If you believe the Afghan War is right, will you just freaking sign up already?

[Ken Burch]

IF you won't(and you're physically able to do so, otherwise you're exempt from this of course)how can you ask others to be sent off to what you KNOW is an unwinnable war?

It's the OTHER party that's supposed to do the "armchair warrior" thing, not this one.

[tekisui]

1. KNR!~

The war apologists on this board disgust me.

[invictus]

2. K&R

[styersc]

3. if you are such an enthusiastic protestor against the war...

...why don't you douse yourself with gasoline and set yourself on fire?

Worked for Buddhist Monks protesting Viet Nam.

Nah, didn't think so.

[Arctic Dave]

6. I take it your joining tommorow?

Or you are just an armchair warrior type of guy because it's fun.

[styersc]

10. No. I'll wait to hear from the Commander and Chief to hear what

he reasons the ultimate objective is in Afghanistan. If I deem it worthy, I will support his decision and if I do not I will actively work to convince him to bring the troops home- the way I did in opposition to Pres. Bush's unseemly war in Iraq.

I agreed with Obama during the election that Afghanistan was a cause that promoted National Security and if continuing the effort is necessary, and he can make that case, I will cautiously support the decision.

Informed decision making is an adult process practiced by intelligent people. Knee jerk bluster is for, well you get it.

[Ken Burch]

12. It's not "knee jerk bluster" to say this war is unwinnable

The last six years of NOT winning it have proved that already.

[niceypoo]

48. Bush ignored Afghanistan for the last six years

He even didn't try to win, no oil to be had - he just didn't care.

I would think long and hard before using Bushes stupid actions in weighing the possibility of future success, or failure, in anything.

I will see what Obama says/does then make my judgments.

[IndianaGreen]

17. You do realize that bin Laden is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan

and that the Taliban are not Al-Qaeda.

BTW, unless you are in the military, Obama is the President, not the Commander-in-Chief. He is not the Pope.

[styersc]

30. And if you remember the campaign (were you in the US during

the campaign?), Obama raised eye brows when he suggersted that he would pursue bin Laden into Pakistan if necessary. (Really, both you and Sarah Palin have got to get a few newspaper subscriptions).

Again, none of us knows what the president knows and when he makes a decision, then his rationale can be questioned.

Only a fool does so without knowing the context of the decision.

[CalvinandHobbes]

77. No he is still CIC..

Generals are still generals even if you are not in the army.

[billh58]

90. The Taliban

and Al Qaeda are close allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- they work together, share resources, and have common "enemies." It was the Taliban who provided Osama Bin Laden with the support and facilities which enabled him to carry out the attack on 9/11. Osama, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban travel freely between the predominently Pashtun areas Afghanistan and Pakistan.

President Obama also functions as the CIC, and either title is acceptable regardless of the military or civilian status of a citizen. When the USA is engaged in war, the entire country is engaged in war -- military AND civilian.

[Ken Burch]

40. self-delete

posted before information was received indicating it shouldn't be posted.

[IndianaGreen]

7. There was this American man that put his son down, doused himself with gasoline

and set himself ablaze. This happened within sight of Bob McNamara's office at the Pentagon. Decades later, McNamara still recoiled in horror at what he witnessed.

McNamara was one of the architects of the Vietnam War. He is a war criminal, albeit a repentant one.

Are you ready to swap places with one of our soldiers in Afghanistan, styersc?

[styersc]

13. Is there a batttalion of the handicapped?

[IndianaGreen]

21. We got amputees still on active duty

I am amazed by their personal courage and dedication.

[styersc]

27. And yet you portray our military as captives to a terrible policy

who are desperate to be replaced by "Chicken Hawks".

I do not support war. I know that it is like chemotherapy, a horrible tragedy that can often be worse then the disease but occassionally the only option if there is a hope.

Pres. Obama has not announced his plans or rationales for his decision.

I voted for a President who I believe will weigh the options with as much a disdain for war as I hold and, as I said, if I agree with his reasoning, I will support him guardedly. If I don't believe his reasons to be worthy of the sacrifices that our volunteers will have to make, I will support the troops by leading the protest against the president that I voted for.

[Ken Burch]

41. You hadn't said you were handicapped.

I was talking about those who ARE physically able and call for war.

[Thothmes]

79. So was his boss. The President of the United States.

[ZombieHorde]

9. "Worked for Buddhist Monks protesting Viet Nam."

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

[Ken Burch]

11. Those of us against the war are trying to stop killing

You don't have to immolate yourself to be consistent in that goal.

The snark didn't work.

It's YOUR side that's killing people for no reason.

[styersc]

19. I oppose all war, and believe that it should be rarely pursued.

Like I said, I am waiting for the President, who has far more information then do I (or anyone else here), before I make a decision as to what to support in regards to Afghanistan. As the President has not made up his mind in regards to the policy and has not made his decision public, no one knows what to support or protest.

[Ken Burch]

37. We DO know what to oppose. The continuation of this war must be opposed

There can't BE a progressive or positive outcome here. There can't BE a good reason to fight for one warlord against other warlords(and clearly, Karzai is nothing but a warlord). No one should ever be sent to die for trivial differences.

You aren't against war at all. You're only against it when nobody with stars on his shoulders is demanding it.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

45. I supported Kucinich in the primaries

Are you saying I was obligated to vote for Nader or McKinney in the fall in order to stand against the war now? That's bullshit.

Besides, if I had you'd say "Why the hell should anyone listen to you? You voted for Nader or McKinney".

I have every right to have an antiwar position and still have supported Obama in the fall. Voting for Obama was pragmatism, not cowardice.

The overwhelming majority of Democratic voters were and are opposed to both wars. You are in a right-wing minority in the party on that issue.

Saying "Obama was the pro-war candidate" does not END the discussion.

[billh58]

92. On 10/7/01

the United States invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11/01 attacks on US soil. The invasion had the blessings of the American people, the United Nations, and the entire civilized world. The stated goal of the invasion was to kill, or capture, Osama Bin Laden, to eradicate Al Qaeda as a threat to the West, AND to remove the Taliban regime from power.

Beginning on 9/12/01, however, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Perle, Wolfowitz, Lieberman, McCain, and others began beating the drums to somehow link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks (by any means necessary), and began to divert resources and attention away from Afghanistan and our real enemies. They were successful in their ruse, and managed to talk Dumbya into launching a full-scale, and totally unnecessary war against Iraq, and the Iraqi people. The invasion of Afghanistan was a morally righteous act, but the subsequent lack of mission prosecution by the war-hawks of the neoconservative PNAC crowd diminished both its importance, and its value.

President Obama's campaign promise was to leave Iraq as soon as possible (under the "you broke it, you own it" rule), and to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and either kill him, or bring him to justice (by going into Pakistan, if necessary). We owe those who lost their lives on 9/11/01 no less. It was the bumbling, stumbling, fumbling antics of the Dubya administration that brought us to these difficult times -- and NOT through any action, or inaction, on the part of President Obama.

[FiveGoodMen]

103. Wow

Fuck off and die screaming, motherfucker!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[IndianaGreen]

4. Those DUers that support continuing the war in Afghanistan, should trade places with our soldiers

Let our soldiers return home to their loved ones, and be welcomed as the heroes they all are.

Let those that support the war go off to fight it, and let them hump up and down the Afghan mountains, go for weeks without a bath, and risk getting shot just by running to the bathroom. They should not be allowed to come home until they decide they have had enough of war!

Dulce bellum expertis

[styersc]

5. Seems you weren't paying attention during the campaign.

The candidate who ultimately won the contest had, the entire time, supported a vigorous war in Afghanistan. Now you are hoping that Obama is a liar?

[IndianaGreen]

8. Seems you haven't been paying attention to what has happened in Afghanistan since the campaign

Easy to support "a vigorous war in Afghanistan" when one is not the one getting shot at.

[styersc]

15. You mean soldiers were not being shot at during the campaign?

You read as much as Sarah palin?

[IndianaGreen]

18. Cute chicken hawk bluster!

[styersc]

20. Not bluster, the very same policy that was put forward by the

candidate who developed and ran under the logo that you post with your comments.

Were you not paying attention?

[IndianaGreen]

24. Is our tactical situation in Afghanistan today the same it was in 2008?

This is like sending the panzers to Calais long after you found out the Allies landed in Normandy.

War plans go out of the window the moment the war begins.

[Ken Burch]

35. That doesn't mean we have no right to oppose the war

And Obama would have won even if he'd opposed the Afghan war. Nobody in this country is all that enthusiastic about staying in Afghanistan anyway.

[Ken Burch]

46. Repeating the phrase "Obama was pro-war" doesn't prove anything

Antiwar voters were not obligated to vote against Obama simply to retain our right to BE antiwar.

[Ken Burch]

16. That doesn't mean Obama supporters can't oppose the war

And it doesn't mean that we can't point out that it's unwinnable.

Why do you trust the generals so blindly?

Don't you remember what trusting people like General Westmoreland led to?

There's no difference between that war and this one.

[styersc]

22. Then why did you support the candidate who called this war

a just war and a necessity. Your vote for Obama was for a pro-Afghanistan War Candidate.

[harkadog]

29. Was that the sole issue in the campaign?

Funny, I thought there were a few others.

[styersc]

31. Any more important then war?

[harkadog]

44. I'd say so

Especially since the Obama and McCain position on the Afghan war were close.

[Ken Burch]

52. I did not give my approval to the war in voting for Obama

It's sickening that you would imply otherwise.

In the fall there was no realistic option besides voting for Obama if you wanted even the Iraq War to stop.

And Obama would have won if he'd been for getting out of Afghanistan too.

You're getting way too in touch with your inner LBJ here, my friend.

[Ken Burch]

32. It was the closest to a fully antiwar candidate that could get elected

if we didn't have the Electoral College, a true peace candidate could have had a chance.

And again, that doesn't mean I'm obligated to support the Afghan War.

And if you're going to support it, you've got no damn business having a peace sign in your posts. If you're for war there, you're for war everywhere else.

Why would you ever believe any of Bush's generals?

[styersc]

36. The president who claimed support for this war has the power

to remove and replace any and all Generals.

Did you know any of Obama's policies before casting your vote?

I'm saying that I will withhold judgement until I have facts that I can weigh and will not make a knee jerk decision so that folks on this board will think I'm part of the clique.

Perhaps you should have done the same thing before casting a vote for a candidate who you seem to have known nothing about.

Your comment, however, "If you're for the war there, you're for war everywhere else" demonstrates the sort of two dimensional ignorance that caused you to vote for a candidate with whom you so vehemently disagree.

[Ken Burch]

38. I knew what Obama stood for. That didn't mean I was voting for the war in voting for him

It's "two-dimensional" to say I was.

And we BOTH know that escalating this war has to end up in a Vietnam scenario. That's what all wars we get into have to end up in from now on. The days of "victory" are over.

Our sons and daughters are dying for nothing. And so are the people of Afghanistan. No one can tell those whose children will come home in boxes from Afghanistan that their deaths meant anything. They are just going to be pointless sacrifices to corporate greed.

The lesson of Vietnam was that no general can ever be believed again.

[Ken Burch]

54. I did not have to vote against Obama to be against the Afghan war.

And why would anyone who remembers Vietnam ever believe the generals again?

That war proved that all war, other than defense of our OWN territory, is immoral. There simply cannot ever be another war that isn't just like Vietnam. The fact that there hasn't been since proves my point.

The point of electing Obama was NOT to make one more effort to prove that there could be a "liberal" war.

[Autumn]

82. Sorry, I didn't vote for Obama as

a pro-Afghanistan War Candidate. I voted AGAINST McCain. There was really no choice. I had hoped he would see the futility of these wars.

[ShortnFiery]

84. +1

Well put. :hi:

[IndianaGreen]

14. 'War is organised murder, and nothing else.'

War is organised murder, and nothing else.

-- Harry Patch
Last British veteran of the Great War, 1914-1918

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-last-of-the-noblest-generation-1761467.html

[WonderGrunion]

28. That was a response to trench warfare

Without war, there would be no United States of America. We would still be countrymen with Harry Patch.

[spoony]

73. Nonsense.

The biggest problem with America and war is what you've just said. You've been brainwashed since childhood to believe that only through glorious war could this country have come about, and it's bullshit. I mean really, would it have been so unbearable to wind up like Canada, Australia, etc?

[Ken Burch]

96. Which would mean we'd have abolished slavery fifty years earlier

and would have universal health care.

[Garam_Masala]

107. The biggest democracy in the world was created without firing a single bullet

India (population 1 Billion plus) achieved independence from the British
Empire using NON-VIOLENT movement by Mahatma Gandhi in 1947.

To be fair Britain was thoroughly exhausted by war with Hitler, and did
not have the will left to send soldiers to quell the independence struggle
in India.

What is really remarkable about the Indian experiment in democracy is that
India has been ruled by feudal systems going back 2500 years. So they had
zero history for a democratic government. To complicate things further there
are more than a dozen major languages spoken in different parts of the country.

Yet, after 62 years democracy thrives in India without a single interruption
by military junta's or dictatorships.

But IMHO, for any country to be transformed into a successful democracy, it
has to be an indigenous movement. It is much harder to create it by force
by another country. Until the Afghani people are ready and united for a free
and democratic Afghanistan, it is improbable US will be able to do it for them,
regardless of how many soldiers we send there.

[harun]

98. The only winners in war are bankers and the weapons manufacturers.

At least what today is considered "war".

[Oregone]

23. Sign up to fight em over there

So you stop posting stupid shit here

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Odin2005]

33. Logic fail.

[Ken Burch]

34. How so?

If you back a war, and you are physically able to fight in it, you have an OBLIGATION to join the fighting.

Otherwise you're a hypocrite and a coward. Defending the war and NOT volunteering for combat in it is shameful.

[rmp yellow]

64. We liberal asked right-wing chickenhawks to enlist, or enlist their children

Remember? I think it was good logic now and then.

[MellowDem]

39. What I want to know is...

why the hell didn't Obama sign up then? He should've quit his state senate seat and joined up! Chickenshit!

But seriously, the idea that if you support a war you should join sounds about just as logical as saying that if you oppose a war you are the enemy or unpatriotic.

Do you support reducing carbon emissions? Well then why the fuck are you still driving a car!!!!???? You should be walking everywhere! Chickenshitttttt!!!!!1111!!!11

[Ken Burch]

43. NO, it's totally different

If you back a war, you are backing the deaths of other people. You therefore have an obligation, if you are physically able, to take the risks of the war yourself. You have an obligation to walk the walk.

The comparison with the "if you oppose a war than you are the enemy or unpatriotic" thing makes no sense. What would make sense would be to say that if you oppose the war you are obligated to actively work against it and organize all forms of resistance, even helping those who desert on moral grounds.

[MellowDem]

50. Well then why the hell didn't Obama join...

please please tell me.

But seriously, if you drive a car, you are backing the deaths of other people. You therefore have an obligation, if you are physically able, to take the risks of not using carbon emissions ever again yourself. Actually, scratch that, why the fuck should you not be obligated because you're physically disable? You can strap a gun to some war supporter in a wheelchair and have one of his buddies haul him around! I think it's a great idea actually.

Do you support peace in Darfur? Well then why the fuck aren't you over there protecting those villagers, you chickenshit coward! What the fuck is wrong with you? I spit *patooie* on you!

Do you support bringing criminals to justice? Well then why the fuck aren't you out on the street helping to do it you cowardly yellow chickenshit!!!????

[Ken Burch]

53. I don't drive a car.

And there's nothing I could do in Darfur to protect those villagers anyway.

What's your point? Are you really defending the hypocrisy of those who support war but won't join in it? Why would you give the chickenhawks a pass?

What they're doing is a lot worse than driving a freaking car or not going to Darfur.

It's simple. If you support killing, you're obligated to be a killer yourself if your able. If you want to risk other people's lives, you're obligated to risk yours. You can't really disagree with that.

[WonderGrunion]

55. I enjoy eating fish. I don't go fishing.

That involves killing too. See how silly your point is.

[Ken Burch]

56. I'm also a vegetarian. So I hardly endorse your inconsistency there.

n/t.

[WonderGrunion]

57. Ah you're an animist

You think all animal life is precious. Screw the plants though.

[Ken Burch]

58. Animism is a religion. You don't have to worship animals to decide not to eat them.

Any more than I have to worship people to decide not to kill them.

[WonderGrunion]

60. No, but you consider plant life worthy of killing for your survival

You place it lower than plant life. You do not hold all life equal. That makes you inconsistent in your beliefs. At least I admit that I'm inconsistent about how I treat life. You treat yourself as a paragon.

[Ken Burch]

70. I don't treat myself as a paragon

I just try to limit myself to non-lethal compromises.

[MellowDem]

62. You support killing...

everyone supports killing. If you support law enforcement, guess what, you support killing. Indeed, killing is just a part of society, always has been, always will be. I originally supported the war in Afghanistan because I thought that Al Quada should be wiped out or at least made less able to attack us after 9/11. While it is often referred to as a "war", war has many connotations, and in reality, they can be quite different from one another. There is a "war" on drugs, a "war" on gangs, a "war" on drunk driving.

I don't see why anyone who supports the destruction of terrorists must suddenly join up for the army. It doesn't make any logical sense. One can argue strategy in Afghanistan, but that's about it. You are painting with an awfly broad brush. Supporting the "war" in Afghanistan is no more of a way of saying you support killing than being an opponent to said war. What if one person supports the war in Afghanistan because they want to see lasting peace for Afghanis? Are they now supporters of killing? Or what about those who opposed going into Iraq where an evil dictator killed his own people quite often. Those people must support killing to oppose removing a man that kills his own people! Damn them!

I think it's interesting you say that people who don't join up for the army if they support the war in Afghanistan (whatever that means) is worse than not joining up for Darfur. Why not? Isn't that just as bad?

Did you support the US interfering in Bosnia's ethnic cleansing? If so, why didn't you join up? What about Albania? Perhaps you've supported having African Union troops helping to keep the peace in Somalia? Why aren't you over there? Too bad you can't be in more than one army at once!

And what about all those chickenhawks in World War 2? What about those who supported Russia who never went and joined? Or those who waited for the draft, those chickenshit assholes! Your thinking lacks logic, and therefore has to be ridiculed to show how crazy it sounds.

[Ken Burch]

71. There were very few chickenhawks in World War II

And FDR's sons all served in it.

[spoony]

76. They certainly do have to perform pretzel-like acrobatics

to deflect from their chickenhawkery and make the issue about you, eh? Like that rubbish downthread, where if you eat plants you can't criticise a horrible war? It'd be funny if it weren't so insane.

[Ken Burch]

99. Why are these people so obsessed with defending this war?

(It truly sounds like we've got a lot of folks here who are getting in touch with their inner Dean Rusk.

[dionysus]

88. nicely played.

:thumbsup:

[Turborama]

78. If you back pulling out right now, you are backing the deaths of other people.

What do you think will happen in Afghanistan if your dream came true and we pulled out tomorrow? The resulting slaughter of civilians that would ensue after a pull out tomorrow would mostly likely include the people who were doing there best to educate the children and others who are trying to help their fellow countrymen and women live a better life. As for the women, do you even know http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3660316316539768169&ei=06XNSqH_B5HMwgOK2fSAAQ&q=afghanistan+beneath+the+veil&hl=en#">what life was like for them under the Taliban?

How did you feel when Kosovo happened? Should we have just left them to it, too?


BTW I have been trying to get work in Afghanistan to help with the redevelopment but those jobs are very hard to get, that is if you can http://www.alljobsinafghanistan.com/all_nonprofit_ngo_charity_aid_organization_jobs_in_afghanistan_576.html">find any vacancies.

[Ken Burch]

95. NOTHING HAS IMPROVED.

And the days when war can liberate anyone are over.

[Turborama]

105. I CALL BULLSHIT!

Roughly 6, 000,000 kids go to school in Afghanistan now, compared to <1,000,000 under the Taliban

....

Was that loud enough for you?


Opening of the new girls’ school, Jelawir secondary school, in Kundaz.

More children in school in Afghanistan
Published: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 | Changed: Thursday, September 17, 2009

During the Taliban’s reign, fewer than one million children went to school in Afghanistan. Now about six million children are registered in schools and about one third of them are girls. Sida’s efforts in educating boys and girls in Afghanistan have delivered results.

Women’s literacy in Afghanistan is among the lowest in the world – about 14 per cent. However, a change has taken place. Previously, only 3 per cent of girls went to school; now about 36 per cent receive education.

The State Ministry of Education in Afghanistan has produced a national education strategy and is now implementing teacher training, producing textbooks and building schools at a greater rate than previously. But capacity remains low and the ministry is being supported by UNICEF, with aid from Sida.

Sofia Orrebrink, programme officer for Education in Sida’s Afghanistan team at the department for Conflict and post-conflict co-operation, says it is common for there to be 40 pupils or more in one classroom.

“It isn’t unusual for them to sit on the floor or out in the open air,” she says. “Despite this, there is enormous pressure on the school system. One of the requirements is to educate more teachers. School buildings are needed because many of them have been destroyed during the armed conflicts, but other basic infrastructure is also missing like desks, toilets and textbooks.”

Full article: http://www.sida.se/English/Countries-and-regions/Asia/Afghanistan/Programmes-and-Projects/More-children-in-school-in-Afghanistan/

Or, how about irrigation and electricity for almost 2 million Afghans?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Turborama/55">We got a dam running which was lying dormant for decades due to falling into disrepair after decades of war and neglect.

These are just two examples of many.

[Ken Burch]

106. Even if that counts as improvement, it can't require MORE war

We can negotiate with the Taliban. In Middle East wars, "victory" is impossible.

[msallied]

47. Wow. It's the left-wing version of the "love it or leave it" argument!

It makes Rebpulicons look like assholes, and it doesn't make you look much better either.

[Ken Burch]

49. No. It's consistency.

If you back a war, and you're physically able to fight in it, you have a moral obligation to join up and volunteer for combat. How could you possibly object to that?

It's just saying the hawks are obligated to walk the walk.

[msallied]

65. No one is EVER 100% consistent in any of their arguments

About ANYTHING. It's called being human. That you would hold people to an impossible standard simply to prop up your anti-war stance reflects more negatively on you than it does the people you're attempting to paint into a corner.

[Ken Burch]

101. Most inconsistency doesn't involve demanding death while avoiding it oneself

Why are you so obsessed with defending what can only be a right-wing war with right-wing consequences? You know perfectly well that most of the non-Taliban areas are just as repressive towards women as the Taliban areas.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

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

[dave29]

59. I thought war was hell -- turns out, it's actually just this thread

.

[WonderGrunion]

61. And that's the correct response to this thread.

Ken didn't like how I was responding to his last thread, so he started another one hoping to just attract cheerleaders to his way of thinking.

[LittleBlue]

63. K&R! The fools who want to pull burkas off heads will piss their pants if they had to go

So sit down and shut up, or get over there and institute women's rights and all this other stuff we "need" to teach them.

[msallied]

66. I want cops to make sure my streets are safe.

I guess that means I should become a cop. I want the USDA to ensure there isn't E. Coli in my food. I guess I should become a food inspector. I would like to one day see our planet achieve the ability to man a mission to Mars. I guess I should become an astronaut. Fuck, I would really like a cheeseburger right now. I guess I should go fill out an application at Wendy's!

Do you yet see the ridiculousness of your logic?

[spoony]

74. You're ignoring the major difference

The FUTILITY of protracted warfare and occupation. It's fine to want people to do their jobs. The military's job, however, is not (should not be) to die in pointless wars begun for the self-aggrandisement of GWB.

[msallied]

86. That is not what the OP has stated throughout this thread

He has insisted that a supporter of ANY war should be ready to enlist.

[citizen snips]

67. when the Taliban and al qaeda take control of Afghanistan when our troops instantly leave

I suggest you move there

[Ken Burch]

72. They can't be stopped by outside force anyway.

The British and Soviet experiences proved that non-Afghans are incapable of defeating Afghans.

We aren't doing anything worthwhile there.

[citizen snips]

80. which is why we need to stay long enough to build up the afghan forces

Please answer my question. Would you want to live in Afghanistan when the Taliban had control?

[Ken Burch]

93. I wouldn't want to live there NOW. It's not better NOW and we can't make it better

And it's clear that there can't be a pro-democracy pro-women getting educated Afghan army. No place this bad can be saved.

[spoony]

75. Have you always been so vocal a proponent

of this war? Or did ya kinda hide it when it was THEIR war?

[citizen snips]

81. have you always wanted the Afghan people to live under terrorists?

[spoony]

83. Lol, wow you sure burned me with that right wing talking point.

I can't even imagine how excited you are about invading Iran, too, to free their people from the "terrorists." 9/11! 9/11! Rudy for President! Lol.

[Ken Burch]

94. There's no possibility of them ever having anything good

None of our killing can help. Don't you get it? There can never a progressive outcome in Afghanistan and our weapons can never free anyone else. We've lost that ability.

[tranche]

68. I'm 12

[Prism]

69. It is interesting how this argument evaporated after Jan. 20th

I don't think it applies in a defensive war, and I feel Afghanistan was initially a defensive war. Now, whether or not we can still categorize it as such after all this time and the changes in focus, tactics, and territory is up for debate. I think the chickenhawk argument has more force in a war of choice like Iraq.

However, this is just one of those things. It was a fine argument as long as it applied to Republicans, but once Democrats are responsible, well, shhhh. Nevermind what we spent the last eight years saying. Things are different. Cuz.

Situational moral principle dependent entirely on whether there's an R or D after someone's name really, really irks me.

[MidwestRick]

85. So is it ok...

...to support military activity if not in the service, but have already served 12 years in the military?

I guess I'd like to know where the line is drawn.

[avaistheone1]

87. Midea Benjamin believes in fighting this war. She is gong to take her children

to the front lines dress them in pink and show us how to kill righteously for this good war.

:evilgrin:

[ieoeja]

89. I believe in universal healthcare, but I'm not a doctor.

I believe in well policed cities, but I'm not a cop.

I believe in putting out burning buildings, but I'm not a fireman.

I believe in education, but I'm not a teacher.

I believe in safe roads and sewer systems, but I don't work for streets & sanitation.

I believe in safe & clean water, but I don't work for the water department.

I believe in the freedom of religion, but I'm not a priest.

I believe in food, but I'm not a farmer (though I do own a farm).

And so on....

And don't tell me I'm not advocating putting other people at risk. Cause most of these jobs do.

[SIMPLYB1980]

91. You didn't just go there did you?

Be prepared!

[Ken Burch]

97. You aren't advocating killing anybody.

That analogy is beyond bullshit.

How can you condone armchair militarism?

[ieoeja]

100. I used to favor the death penalty, but wasn't an executioner. (nt)

[Ken Burch]

102. It's good you changed your mind, then.

n/t.

[billh58]

104. Isn't this just

a variation on the "you're either with me, or you're against me" thing? Is it not possible to believe that although the war in Afghanistan may not be "right," abruptly pulling out would also not be "right?" Would it also be fair to question why the invasion of Afghanistan on 10/7/01 went from being "absolutely the right thing to do," in the eyes of the American people, the UN, and the majority of the civilized world, to its present state of being an atrocity being prolonged by President Obama?

The initial purpose for invading Afghanistan was to retaliate for the horrendous and unprovoked 9/11 attacks on American soil, to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and eradicate his criminal Al Qaeda organization, and to remove their enablers, the Taliban, from political power. Due to political neoconservative ineptitude, we have only accomplished one of those goals.

Due to further political neoconservative ineptitude, we have let the other two goals slide into obscurity in order to prosecute a senseless war on Iraq, which presented absolutely no threat to us. Due to that monumental mismanagement by the Dubya administration, the Taliban has re-grouped and now presents not only a threat to Afghanistan, but to Pakistan and their nuclear arsenal as well.

War is never "right," but is occasionally a necessary evil in order to combat and contain a greater evil. I volunteered for two combat tours in Vietnam, not because I believed that the war was "right," but because I believed that my fellow citizen soldiers could use my help. Try and remember that no US combat troops in Afghanistan were drafted to go there. Their tours may have been extended, but they volunteered to serve.