives also integrate with Kestral's forces in sensitive counterterrorism operations in the North-West Frontier Province, where they work in conjunction with the Pakistani Interior Ministry's paramilitary force, known as the Frontier Corps (alternately referred to as "frontier scouts").

For months, the Pakistani media has been flooded with stories about Blackwater's alleged growing presence in the country. For the most part, these stories have been ignored by the US press and denounced as lies or propaganda by US officials in Pakistan. But the reality is that, although many of the stories appear to be wildly exaggerated, Pakistanis have good reason to be concerned about Blackwater's operations in their country. It is no secret in Washington or Islamabad that Blackwater has been a central part of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that the company has been involved--almost from the beginning of the "war on terror"--with clandestine US operations. Indeed, Blackwater is accepting applications for contractors fluent in Urdu and Punjabi. The US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, has denied Blackwater's presence in the country, stating bluntly in September, "Blackwater is not operating in Pakistan." In her trip to Pakistan in October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dodged questions from the Pakistani press about Blackwater's rumored Pakistani operations. Pakistan's interior minister, Rehman Malik, said on November 21 he will resign if Blackwater is found operating anywhere in Pakistan."

Pakistan's government? Pakistan wouldn't even be fighting these militants without the influence of the United States.

I don't claim any knowledge of the whole truth, but "hardtruth", you presented barely a half truth.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

120. The "BIG LIE" is...

It is not "Obama's Escalation." He was pressured into it by war-monger generals and doom-saying industrialists.

It's a no win proposition for Obama.

[peacebird]

132. if Obama escalates then it IS HIS ESCALATION. He is CIC. The buck stops at his desk.

He makes the decision, NOT the generals.

Obama is choosing to escalate in Afghanistan. Obama is CHOOSING to be LBJ.

[closeupready]

134. Absolutely. So weird how Obama's defenders are now suggesting he isn't top dog.

'He's a puppet!' 'He is being FORCED to make these decisions!' Give me a fucking break.

[truedelphi]

169. If he had some cahones he could resist.

But hell, he enjoys being President and would rather have two terms than take the Military Boys to task and have it out with them.

Someday maybe we will be blessed with someone of Daniel Ellsberg's caliber, and then maybe the nation will have decent policies.

[closeupready]

136. Of course we are.

Your post sums up everything quite perfectly.

[midnight]

93. Really? How did we leave Vietnam?

[thehardtruth]

117. Fuck it, indeed

And yet, after all that time "thinking", Obama came up with the exact same answer as "the idiot" Bush. It says something, doesn't it?

[niyad]

157. welcome to DU

[taught_me_patience]

162. Are you willing to pay a war tax

to fund this campaign? Put your money where your mouth is!

[TankLV]

167. Yeah - the "DOMINO THEORY" worked so well in the 60's!!!

I mean, since we had let Vietnam fall, then all those OTHER countries became COMMUNIST!!!








































...not...

[otohara]

199. This AM on MSNBC

what's her name was doing an interview with their guy in Afghanistan and he was saying....that this was his 8th Thanksgiving with the troops and they are "hopeful" knowing there are more troops coming and they can finish the job they came to do.

I was surprised, because you'd think these people would want to get the hell out of Afghanistan and come home.

I'd like to see us leave Afghanistan with some sort of stability and minus several thousand more Taliban.

[sharesunited]

7. Are the Taliban and Al Qaeda bad enough to combat?

Seems to me they are. I have no use for religious zealots of any kind. But these assholes require some serious obliteration. Don't they?

[liquid diamond]

8. Finally some sanity in one of these threads.

[Hissyspit]

44. Sanity?

Mostly civilian casualties? Check.
History of failed intervention and occupation? Check.
Prolonged American involvement with little or nothing to show for it? Check.
Deteriorating situation? Check.
Increased drug production and government corruption? Check.
Financial cost to America $2 Trillion over ten years? Check.
Military stretched to the limit? Check.
Psychological impact on soldiers and their family members? Check.
More U.S. deaths and injuries? Check.
Resources diverted from major domestic concerns? Check.
Chickenhawks saying it's all hunky-dory with them? Check.

Oh, yeah. Sanity. :eyes:

[gateley]

76. You know, when you lay it out like that, point by point, you gotta wonder

why in the hell they even consider staying/escalating. I just don't understand WHAT it is they hope to accomplish! Anyway, well put, Hissy.

[pscot]

55. It really is a shame you guys missed VietNam

You would have loved it. It had everything; communists, the domino theory, making SE Asia safe for Democracy, the Chinese menace, Russian proxies. Shit, it was great. Until it ate us up. If you think war in the Himalayas is such a good idea, go see your friendly army recruiter. Within six months you'll be in country, fighting for what you believe in. You can post from there, to keep us up on the latest war news.

[David Zephyr]

115. +1

Spot on.

[closeupready]

13. Have you signed up yet?

I'm sure they could use volunteers.

[sharesunited]

18. Here's my suggestion. Volunteers only for ANY theater of engagement.

That's the main take-away from the Nidal Hisan rampage. They shouldn't be able to send you unless you believe in the stated mission enough to volunteer for that specific tour of duty.

In my case, I am unfit to serve, and would only be a liability.

[Kaleva]

24. Like a horse with a broken leg, my fellow troops would shoot me right off.

So, it wouldn't do any good to send me to Afghanistan as the taxpayers would have to pay for my immediate return in a flag draped coffin.

[Kaleva]

20. Why aren't you in prison for protesting against the war?

[closeupready]

23. Ah, I see - because it's easier to be an armchair warring dilettante, isn't it?

Have another bonbon.

[sharesunited]

26. Think back to WWII. A good war? Supported by people who did not serve in uniform?

I'll grow a victory garden and save scraps of aluminum foil for the war effort.

[Kaleva]

29. Just as easy as being an armchair anti-war dilettante

Telling someone to sign up when one isn't making an serious effort supporting their cause themselves doesn't make for much of a case.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. Shouldn't you be able to answer that?

Shame you don't notice your argument was just torpedoed.

He (or she) is no more required to volunteer, to have an opinion on the subject, than you are required to get yourself arrested protesting, to have an opinion on the subject.

[liquid diamond]

25. ***yawn**

"If you support the war, you have to fight in the war." Get me something new.

[closeupready]

30. Get some sleep first. This is a serious issue.

n/t

[liquid diamond]

34. I don't need sleep. I need you to stop using the same

boring ass no war under any circumstances slogans.

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. Who said anything about no circumstances?

The ONLY circumstances should be a direct ACTUAL threat to the United States of America.

Not corporate profits. Not the paranoia of backstabbing so-called "allies". A threat to THIS country.

And that has NEVER been the case with Iraq OR Afghanistan. Or Korea and Vietnam, for that matter.

[liquid diamond]

52. So the Al-qaeda in Afghanistan was not a direct threat to this

country? Good night. I'm done here.

[Sebastian Doyle]

56. Tell RimJob I said hello!

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

89. al-qaeda = former US allies. So when did they become devil-men?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/93

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[niyad]

158. the fascinating thing is how many people drool over war, get hard over the idea of OTHER people

fighting and dying, but don't actually go near it themselves--dick cheney being a perfect example.

but the question is, if you really think this war is so great, so necessary, what, besides spewing reichwing talking points, are YOU doing to support it (not to mention the actual people doing the fighting and dying?)

remdi95

[SalmonChantedEvening]

171. They weren't when Chuck Colson brought them to D.C. as his guests.

You better run away little man.

[TankLV]

185. It was an ILLEGAL War of CHOICE, BASED ON LIES.

You know, same thing as attacking Mexico for bombing Pearl Harbor.

Sorry, you're bullshit won't work here - it's already been DISPROVEN for EIGHT FUCKING LONG YEARS!!!

So, no, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any "Security of the US"...

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Hey you are drooling on your Snuggie

Not one person here has said what you claim is being said. So on a thread about a war you promote, but refuse to fight yourself, you are making false claims to support your position, clearly defining your position as A. Indefensible with facts and B. A position you do not support enough to actually participate in. So you have no reason, and no will. All you have are words so empty that even the speaker of them will not back them up with action.
Not one person has said 'no war under any circumstances' and frankly, that is something only a chicken hawk from a family of the same would make up and put into the mouths of others. This thread stands for all to see. They can see that you are 'bearing false witness'.

[Starry Messenger]

37. Mind the cheeto stains, darlin'

They are hard to wash out of underoos.

[closeupready]

41. ROFL.

:rofl: I'm sorry for laughing, but that was a zinger. (Gotta laugh, or you cry.)

[Starry Messenger]

43. :D

No apologies necessary.

[Hissyspit]

45. New?

There's nothing new. It's been going on for eight years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7083457&mesg_id=7084223

[Raineyb]

145. Integrity would be new for you. n/t

[Turborama]

65. Hopefully Obama's strategy will include an increase in reconstruction jobs

If so, I'll be one of the 1st to apply.

[arcadian]

47. You dare have a Smedley Butler avatar

Wipe that avatar off your profile.

[sharesunited]

49. Huh? Smedley Butler was a pacifist? Sorry, not following.

[arcadian]

50. He recognized a corporate war when he saw one.

You obviously can't

[sharesunited]

53. Was WWII a corporate war? Can any war the U.S. wages be righteous if somebody profits?

If I am being asked to choose between necessary evils, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will not get my vote.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics will.

[avaistheone1]

112. There are only 100 Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan.

Hardly worth sending over another 37,000 troops at a cost of $1 million dollars a soldier, and $400 a gallon to get gas to get them. I rather toss my money down a hole.

Frankly I am tired of sending my hard-earned dollars to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics as well as BLACKWATER, and HALLIBURTON among others.

Let's get our priorities straight. That money is needed in our states, and in our communities where we have 44,000 people are year dying as a result of the lack of health care, and where people can no longer afford the roofs over their heads. Bring our troops and dollars back to America.

[unhappycamper]

91. Here's a little thing that Smedley Butler wrote in 1935:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[sharesunited]

101. That is a valuable link. He DOES sound like a pacifist doesn't he?

I imagine he was articulating the beliefs of many Americans at the time. Which is why it was so difficult politically getting the U.S. into WW2.

[FiveGoodMen]

130. You can't obliterate an idea.

It's not like there are just certain individuals who make up those groups and if you kill them, they'll be gone.

[closeupready]

10. I will continue arguing, as you do, that war is not peace.

And does not help secure peace. Escalation is wrong.

[David Zephyr]

16. You are not alone.

Escalation is wrong.

"Hey, Hey LBJ, How many boys did you kill today?"

[gateley]

77. Uncle Sam needs your help again --

got himself in a terrible jam
way over yonder in Af-ghan-is-tan...

Still works today. We haven't learned a thing.

[David Zephyr]

116. Country Joe

Fits like a glove.

[gateley]

125. I think all the old protest songs are appropriate again. nt

[mitchtv]

42. we enter The Graveyard of Empires

fools rush in... what a waste

[David Zephyr]

135. The Graveyard of Empires.

Yep. But...this...time...it...will...be...different.

And 18 and 19 year old kids die for Hamid Karzai?

Graveyard of Empires.

[G_j]

11. he had a chance to stand out in history as a great and courageous leader

he blew it


I do not support the Afghanistan policy.

[twitfinder]

15. Dying

Get out now! That's the only ticket in town! I can't believe that we'd even consider staying in that hell hole. What the hell is the likelihood that our overseas contingency operation will stop these man caused disasters anyway?????? I mean, REALLY!!!! We didn't need to go over to Afghanistan or Iraq. I think the terrorists made their point(along with the help of the US govt) on 9/11. They're not gonna to hit us again!

[Individualist]

17. Out! Now!

[Luciferous]

22. K&R

At this point I am absolutely mortified that I voted for Obama, and he certainly hasn't been doing anything to change my mind.

[2tr4nqued]

28. So Obama escalates, and then he loses in 2012

and we get Palin as president? WTF? Did Obama come into the office knowing he would be a one-term president?

[spanone]

32. you shouldn't have voted for him.....he ran on escalating afghanistan

[tan guera]

79. I didn't vote for him or Hillary

People who suffer from Obamaworship called me racist.
I heard him when he said he'd escalate. I heard Hillary talk about a "glass" Iran.

I will never again vote for a warmonger!

We need a challenger, especially if Dobbs is running as an Indie.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. He ran on 'No Mandates'. He ran on 'no income tax for social

security recipients making less than 50K'. I suggest that if you want to claim that he must do 'what he campaigned on' then he needs to do all that he campaigned on, or the use of that argument to rationalize war is hollow. He now supports mandated purchase of private insurance, during the campaign he ridiculed Clinton for supporting mandates with fines, and sent 'she'll come after your paycheck' messages to voters on TV and in the mail, on the radio and in debates. No mandates was a central platform of his campaign, and really the only difference between him and Hillary.
Also, are you suggesting that one should not vote for a candidate one does not agree with 100% of the time? If that is the case, subtract millions of Obama votes because the man opposes the very equality of millions who voted for him for other reasons, many of those reasons now tossed in the dust bin in a rush to 'keep that war promise'.
I'll enjoy holding him to each and every muttered promise from the trail. Do you really wanna go there? Really?

[SammyWinstonJack]

109. +1

:applause:

[bdamomma]

181. well he did say he was going to focus on Afghanistan

but to send more troops just sucks, doesn't he realize that other countries tried to the same thing, and look at what happened to those countries especially the Soviet Union.

[debbierlus]

33. I stand with you - and I say we have a mass rally to take this county back

A single payer - end the wars - reclaim the democratic party mass rally like they never have seen the likes before...

[mitchtv]

38. one term only

It says to me

[leftstreet]

40. K&R

[MissDeeds]

48. K&R

:kick:

[BrklynLiberal]

51. I am very disappointed....

[gateley]

57. Excellent editorial. Wish Obama could read it. Recommend. nt

[quiet.american]

58. Why do you think the President takes this decision more lightly than you?

He has met with families of those slain in these conflicts, in settings not screened, not staged. He has met the coffins of the dead who sacrificed their lives for this country. When he took office, he initially said Afghanistan was a necessary war, in essence, a right war. And yet, he has listened and not just barged forward based on what his perspective was when he entered office -- proof of that is that he sent his advisors back to come up with a way to exit the conflict in Afghanistan when the only strategies they were offering involved open-ended conflict.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of these soapbox soliloquies that don't take into account the whole picture.

Why is it so hard to understand the situation in Afghanistan is complicated, what with Bush/Cheney et al's. total bullshit approach to it over the course of the last eight or nine years, which opened the door to the Taliban being less than 60 miles away from Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Nice cozy thought to go to sleep with, isn't it.

I'm willing to hear Obama out on this before I conclude referring him to Marvin Gaye (as awesome as he is) for advice on his foreign policy decisions is the way to go.

[anonymous171]

60. The Taliban are not that bad. They can be reasoned with.

They are not as irrational as some would like to think. Afghanistan is a shit hole, and will always be a shithole. There is absolutely nothing that Obama can do to make it any better.

[quiet.american]

61. Noted. Now I'll sleep better. nt

[Kaleva]

63. The Taliban kill those who disagree with them.

One will be labeled a heretic and be executed.

[anonymous171]

64. And? What does that have to do with international relations?

I don't really care about the domestic situation in Afghanistan. Let the Afghans figure that out for themselves. I just want to make sure that the Taliban are contained and are as far away from Pakistan as possible.

[Kaleva]

67. The Taliban are in Pakistan and they don't want to leave.

[anonymous171]

72. They won't once we can shift our focus away from occupation and towards containment

Strengthening the Pakistani government against the Taliban would be a lot more effective than occupying the entire "nation" of Afghanistan.

[Kaleva]

73. Containment can last decades.

[anonymous171]

74. So can occupations. nt

[avaistheone1]

110. Yes, I am getting tired of this occupation/containment shit.

Let's keep our troops and Treasury at home where they are needed.

[Raineyb]

146. So do we. But we call them "wars" when we do it.

You can't seriously be making the argument that we're better than they are so it's okay to bomb them..

[Turborama]

68. Journalist Saira Shah: Life in Afghanistan under the Taliban

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4201322772364661561&ei=zL8MS_a9JJS8wgOVlfykBg&q=beneath+the+veil&hl=en#">Beneath The Veil

August 27, 2001 Posted: 9:56 AM EDT (1356 GMT)

Saira Shah

Saira Shah is a freelance journalist. She was born in Britain, of an Afghan family. She first visited Afghanistan at age 21 and worked there three years as a freelance journalist, covering the guerilla war against the Soviet occupiers. Later, working for Britain's Channel Four News, she covered some of the world's worst trouble spots.

CNN: Welcome to CNN.com Saira Shah. Thank you for joining us today.

SAIRA SHAH: Hello to everyone who's logged on. It's great to be here.

CNN: Saira - tell us a bit about "Beneath the Veil" on CNN Presents this Sunday evening and why this story is so important to you.

SHAH: Well, the film is a story of a journey three of us made, me and two crew members, earlier in the year. It's important to me personally, because my family originally came from Afghanistan. What we tried to do was return to the area where my family came from, which I'd never seen before. I remember when I was a child, my father would tell me stories of a garden in the area where my family came from, and I was told it was the most beautiful place in the world, with fountains, fruit trees, and wonderful things. We thought we'd try to go there, and see what happened to it now, and understand along the way what's happening in Afghanistan.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Please tell us about the financial situation of the government of Afghanistan and its capability to provide basic services to its people.

SHAH: I assume that you're talking about the Taliban government, because they control most the country, 90 percent, but not all. The strong impression I got was that the inability or the unwillingness of the Taliban government was not connected to the financial situation. They clearly have money to pay troops, etc., but what they're not doing is rebuilding infrastructure. They're not concentrating on humanitarian projects to feed ordinary Afghans, and the World Food program is helping to feed people. I don't think it's a financial problem, but a political problem as well.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Do you see any future for women in Afghanistan?

SHAH: Obviously, women are half of Afghanistan's population, so there must be some future for women. If that's a happy one, that's a different question. There are grave problems there for women. One thing I did in the film is travel with a group of Afghan feminists undercover. It was the only way to get access to ordinary women living under the Taliban. It was shocking. One thing was the hospitals for women, where women doctors are supposed to be allowed to work…there are so many social restrictions that most have fled or can't get to work.

So, the hospitals are filthy, and there is little personnel for women. Male doctors are not allowed to treat women, so there was insufficient medical attention. Another distressing things was young girls being taught in secret schools, and the level of risk they were taking of punishment or imprisonment. Also, the number of women beggars on the streets. There are about 40,000 widows because of the conflict. Many have no menfolk to support them, and they are not able to have jobs under Taliban law. So the laws that the Taliban believe will protect women have actually driven them into the streets to beg.

CHAT PARTICPANT: Ms. Shah, were you ever fearful for your own safety?


SHAH: Yes, of course I was. And also for the safety of my crew. At times the whole crew was fearful. Afghanistan is an unpredictable and violent place. I was on my own during the undercover trip and was fearful. It was difficult and was the first time I really saw what it's like to be an Afghan in Afghanistan. Under the Taliban, you never relax. If you are involved in social activity, they won't approve. There was a large network of informants. I was in a safe house, but had to be careful about people tipping them off. I only did it for five days, but the other women live that way all the time. This Afghan feminist group, RAWA, has political activities all the time and have risks all the time.

CHAT PARTIPANT: Does the Taliban actively, that is financially, support terrorism, or does it just provide a save haven for Islamic fundamentalists?

SHAH: That's a difficult question to answer. Of course, they deny that they support terrorism, but it's well known they've helped bin Ladin. There are also unconfirmed reports that the Taliban is helping to train a wide range of people, including people fighting at the moment in Kashmir and other conflicts throughout the world, the Islamic world. The concern is that some groups may move on to other targets.

CHAT PARTICPANT: Ms. Shah, I've been profoundly disturbed by some of the images I've seen for the show on Sunday. Is there any image that stays with you more than others?

SHAH: Yes, there is. I assume you're talking about the gory images in the film, and those are not the ones that stay with me. The thing I keep remembering from real life is three little girls we met in the village, whose mother has been shot. The Taliban came and tried to take over their house, and the husband had already been detained, and she was alone with her children. They shot the mother, and left her body in the courtyard. The girls were traumatized and shy, but it emerged that the Taliban stayed in the house with them alone for two days, which is unthinkable in that culture. The 15-year-old was wrapped in a shawl, rocking and crying. That was very upsetting. They were upsetting.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: I'd like to know some of the fundamental beliefs of the Taliban. I'm trying to understand how hundreds of thousands of woman can be maimed, killed and subjected without human rights intervention.

SHAH: That's two questions, really, isn't it? The Taliban's fundamental religious beliefs are hard to pin down, because they're not a homogenous organizations. Many Muslims say, and I agree, that many of the Taliban don't know much about Islam. Many are uneducated. Some are very educated. It's a diverse group. For example, we met a woman who said that she was walking with her friend, and a group of Taliban came and beat her friend up because she was wearing white shoes, saying she'd dishonored their white flag. That's not Islam. Many things imposed by Taliban are against Islam.

I was brought up with a moderate view of Islam, my family thought that Mohammed said that women are the twin hearts of men, and given equal opportunities. I would say that there are many Muslims that do not agree that this is Islam, or that this is the only form. On the question of human rights intervention, it comes down to international will. Afghanistan used to be important, but so many things have happened there, and things have happened because Afghanistan was used as a pawn in the '80s. There is now no international interest in Afghanistan. People have to care about Afghanistan around the world, and maybe a head of steam will be built that can do some good.

CHAT PARTICPANT: How did your stay in Afghanistan affect your perception of your cultural identity?

SHAH: I have been to Afghanistan before, but never visited my family's home area. This trip did affect my perception a lot. I have always had a strange relationship with Afghanistan, knowing it's where I came from, but seeing how it's changed, not for the better. There is more violence, and people are more crushed every time I go. This was the first trip I saw the Afghan sense of humor had disappeared. People are too worn down to joke and laugh. I found that very hard.

The other thing is that we talk of the developing world, and when I go back, I see that Afghanistan has regressed. Particularly in the cities, I see the mass trauma, I don't know how to describe it. People are traumatized there. Everyone has someone in their family that has died. Everyone has suffered, has seen violence. Whole generations have seen nothing but war, and the effect is very dreadful on the culture as a whole, and I find it very hard to watch.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: What is the country doing about all of the orphans?

SHAH: Again, that's a difficult one to answer, because there are many situations. The country is fragmented. I've seen orphanages on the border where many children are helped. Often there is a big extended family, and if a child is orphaned, they're kept in the family. Many boy orphans have to defend themselves more. There's an orphanage I've visited in a very interesting state, where the children have no stimulus, no freedom. There are many children in the towns, begging on the streets. It's a diverse situation.

CNN: Do you have any final thoughts for us today?

SHAH: I have been amazed when this film was shown in England, at the response of people, and how people wanted to help, be involved. For me personally, I couldn't wish for anything better, because for years I've wanted people to care, and I'm grateful that this has happened. I'm grateful to the United States and CNN for showing this film, and hope that something can be done about the impossible situation.

CNN: Thank you for joining us today, Saira Shah.

SHAH: Thank you!

Saira Shah joined CNN.com Newsroom via telephone from Colombia. CNN provided a typist for her. The above is an edited transcript of the interview on Friday, August 24, 2001.

From: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/08/24/shah/

[liquid diamond]

178. Wow. Fucking wow.

Not bad and reasonable? The Taliban? Why don't you ask the women they oppress if they feel the same way?

[anonymous171]

180. It is not the American goverment's job to protect the women in Afghanistan.

Sorry, but this world police bullshit has got to end.

[liquid diamond]

186. I never implied we should police the world.

I was addressing a poster's claim that the fucking Taliban was reasonable. Because reasonable people insist women remain covered when they go outside. Reasonable people deny women education. Reasonable people beat women in the streets. Yup, that's reasonable and "not bad". There are some ignorant posters here.

[closeupready]

184. First, from what I understand, citizens of neighboring countries think of Afghanis as "cuckoo"

A little crazy in the head. Now that may be a sweeping generalization, but I am not lying that this is the opinion of some of the societies in areas neighboring Afghanistan.

However, I would not agree that the Taliban "are not that bad". They are plenty bad.

But that said, if Obama escalates warfare there (in order to bring peace/civil society), he will fail, I am 99% certain of that - and not because of anything he does so much as the fact that Afghanis don't want what he wants to bring to them, and we are not prepared to colonize Afghanistan, which is one thing (among others) which we would have to do in order to make it a civil society.

[liquid diamond]

177. Thank you for your eloquent post.

Bush mismanaged this war for 8 years and then dumped it in Obama's lap. When Obama takes steps to end this conflict, these people call him a warmonger and Bush III. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

[jonathon]

59. How do we protest this and have any effect?

?

[LiberalAndProud]

69. I want to know the answer to this also.

I was prepared for many disappointments, even as I
. . . hoped, but I could not be prepared for this. I cannot stomach this. This war must end.


How do we make them end this war?

[gateley]

78. If Viet Nam serves as an example, we can't.

Our protests didn't work then, I'm not hopeful they'd work now.

[tan guera]

80. Stop sending money

to all critters. Might help.

[kenny blankenship]

81. We have to convince our critters, varmint by varmint, not to pass funding for the war

while people at home are falling into joblessness and poverty.

It's an obscenity and they must be made to understand there will be a political price to pay and they will be the ones to pay it, not the Repukes.

[kenny blankenship]

83. There's one thing we have going for us

we know the media would just love to cover a noisy march that's harshly critical of Obama policy, right?

We have to use whatever presents itself.

[katandmoon]

66. K&R.

[PufPuf23]

75. There are escalations as well in South/Latin America and Africa

mostly under the radar of the general public.

What is going on is a slower and more uncertain implementation of the boring to read Sept 2000 PNAC Redefining American Defenses report.

Alas in foreign/military the neocons and neoliberals/3rd way/whatever co-opting term differ little but in PR.

The influence of the MIC is not in there own best interests much less the individuals citizens of the USA.

[amborin]

82. K & R

[budkin]

85. I won't either... fighting there is totally pointless.

[OneBlueSky]

88. I had such hope for an Obama presidency . . .

I know he didn't run on it, but I guess I duped myself into believing that we would finally have a president who would stand up to the corporate/government oligarchy and push for meaningful change . . . unfortunately, I was simply fantasizing . . .

there will be no meaningful change under this or any president . . . meaningful change will only happen when the whole civilization falls apart and change is thrust upon us in ways that will be unbelievably painful for the planet and everyone on it . . .

[KG]

90. do people still believe an operation as complex as 9-11 was planned and controlled from a cave

in afghanistan? :eyes:

[Echo In Light]

96. Never underestimate the power of denial

[sendero]

92. Don't worry...

.. it won't be 8 years. Obama has as much chance of being elected in 2012 as I do.

The Repugs hate him because he's black, and he has thoroughly and completely demoralized his base. He should enjoy his 4 years because that is all he's going to get.

[SammyWinstonJack]

111. Why did he even bother? Must've been an ego trip.

Thanks for nothing Obama.

[graywarrior]

94. People are already protesting with War is not the Answer signs in Newburyport, MA

I'm wondering if there will be a draft, coz I don't know where in hell we're gonna find soldiers to send over there.

[David Zephyr]

124. Great news.

We are not alone.

[PassingFair]

97. Here's another appropriate verse:

http://www.daypoems.net/poems/1799.html

snip>

If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

<unsnip

[Vidar]

98. K&R.

[kentuck]

103. You are not alone...

It is bubbling under the surface at the moment.

[bongobobtherealone]

105. I just wish.......................

I wish Obama would have Matthew Hoh visit with him. Here's a
guy who REALLY understands the situation in Afghanistan.
There's a civil war going on there and has been for years.
It's also another war we're fighting against an enemy we
helped create. There's no good out come.

I also wish Obama would look back a bit. This war was on the
drawing board way before 9/11. It wasn't about Bin Laden but
it was sort of about the Taliban from the stand point of who
would control the pipe line to the Caspian Sea. Another war
about oil. Imagine that!

There's a reason Afghanistan is called the "Graveyard of
Empires". If we don't come to our senses soon, ours will
be the next one buried there~

[12string]

107. escalation

is not the answer.WAR!HUH!GOOD GOD Y'ALL! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN!Fuck War.

[Tippy]

114. I will continue to support my President because....

We don't have all the facts...the general public never does....I would like to see us out of that
God forsaken country, yes he promised...at the time I felt that was a mistake... Until all the facts are in, if we ever get all the facts...I will support....

[liquid diamond]

179. FREEPER!

Aren't you on the wrong board warmonger?!

:sarcasm:

[kenny blankenship]

119. Right there with you.

Somebody "wasn't listening during the campaign." That somebody was Obama.

WE SAID CHANGE

[LWolf]

121. You are not alone. nt

[PuraVidaDreamin]

123. I will not support it either, and I'm taking it to the streets

Also joining Peace of the Action this Spring in DC

Peaceoftheaction.org

[Greyhound]

127. Another Democratic President with no coattails.

:eyes:

[Honeycombe8]

128. Then why did you vote for him? This was part of his campaign.

Errrr.....you DID vote for him, right?

[bc3000]

138. I agree. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Techn0Girl]

129. You are NOT alone -

Stop the war - NOW !

[AtheistCrusader]

131. No, it's Bush's war, and never forget that.

Obama doing what he needs to, to bring it to an equitable conclusion for all parties involved, does not make it 'his war'.

[FiveGoodMen]

140. There won't be an 'equitable conclusion.' History has made that clear.

Yes, it is Obama's war now.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. We will see.

Things are going to get clearer, after thanksgiving, apparently.

I still have hope.

[FiveGoodMen]

143. I'd love for you to be right.

We will see.

[rhett o rick]

147. Damn you. "What's Going On", always makes me cry. But no matter. Small price for me to pay to

honor those that have been sent to their death by our government.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

149. You are NOT alone!! ...K&R

[invictus]

150. K&R

[nightrain]

155. expanding this invasion is a horrible mistake.

[Swamp Rat]

159. NO MORE WAR!!! BRING HOME THE TROOPS!!!

[gleaner]

160. This American will not support it either

Thank you for stating all of the very good and compelling reasons to get out of this war now. I lived through Viet Nam and I see the same type of mess here. There are no winners. This is true of most wars. We need to leave as fast as we can and let Afghanistan seek its own destiny. Every country has that right.

Every morning I expect to hear Obama reciting the Domino Theory the was the Viet Nam war hawks did. The operable word now is "terrorism" and not "Communism," but the end result is the same. Charged words to push forward inexcusable actions.

[KoKo]

163. No....You are NOT ALONE....K&R

[TankLV]

164. Neither will I. His MAIN/WHOLE reason for getting ELECTED in the first place

was to get us OUT of BOTH wars!!!

NOBODY can say he didn't promise that - and to top it off, Obama came down hard on Hillary for not agreeing with him that we had to get out NOW!!!

My, my, my were WE all fooled...

If Obama doesn't get us out AS HE PROMISED - WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS - then he will be another LBJ - and he will gain plenty of opposition to this from ME and MILLIONS of OTHERS, too - just like VIETNAM...!!!

[FlyByNight]

170. So much for that Nobel Peace Prize

Matthew Hoh sounded the warning bell a couple weeks ago and, evidently, no one in the administration (or probably most inside the Beltway) listened or cared.


:thumbsdown:

[TexasObserver]

190. I'm not going to support him if he's just going to be a war party lap dog.

There are many Democrats, and most of them stand for Democratic values.

I don't know what he stands for, if anything, any more.

[EMR1976]

192. I find it hard to believe

.....that so many people fail to understand why we are in Afghanistan. Those punks harbored a man and a group of people that killed 3,000 of YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS in an unprovoked, unjustifiable attack. And still, even afterwords, they had a chance to avoid war by handing over Bin Laden and/or Mullah Omar, but refused to do so. What choice is there but to fight them? No respectable nation allows itself to be attacked in such a manner without there being consequences. I can't remember who posted it, but it was along the lines of "some of you people would have protested the Civil War if you had been there." And sad to say, I think the peson that posted that comment is correct. If watching 3,000 of your fellow citizens get burnt, squashed, and/or suffocated to death doesn't justify retaliation in some of your minds, then I don't think you could really say anything ever does. I support Obama. And I support his decision. He said it was a war of necessity. And he was right. The "peace freaks" are dead wrong on this one.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

[KoKo]

193. Those People? Those Afghani's..(when it was majority Saudi's who attacked us) deserve to die?

Civilians who never knew who Osama was...and those who cooperated with Americans who were funding the Taliban to defeat the Russian Occupation? They deserve to die for working with us?

Son...you need to pick up some books and do some learnin' about what you speak about that doesn't have any connection to the history and facts.

THE FACT IS! You are wrong.

[EMR1976]

194. The nationality of the attackers is irrelevant. It......

....has nothing to do with this situation. Fact is, they were harbored, trained, and funded all in Afghanistan. And get off the civilian crap. No war has ever been waged without civilian casualties. You're one of the people that would have protested the Civil War, because "people are dying." And you forget this: THEY attacked US first. People here in OUR country didn't know who Bin Laden was either, or the Taliban. That didn't stop THEIR GOVERNMENT from supporting the murder of 3,000 of OUR civilians, which apparently you think we should do nothing about. We have every right and are justified in our war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. And I smile every time I watch video of a j-dam blowing them to hell. I hope to god your ilk don't seize power of the Democratic party. You will drag us down. Most of us Dems aren't space cookie leftist kooks like you are. It's not irrational to attack a country that attacks you. Afghanistan, fine. Fight them. Iraq.....no way. Unjustifiable. This concept is lost on you. You seem to think "all war is bad and it's always The USA's fault."

Well screw that. I'm fed up with you screeching lunatics causing all liberals to be painted as bra-burning, communist nutcases that hate our nation.

Go Obama! I support you and OUR COUNTRY'S RIGHTEOUS WAR against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

[KoKo]

200. I feel sad that you are young....and have been fed PROPAGANDA...but whatever

I hope you will use the GREAT GOOGLE and INFORM YOURSELF..

Bless You and :grouphug:

[niyad]

196. kick

[Lydia Leftcoast]

197. May I remind everyone that the CIA chose the Taliban to take over Afghanistan

after the Soviets left. The country erupted into civil war, and the CIA decided that the Taliban were the only faction that had any discipline.

The Left complained about this long before most of the general public had heard of Afghanistan. They complained about the U.S. arming and training the Afghan equivalent of rednecks to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. They noted that the "freedom fighters" mainly wanted the freedom to keep their daughters out of school and their wives in burqas in defiance of the indigenous Marxist government's efforts to promote women's rights in the countryside. (By that time, women in the cities already had a lot of freedom.)

So when everyone gets all righteous about "Oh, what will happen to the poor women of Afghanistan if the Taliban take over?" I want to ask, "Where the hell were you in 1979 when everyone was blithely accepting the lie that the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan just because they were nasty Communists? Where were you when all the mass media were following the Reaganite line of treating the precursors of the Taliban as some sort of heroic freedom fighters? Why didn't you puke when Jeane Kirkpatrick praised the mujahedin inspite of the fact that they would have had her in a burqa and locked up in the house in a minute?"

And with the track record of the mass media in lying to us, why are you just accepting their platitudes now?

The powers that be are SO lucky. Most people believe everything they see on TV and don't bother to investigate for themselves.

[scarletwoman]

198. +1000! Powerful post!

So few people want to really dig for the truth.

The one result that endless war is guaranteed to produce, time and again, is that it empowers the most hardline, reactionary elements on the other side. Why is it that people constantly fail to see this obvious fact?

sw