Suddenly, in DUGP, war is the answer. Another take on the big O's speech

[Skip Intro]

Yep, "let's attack" appears to be the new mantra for some. Had bush given a speech calling for preemptive attacks on a sovereign nation, without their permission, a speech colored by references to 9*11 and the homeland and the ubiquitous "terror" word, the whole of DU would collectively roll its eyes and demand Pelosi put a stop to it. But now, since it came from where it came, many sudden have turned to hawks here, ready to believe whatever the new boss has to say. Mean hawks at that. Accusations of wanting the terrorists to win and Clinton supporters being for "letting the killers go" (yep, got that one personally from one of our sweet newer arrivals) abound. And who can forget the eloquent "STFU?" Nice.

Well, I want everyone to think for a minute. Think about how the bush regime has used words to sound like they're saying one thing when in fact they are saying something entirely different. Keep that in mind and read this from the big O's speech:

-----------
It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
-----------

Now, he's telling you what he plans to do. Its not bringing the troops home. Its an expansion of the GWOT to a new sovereign nation. And it was delivered with the so-tired 9*11/terror/AQ backdrop. In fact, those words were used a lot:

Homeland: 7 times, Values: 11, 9*11: 13, Al Qeada: 20, TERROR: 47.


Why, I wonder. Why such use of the GWOT keywords? What desired effect were they to bring about?


Combine that with all the hero-worship on display, and doesn't it all seem just a little familiar?


and I get on my knees and pray...we don't get fooled again

[NYCGirl]

1. So you read Obama's entire speech and got "war with Afghanistan" from it?

Perhaps the intro is not the only thing you've skipped?

[mrgorth]

2. STFU

[Skip Intro]

3. yeah, like that

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Skip Intro]

5. lot of that about, but please point out the lie/distortion in my post

thx, and welcome to DU

[TwilightGardener]

8. He's not about to take all the troops in Iraq and make them all invade Pakistan instead,

the way you imply--that's bullshit and you know it. And we DO need to beef up our presence in Afghanistan. We're kinda losing there, in case you haven't noticed. But considering we have WAY less troops there than in Iraq, even a small increase might do some good. Lie and distort--I stand by my words. You're doing the Republicans' work FOR them, all in a pathetic attempt to discredit a good Democratic candidate. Be ashamed.

[Hydra]

6. Rec'ed

Link please?

I like to show people what our cute and fuzzy candidates talk about to the pro-war crowd. An HRC supporter friend of mine was shocked when I showed her the release from her speech to AIPAC, and I encouraged her to talk to them about how unsupportive she was of this position. I personally don't want a war president- I want someone who will fix this gigantic mess, top to bottom.

It's a shame- we have such good candidates, but they seem to have to bow to the "powers that be" regarding these wars.

When will we stop killing each other for a buck? :cry:

[The Magistrate]

7. What Do You Expect, Sir?

Sen. Obama wants to become President, and the position he has enunciated here is widely popular, among the people at large and among rank and file Democratic primary voters. The widespread disenchantment with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is not an opposition to engaging and destroying reactionary Islamicist radicals under arms against the United States, and certainly not opposition to war as a tool of state policy.

[Hydra]

9. phrased like that,

the fundies have it right. Why wait for WWIII- it's inevitable anyway. Lets just get it over with and kill as many of us as possible. The "One People" dream is impossible.

[The Magistrate]

10. That Is A Rather Interesting Response, Sir

Verging on non sequiter....

Would you care to elaborate?

[Hydra]

11. your post was perhaps unintentionally illuminating in many ways

Sen. Obama wants to become President, and the position he has enunciated here is widely popular, among the people at large and among rank and file Democratic primary voters. The widespread disenchantment with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is not an opposition to engaging and destroying reactionary Islamicist radicals under arms against the United States, and certainly not opposition to war as a tool of state policy.

The fact that war is an acceptable tool of diplomacy, wedded with this obsession to destroy all of the billion or so muslims, as well as the fact that these positions are considered "strong" and "desirable" tells me that we as a species are on a collision course with WWIII.

Given that fact, let's just get it over with. Let's have * nuke Iran and China, since eventually they're gonna want to fight us anyway. Let's have the fundie wet dream of a devastated world.

Maybe then, when we stare at the ashes of what we had, as the fundies look around in wonder expecting their god to appear, we will all finally come to the realization that god isn't coming, and that this was all a bad idea. That we refused to act like adults...sold off our world for pennies on the dollar only to inherit hell.

[The Magistrate]

12. Unintentionally, Sir? Do You Really Think So?

Where do you get the idea there is an "obsession to destroy all of the billion or so muslims" as an animating spirit behind Sen. Obama's remarks?

There is no such obsession outside of a very narrow stream of nutters.

What there actually is is a situation in which a fairly small number of fanatic fundamentalist Moslem radicals have embarked on a campaign to restore what they conceive to be the proper predominance of Islam in the world. This necessarily brings them into conflict not only with the United States, but the whole of the West and the Orient, and even the basic economic, political, social, and intellectual structures of the modern world. Having taken up the gun and bomb, they are being opposed by force, by governments throughout the world, including many Moslem governments. This opposition to them is widely popular, and is going to be pressed by democratic and authoritarian governments alike in consequence. The idea it constitutes 'WWIII' is an exercise in humor. War on that scale requires oppenents comprising broad coalitions, that have the potential to destroy one another, and that is utterly lacking here. The group opposed to modernity has not the slightest realistic hope, or the shadow of a capability, to destroy, or even much damage, its chosen opponent. The campaign to destroy them will have no calamatous consequences whatever, providing it is carried out sensibly and competently.

[Hydra]

13. now I remember why I always used to read your posts while I was lurking

And wonder if I read them correctly afterward.

You just impressively placed all of the favored talking points out of a political group out of control, out of touch, and dangerous to all in their reach.

reactionary Islamicist radicals

Note the word "reactionary." What are they reacting to, pray tell?

You say that they are rising to bring "what they conceive to be the proper predominance of Islam in the world." I see this more economically, as all wars are fundamentally based.

Here they are, most recent first:

Pakistan



Syria

Iraq

Afghanistan is a bit more murky as to reasons, but I bet Zalmay Khalilzad knows what the motivation was. Interestingly, it mentions some things he wrote that may relate to this debate.

So which do you think it is? I vote that we don't go to war unless whoever it is threatens our global hegemony. As you correctly point out, why should we care about a "group opposed to modernity"? Do you really think that's why we are fighting?

The tentacles lead back to China, and a rather broad coalition is crystallizing around China, Russia and by extension, Iran and Venezuela in opposition to us that are quite capable of responding to our nukes should we choose to use them.

How much pushing will they tolerate before they do something we might regret?

This is not a clash of cultures(we need one of those, IMO). This is a clash of economies. Attempts to dress it up are not helpful, nor accurate.

[The Magistrate]

14. You Must Leave Open Room, Sir

For the possibility you did not read them correctly, or bring a sufficient command of the subject at hand to the engagement.

If you suppose that nations, which have had several thousands of their citizens killed, several of their embassies bombed, and other attacks made against them by an identifiable private body, will not resort to arms to destroy that group, it is hard to see this conversation continuing much longer, because there will be nothing substantial to argue against in ypour contribution to it.

The specter you attempt to raise of a re-united 'Communist bloc', allied with Islam, is an entertainment on the level of Dr. Fu Manchu. The sub-concious of the country does ocassionally kick these up down the years, and they are more generally fantasias enjoyed by the right rather than the left. Their under-pinnings, to put it bluntly, are generally foul.

That the term 'reactionary' puzzles you is particularly intruiging: it is a term of long standing as a description of obscurantist and anti-progressive elements on the right, which is exactly what the jihadis are: a profoundly right-wing body of thought and persons.

[Hydra]

16. Wow, just...wow...

I must really be bored if I dug up all those links regarding the powers at play in the mideast, and our dirty little fingers there, and then I'm going to do it again...

Still, I've rarely met someone who has either missed the point or deliberately misunderstood it quite like you. Ok, point for point:

"For the possibility you did not read them correctly, or bring a sufficient command of the subject at hand to the engagement."

I read them fine- those are the talking points of most of the republican think tanks I know of. I also know them to be patently untrue. Most of these "points" are excuses for us to violate UN treaties and restrictions such as the Geneva Conventions that we previously agreed too and insisted on. These rather important rules have been sacrificed for lies, nebulous goals or outright theft.

"If you suppose that nations, which have had several thousands of their citizens killed, several of their embassies bombed, and other attacks made against them by an identifiable private body, will not resort to arms to destroy that group, it is hard to see this conversation continuing much longer, because there will be nothing substantial to argue against in your contribution to it."

Ok, this was SO the wrong thing to say. Let me start with this:

Bush was so concerned about Al-Quida pre-9/11, that he was heard to say, "You've covered your ass, now." In fact, he was so concerned about the embassy bombing and the USS Cole attack that HE PASSED UP AN OFFER FROM THE TALIBAN TO HAND HIM OVER TO US BEFORE 9/11!

The USS Cole only becomes a matter of concern when it is politically convenient.

Speaking of 9/11, the excuse for all of this, why was Bush quoted as saying of Bin Laden after we had invaded Afganistan "I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly"

Refreshing how he puts it all in perspective right after that. "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

But that's just Bush, right? That couldn't be the real policy in play, right? Let's ask CNN about that. What's that they said? Tora Bora was never sealed off and many of Al-Quida, including Bin Laden himself got away? Sheer incompetence?

"The specter you attempt to raise of a re-united 'Communist bloc', allied with Islam, is an entertainment on the level of Dr. Fu Manchu. The sub-concious of the country does ocassionally kick these up down the years, and they are more generally fantasias enjoyed by the right rather than the left. Their under-pinnings, to put it bluntly, are generally foul."

Apparently you think in terms of window dressing, whether it be religions, economic systems or the names of state-sponsored terror groups(that incidentally work for us). I think in terms of power blocks. Let's see what the analysts have to say about this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/16/missile.treaty/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-07-05-asia-summit_x.htm

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1689

Of course, these things shift overnight, but it would seem several large countries are displeased with our imperial ventures, and they are gathering smaller countries that we are threatening to their side. Not good, IMO

"That the term 'reactionary' puzzles you is particularly intruiging: it is a term of long standing as a description of obscurantist and anti-progressive elements on the right, which is exactly what the jihadis are: a profoundly right-wing body of thought and persons."

I was being sarcastic, and referencing something Osama was quoted as saying that started all of this:

"It is now clear that those who claim that the blood of the American solders (the enemy occupying the land of the Muslims) should be protected are merely repeating what is imposed on them by the regime; fearing the aggression and interested in saving themselves. It is a duty now on every tribe in the Arab Peninsula to fight, Jihad, in the cause of Allah and to cleanse the land from those occupiers"

Argue me that we weren't doing exactly what he accuses us of. Iran and Iraq are prime examples. His organization would not exist if the CIA didn't have a bad habit of overthrowing democratically elected Gov'ts and putting in puppet tyrants that eventually slipped their leashes. His organization and the insurgents are a REACTION to our military presence there...and you want MORE OF IT???

I hope someone found this useful, because this level of acceptance of propaganda proves my worst fears- the puppetmasters are winning.

[The Magistrate]

18. So You Are Calling Mr A Purveyor Of Republican Talking Points, Sir?

Always best to get these things out in the open....

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[PurityOfEssence]

15. Battlefield in Afghanistan and PAKISTAN? Restoring OUR VALUES? Securing a more RESILIENT HOMELAND?

Hmmm...sounds a tad theocratic and warlike there.

I'd like to hear how our "values" have fallen upon bad times; what particular "values" are these? "Values" these days are a codeword for "religion", and anyone who doesn't know this is linguistically underqualified (take note, that's "under-", not "un-") for a job of such importance as the presidency. If this is what he means (which I don't think it is) he needs to stop; if it isn't, he needs to stop anyway and be very aware that he's opened himself up to conjecture of this sort with his bringing up of religion of late.

I suppose "securing" is simply the proper monitoring of our weak points, as suggested by the 911 folks, but the whole sentence smacks of totalitarianism and sort of vague, tough-guy rhetoric.

As for the first part, if we're going to reclassify Pakistan as a "battlefield", it'd better be done with some serious specificity. That's a sovereign nation and its government is an ally.

This guy gets more Deanish with each sweeping pronouncement. To be fair to Dean, he's done a great job and continues to do so as party chair; I'm talking about his reckless rhetoric in '03 and '04.

[illinoisprogressive]

17. If you listened to the speech you would know your argument is false.

he is not advocating war. not at all. that is media spin.
try reading or listening to the speech before making statements like this.