Can anybody here honestly defend these illegal, immoral wars of Obama?

[MadHound]

Yes, they are Obama's, and the Democrat's wars now. Can anybody here defend them, what they're doing to our country?

[MadHound]

1. Beuller. . .Beuller. . .Beuller n/t

[Warpy]

2. I'll be the first to give him credit when we're finally out of them.

The pace of withdrawal is maddeningly slow but it is happening over the howls of the hawks.

I will never defend the men who started them, ever.

[MadHound]

9. The thing is we're probably not going to be out of them while Obama is in office

Despite the much hyped withdrawal deadline of this August, we're still going to be keeping approximately fifty thousand troops in Iraq for "training" purposes and to help hunt down terrorists. In Afghanistan, sure, we're going to begin withdrawal next year, but when will that withdrawal be finished. From comments made in the past year and a half, Obama foresees the US still in Afghanistan three, five, even seven years from now, well beyond when he is out of office.

The pace of withdrawal isn't just maddeningly slow, in some ways it is non-existent.

We should simply pull out now, ASAP, but that's not going to happen.

[geek tragedy]

13. So, even though Bush started both and Obama

withdrawas from both (one planned, one very much underway), they're both his wars and not Bush's?

That's rich.

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2010/07/us-forces-drawing-down-in-iraq.html

U.S. Troop Strength In Iraq 2003-2010
May 2003 150,000 – Invasion force
October 2007 171,000 – Height of Surge
January 2009 142,000 – Beginning Obama administration
February 140,000
March 137,000
May 134,000
June 130,000
September 124,000
October 117,000
November 115,000
December 110,000
February 2010 98,000
April 95,000
May 92,000
June 90,000
July 77,500

[Luminous Animal]

85. Obama plans on leaving 50,000 in Iraq. And how many mercenaries?

Odd that the number of mercenaries in Iraq have completely dropped off the radar.

[MadHound]

89. Do you consider us leaving fifty thousand troops behind in Iraq to be withdrawal?

Do you honestly think that Obama will have us out of Afghanistan by the time he leaves office?

Do you want to buy some swamplan, er nice prime real estate?

[MyNameGoesHere]

133. What is, He bought the war for 30,000 troops Alex?

Before that it was not his. This made it possible for the right to place the war in his hands.

Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service) = And what is, Spending our money on a lost cause for $30,225,000,000 Alex.

[Phlem]

33. Let's check the ugly truth here

It's a war on terror, no one person or persons to shoot and be done with. We're fighting an idea, might as well have a war on gravity.

Do any of you on this board honestly think the war is done when we get Mr. Bin Laden? Right.

Terrorism exists because of the disgustingly huge contrast between the uber rich and the poor. Maybe if we were more equal in rights privileges and wealth, there would be less terrorism. But greed is a constant pervasive trait in humans.

This is the never ending war, and there will always be an Osama around in one form or another.

What we need is a war against ignorance, then we might have a fricken chance.

-p

[MsLeopard]

123. Well said

Couldn't agree more. And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Lost4words]

124. +1 spot on!

[AnArmyVeteran]

132. The oil industry has been conspiring against the poor in the Middle East for generations.

The oil industry has been active in keeping the people in the Middle East mired in poverty while they have been taking the riches under their feet. For the past 80 years oil companies have conspired with Middle East tyrants to oppress the people and steal the natural resources from their lands. The people in the Middle East wouldn't be living in such backward countries if they benefited from what was theirs. The resources of any nation belong to the people of that nation. But through one oppressive or corrupt act after another the oil industry has colluded with and even supported tyrants against the people.

Can anyone imagine if our country's leaders were even worse than they have been and allowed all of our natural resources to be stolen from under our feet? Can you imagine two or three families getting all of the wealth of our country while they were conspiring with foreign companies to strip our country of its natural resources? How would you feel? You would be furious and you would want to strike back. That is exactly what opened the door for Islamic extremists, allowing them to easily manipulate people with no hope, no future and living in absolute poverty.

The war against terrorism is a charade. I agree with your post 100 percent. The absolute worst way to combat terrorism is with conventional armies. Only fools or political manipulators would continue to wage war against an enemy who are indistinguishable from other civilians. No honest or intelligent person would perpetuate this 'war' by saying we are fighting terrorism. The only way to 'win' such an idiotic, immoral war is to eradicate the entire population of the country.

In addition to a war against ignorance we also need to wage war against the oil corporations who are making deals with tyrannical leaders in the Middle East to steal the riches from the rightful owners of the resources, the millions of poor people who live on top of extreme wealth.

[mike_c]

140. well said!

Welcome to DU!

[mdmc]

3. sure

admitting defeat would be a black eye for Obama. To fight a good war (profits for the M-I-C) is a feather in his cap.
Why get a black eye when you can have a feather in your cap?

[geek tragedy]

5. So why is he withdrawing from Iraq? nt

[mdmc]

39. Because George W. Bush is brilliant..

If we are able to leave Iraq a stable, pro-west, unified government, then George Bush is brilliant and we should go off and take on Iran, Jordan, Syria, et al.

A stable, pro-west, unified Iraq is at least 50 years away. 50 years of blood and treasure. imho of course.

If we are able to claim victory ("mission accomplished") in less then 50 years, then Bush is the greatest president ever. If it takes 100 years, if ever, then Bush is a lying chickenhawk that will remain the worst pResident ever.

[mdmc]

41. I didn't know we withdrew from Iraq in victory..

So the "Mission" has been "Accomplished"? Or is this one of the 'draw downs' based on 'conditions on the ground'?

[Smashcut]

148. He's not - 50,000 are being left behind

Notice they're being careful to say it's the end of the "combat mission," whatever the hell that means. There will continue to be an insurgency as long as there's an occupation...

[MadHound]

10. Neither one of these wars is a good war

Iraq was Bushco's revenge, and both are imperial wars for land and resources.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[MadHound]

11. Ah, bring up an honest issue and all you can do in defense is hurl insults

The intellectually bankrupt and morally void defense, I see.

Oh, and despite what goes on in August this year, we're keeping aprox. fifty thousand troops in there to train Iraqi's and fight terrorists. Some withdrawal.

[geek tragedy]

16. That constitutes a withdrawal of 100,000 (2/3) since

the Surge. And, the plan is to have those 50,000 out within 18 months. Mind you, he is actually following that plan.

But, whatever, you hate Obama, you hate Democrats, stay home, let the Republicans win, blah blah blah

[polmaven]

113. How DARE he ?

He is following the plan he TOLD us he would follow during the campaign.....How DARE he?

(Oh, yeah...and just in case.....:sarcasm:)

[Catherina]

6. I can't defend them. I can't tolerate them. I am utterly disappointed and sickened n/t

[ProSense]

7. First of all,

the illegal war is Iraq, and the President is winding it down based on the schedule he announced when he first took office.

There was nothing illegal about the Afghanistan war, and the President campaigned on the very strategy he is pursuing.

There is a strong argument for leaving Afghanistan immediately, but it isn't one that everyone supports. There are those who support setting a deadline for withdrawal and continuing to strengthen the Afghan army.

[MadHound]

12. First of all, the war in South Central Asia is illegal,

Or did you miss that part where we're carrying out missions in another country we're supposedly not at war with, namely Pakistan. Secondly, it is immoral, because we're killing civilians needlessly.

Finally, who gives a damn whether "everyone supports" withdrawal, it is the right, and needed thing to do. Or would you rather watch as we continue to drain our country dry fighting these illegal, immoral wars?

[ProSense]

26. "who gives a damn whether 'everyone supports' withdrawal"

Maybe some people give a damn about trying to help the Afghans stabilize their country.

The war in Afghanistan has been ongoing for nearly nine years, and before the President took office, there was hardly a peep about it being illegal.

[RC]

42. Wrong! War in Afghanistan has been ongoing for several thousands of years.

No outsider has ever really won.

[MadHound]

91. And war forever and ever amen really stabilizes a country now, doesn't it?

Nice line of oxymoronic thinking you've got going there, kind of like fucking for virginity.

And frankly, the volume of the outcry is not indicative of the legality of the war. But just for shits and grins you can go search the archives and find that I've opposed both wars on this board for years now, almost a decade.

[JackRiddler]

94. First of all, the Iraq withdrawal timetable is that established in the Status of Forces Agreement...

or "SOFA," as negotiated with the Iraqi government during the Bush regime. It's not Obama's schedule, it's in the SOFA. So if you don't even know that, maybe you should go find out some more about it and your other points as well.

[SammyWinstonJack]

97. First of all is there nothing from which you will not defend Obama?

No matter how wrong his policies are? :shrug:

[polmaven]

114. Did you vote for President Obama?

I'm quite sure you knew of his plans for both of the wars before the election. They wee not secrets. So did you vote for him knowing what his plans were? If so, what makes you so outraged now that he is doing what he said he would do?

[JackRiddler]

130. This is an irrelevant question. Freedom of speech still obtains. The wars are still wrong.

A vote for Obama under the circumstances (e.g. with McCain promising war with Iran on top of the ongoing wars) does not mean the voter gave up their right to dissent from Obama's policies, including opposition to Obama's (promised) continuance of the Bush invasions of Iraq and "AfPak." The voter never forfeits the right to dissent, even from policies that the candidate had promised. A vote only makes that candidate a winner for a term, not a leader we must blindly follow. And if you are an Obama partisan, it should be of more concern to you how people vote next time, than to browbeat them pointlessly about how they voted last time.

[maxsolomon]

8. I reject your premise

they will always be Bush's Wars.

[MadHound]

14. Even though Obama is in control of them now?

Wow, absolving a horrible tragedy for party loyalty. I'm sure that LBJ would approve.

[geek tragedy]

17. No, it's called not blaming the person ending a war

for its existence.

SOmething people not infected with Obama Derangement Syndrome can appreciate.

[MadHound]

84. Do you honestly think Obama is going to end both wars?

I don't, I've seen this movie before.

[uponit7771]

116. Yes, and your premise is disenginous at best

[MadHound]

119. What, like LBJ ended Vietnam,

Oh, wait, that's right.

Look, we're not getting out of either war anytime soon, especially Afghanistan. Despite this supposed withdrawal this summer, we're leaving fifty thousand troops in Iraq for at least the next year and a half, probably longer.

While we are starting withdrawal from Afghanistan next year, Obama has already stated that there is no firm date when we will be gone from that country, and we could very well have a presence in Afghanistan for another seven years.

As far as my premise being disingenuous, how so? What, you think that these are defensible wars? Or you simply don't think that now, after escalations and a year and a half of pouring money and men into them, they aren't Obama's wars?

[SammyWinstonJack]

104. +1. nt

[branders seine]

31. Iraq? Time will tell if Obama ends it or owns it.

Afghanistan? Obama's surge guarantees he now owns it.

[YvonneCa]

74. Agreed. n/t

[Moochy]

136. Can he give them back? Posession is 9/10ths of the law

[malaise]

15. Sorry they are no this wars

but he should end them

[MoonRiver]

19. That's my take too malaise.

No more wars! Then we won't be killing people AND can start to get the US economy back on track.

[jonnyblitz]

27. nope, they are NOW his wars. nt

[maxsolomon]

142. they are now his RESPONSIBILITY.

let's say your crazy Uncle George dies and bequeaths you 2 pimptastic Hummer H2's. are they "your" cars now? do you bear the shame of having BOUGHT Hummers, of being a Hummer OWNER?

no, you bear the responsibility of selling the POS's.

please, stop trying to attach the shame of starting the wars to President Obama. even the "surge" in Afghanistan is a tactic to give "democrats-didn't-LOSE-the-war" cover to our withdrawal PRIOR to the 2012 election. even though it cost lives and billions.

[MrScorpio]

18. Bush started these wars and did it in an illegal, immoral way

And yes, Obama inherited them... But it's silly to think that a war effort would turn on dime, just because of a new president

I'm not defending them, we should draw down and bring the troops back right away, in my opinion

Given that, I refuse to absolve Bushies and transfer blame to the current president.

[liquid diamond]

67. What he said. n/t

[YvonneCa]

75. I agree. AND I think Obama...

...will do that. It just takes longer than most people realize to do it right.

[Sheepshank]

87. ITA

I also refuse to add an Obama label to these wars. These wars carry the name of the perpetrator and not the President (any president) that is attempting to make a reasonable end to something he didn't start.

Imagine....Lennon had it, but that imagination isn't widespread.

[SammyWinstonJack]

106. And yet Obama chose to escalate Afghanistan. I think Obama deserve blame.

I think Obama is way past 'inherited' the war on Afghanistan.

[indepat]

20. No

[Windy]

21. they were both started by Bush.... Iraq is coming to a close, sensibly.

Because of Bush pulling out of Afghanistan to go into Iraq, Al Queda and the Taliban were permitted to simply migrate to Pakistan, an unstable government with nuclear weapons. We cannot allow them to regroup in Afghanistan which is what will happen if the country is not capable of defending itself. If they do regroup, then further terrorist attacks could be planned and carried out because if we pull out of Afghanistan and leave that country with an unstable government there will be no one to make sure that terrorism doesn't blossom. Further, and this is controversial, if the government of Pakistan is overrun with AQ/Taliban or other fundamentalist elements and they get control of the country and its nuclear arsenal, the consequences for the US and the world as a whole could be dire. Pakistan has missiles that quite possibly could target Israel or even Jordan, a moderate muslim country friendly to the US. the consequences would be all out world war. A nuclear attack could also be launched on India. Our current economy is dependent on India to a degree and many tech jobs have been outsourced to that country. A nuclear attack would have a great impact on our country economically. (more importantly however is the possible mass loss of life and changes to the climate as the result of a nuclear detonation)

Bush put the entire world at risk by his mishandling of Afghanistan. As sad as it is, and war is abhorrent, action in afghanistan is necessary to prevent more widespread harm to the global populous.

[Newest Reality]

22. My view has become that

all wars are the system's wars. Those that profit or gain power from them are vested interests that initiate, propagate and sustain them at all costs.

It has been a while now that I've stopped seeing the front man as anything more than a titular head. The human face is the first thing we recognize as children and so, it is not a matter of whether you love, hate or feel indifferent about the big, PR face and its particular spin, it is that you keep looking at it and remaining attached to the human diversion required.

While that overly simplifies my standpoint, if you pay close attention to how the system functions, (and now it is becoming more blatant and aggressive) it is not hard to see how the faces you don't see and the personalities you know little or anything about, are playing the chess pieces.

So, love Obama and even be an apologist for him, if you care to. I have no reason to be moved. Or, you can feel disappointed or bamboozled, or just plain angry. When it comes down to the deep politics of the PTB, your emotions and the belief that they really matter, (as if you are sending Chi-force out to effect them) are what I consider a great way to appease and distract the masses while the real power broking goes on at the Big Boy's table. No, you are not invited ;)

Voting has become yet another wonderful device, especially when you note who is offered for you to "choose". Yet, even today, with all we know and the information we have access to, the scheme continues to convey a sense of choice and representation as it becomes more obvious that neither trumps the vested interests as each important issue that comes to the forefront is now proving.

The people must be placated for the system to continue without major disruptions. That's what you get.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

29. This is not an honest response.

Obama supporters support his plan to END THE IRAQ WAR. He is withdrawing troops from Iraq. He is in the process of ending it.

But he does not have Star Trek transporter beams to bring everyone and everything back in order to satisfy his haters around here.

[Arkana]

24. They're not Obama's wars. He didn't start them, his asshole predecessor did.

He's just trying to end them responsibly. We're drawing down rapidly in Iraq and will be largely out of Afghanistan before 2012.

[zotfreep]

25. Blame Bush!

The Bush Regieme has hijacked the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush is still in charge in that way.

We must imprison Bush and Cheney to stop this.

[stevenleser]

28. Was Vietnam Nixon's war? Was World War II Truman's war?

This Demagoguery is over the top, really. Anyone pushing this line ought never to be taken seriously again. Ever.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[stevenleser]

35. When what they say doesnt even pass the most basic of logical tests

its just sad. I expect this kind of throwing the kitchen sink and whatever else and hope it sticks from Republicans. I thought our side was better than that.

[WinkyDink]

44. Perhaps you have forgotten we WERE ATTACKED ON 12/07/41??

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO EQUATE 9/11 WITH THIS.

THOSE WERE REAL AND ACTUAL JAPANESE AIRPLANES. NO PHONY PASSPORTS NEEDED.

[stevenleser]

47. It still is not the war of the President who came several years afterwards.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO GLOSS OVER THAT FACT. OK?

THANK YOU

P.S. WHILE WE ARE TRYING TO TELL EACH OTHER WHAT TO DO, CAN I IMPRESS UPON YOU NOT TO USE ALL CAPS? THANKS

[WinkyDink]

111. It's neither "FDR's War" NOR "Truman's War", because such terms are for UNpopular wars. Gloss THAT.

[stevenleser]

150. This is what you are going with?

So, let me parse this latest assertion of yours. It would not be Obama's war if it were popular. That is what you are asserting as the issue here? That is what would prevent ownership, according to you. You can continue all the wars you want that were in progress before you took office and as long as they are popular then you dont own them.

You aren't the least bit embarrassed to have that out there as your sincere impression of a logical opinion? I'm trying to help you here. Seriously.

[karynnj]

79. In the late 60s/early 70s - yes - Vietnam quickly became Nixon's war

Now, it is true that it was still seen as LBJ's war, but that did not mean that people did not see it as Nixon's war.

Now, you could argue, that unlike Obama, Nixon was involved during the very early days of our involvement in the 1950s and was nver verbal about not expanding the war under either JFK or LBJ.

The point is that decisions are being made and the person with ultimate power to make them is Obama. He greatly expanded the forces in Afghanistan. It is true that McChrystal, the general that he put in charge recommended it - as did Gates and Clinton. There were others - Biden, who advised a purely counter terrorism effort and others like Kerry and Reed, both Vietnam Vets, who recommended something far smaller with manageable, less ambiguous goals, who argued that there were not sufficient Afghan security or people to provide adequate governance to take over from us with efforts with the scope that MyChrsytal proposed.

The real question - for all of them - but especially Obama is whether he can admit the need to change course when the plans are clearly not working.

[SargeUNN]

32. so tell me how would you end them?

Please give details and what will happen with your method. How fast and what steps etc.

[WinkyDink]

45. LEAVE. You know, like how VietNam was going to Hell in a hand-cart, and now WE VACATION THERE.

[SargeUNN]

55. ok but tell me what to expect, how you

would do it and your time frame. Tell me how much equipment you expect to dump like we did in Vietnam, and how many lives will likely be lost in the withdrawal?

[WinkyDink]

112. "Lives lost in the withdrawal"? As opposed to "lives lost if we stay in that graveyard of empires"??

I'm no military genius, but come on; the arguments for staying were discredited decades ago.

Will future generations visit the Afghan War Wall?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Obama considers them "necessary" wars. More necessary than jobs, eductation, infrastructure...

and a long list of other "unnecessary" frivolities that are now on the table for cuts to cut the deficit.

[stevenleser]

36. Don't confuse your spin with what Obama thinks.

But nice try.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Obama called Afghanistan a "necessary" war. It was his "nice try".

[stevenleser]

48. He never said it was more important than... but nice try n/t

[G_j]

51. no, but he but his actions say it. .nt

[stevenleser]

59. No, sorry, that is faulty logic. n/t

[blindpig]

117. Wrong

Action, or lack thereof, speaks volumes, talk is cheap.

[fascisthunter]

37. .

[fascisthunter]

38. .

[WinkyDink]

43. NO.

[stray cat]

46. We should let the Afghani people kill each other and damn each other to hell

and leave.....Leaving is good for the US but lets never pretend we give a damn about the Iraqis or Afghanis and claim thats the reason for leaving.

[datasuspect]

50. no, killing them is our job.

[tekisui]

57. The Afghan people. Afghans.

Not Afghani. Afghani is a currency.

And, please don't claim that the Afghan people are the reason for staying.

[MadHound]

86. Ah, so we should stay and continue to wreak more havoc and destruction upon them

It simply doesn't matter when we leave because the Afghani people will tear down whatever institutions of power we set up because they will consider them foreign and illegit. Yes, there will be a violent situation we leave behind, but that is going to occur no matter when we leave. So why should we continue to up the body count by continuing to stay.

[jody]

49. Those who defend an immoral war killing innocent civilians & innocent US troops have lost their

moral compass.

Commander in Chief Obama has the authority, precedent Dubya who started the war, to order our troops home as rapidly as safety will allow.

The problems the People of Afghanistan have is theirs and theirs alone to solve. Whatever results is for them to judge by their standards and not by Western or US standards.

Obama might feel different if it were his two daughters at 17 putting their lives on the line to win a war that is already lost.

It doesn't require a rocket scientist to reach that conclusion or an expert in constitutional law via Harvard's law school.

[Turborama]

52. How many innocent civilians will die after we pulled out tomorrow?

Do you think that things will be just fine and dandy there if we left before clearing up the mess in Afghanistan made by Carter, Reagan and Bushes Sr. & Jr.?

ETA Clearing up the mess means leaving it in a better condition than it was in between when we left in 89 and came back in 2000.

[jody]

53. Either I wrote very poorly or you have no idea what I said. Have a great evening. n/t

[Turborama]

56. You didn't answer my question and what you said was invalidated by my points

"The problems the People of Afghanistan have is theirs and theirs alone to solve."

No, those problems were created by us getting involved in their war with Russia and leaving as soon as the Russians left and then invading in 2000 and bobimng the shit out of an already fucked up country. Do you have any clue as to how good life in Afghanistan was before the Russians invaded and how it got into the state it's in today?

Read what I wrote again...

Do you think that things will be just fine and dandy there if we left before clearing up the mess in Afghanistan made by Carter, Reagan and Bushes Sr. & Jr.?

ETA Clearing up the mess means leaving it in a better condition than it was in between when we left in 89 and came back in 2000, or at least as good as it was in the 70s.

[jody]

60. Your so called points are invalid because 1, immoral war, 2. killing innocent civilians, 3. killing

innocent troops.

What part of that don't you understand?

On the other hand you might insist 1. moral war, 2. guilty civilians, 3. guilty troops.

[Turborama]

77. You still haven't answered my questions and your morality meter must be broken, if you have one

1. immoral war (which was started by Busch and was left for Obama to finish)

"Commander in Chief Obama has the authority, precedent Dubya who started the war, to order our troops home as rapidly as safety will allow."

I assume you mean as rapidly as safety for the troops and the civilians would allow? If not, you're in need of a morality check.

2. killing innocent civilians

How many innocent civilians will die after we pulled out tomorrow?

"The problems the People of Afghanistan have is theirs and theirs alone to solve."

No, those problems were created by us getting involved in their war with Russia and leaving as soon as the Russians left and then invading in 2000 and bobimng the shit out of an already fucked up country. Do you have any clue as to how good life in Afghanistan was before the Russians invaded and how it got into the state it's in today?

It would therefore be immoral to do again what we did to the civilians in 1989.

Read what I wrote again...

Do you think that things will be just fine and dandy there if we left before clearing up the mess in Afghanistan made by Carter, Reagan and Bushes Sr. & Jr.?

ETA Clearing up the mess means leaving it in a better condition than it was in between when we left in 89 and came back in 2000, or at least as good as it was in the 70s.

3. killing innocent troops Give me a break. They made a career decision to join the military. It's their job.

And BTW they are not "so called points", they actually are points. Just because you can't seem to answer them doesn't stop them from being points.

[Chan790]

58. I'm guessing...

he just clearly disagrees with you because you're such an idjit that your post was barely coherent and beyond illogical.

We broke it, we're on the hook to fix it or else we'll have to go back again in 15 more years. Is that really what the idiot pacifist masses want? I assure you many many more Americans will die and far more American treasure will be wasted than if we just stay until the region is stable this time.

[jody]

61. Looks like you also support an immoral war, killing innocent civilians, killing innocent troops.

That's your right however I disagree with that immoral approach to foreign policy.

I'm sure you have already served several tours in Afghanistan and aggressively recruited more volunteers to fight in Obama's war.

[Robb]

62. You seem to play quite loosely with the term "immoral."

I do believe, as you use it, the word is meaningless.

[jody]

63. If you have problems applying "immoral" which means "conflicting with generally or traditionally

held moral principle" then we have no common ground upon which to conduct intelligent discussions.

Have a great evening and goodbye :hi:

[Robb]

65. You seem to believe it moral to attack those you disagree with.

While you have your dictionary out, you should look up "irony."

:hi:

[geek tragedy]

71. Is it a proven fact that Barack Obama is eligible to

be President since he was born in the United States?

[jody]

73. ROFL you must be using some powerful stuff. n/t

[geek tragedy]

81. Is that a 'no?' nt

[knownothing]

76. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

We created the mess. We leave it a mess. So we withdraw our troops, the two countries go into civil war, and many thousands of people die in Iraq as the Sunnis and Shiites attempt to wipe one another off the face of the earth since they can't agree to live in peace.

Oh wait, those people don't matter, do they?

[Moochy]

138. which people, the ones dancing at the weddings we randomly bomb?

Oh I see.... you care more about the ones who will die in the hypothetical, rather than the actual deaths that have occurred and continue to happen from our drone strikes.

[LWolf]

146. # 145. nt

[Moochy]

137. "idiot pacifist masses"

The New DU.

The idiot pacifists called and they wanted to waste American treasure!

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. A better question would be: How many innocent civilians would OUR military kill after being pulled

out?

[Turborama]

78. What does that even mean?

Are you suggesting pulling our military out of Afghanistan would mean they would come back to America and kill innocent civilians?

And, no, it's not a better question.

How about answering the one I posed?

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. NO innocent Afghani citizens would die at the hands of AMERICANS after we pulled out.

Get it?

[knownothing]

83. They'd die at the hands of other Afghanis

and same with Iraqi too. If we pull out and a civil war results, then in my view, we're morally culpable for the Civil Wars in both countries. And if the Taliban goes back into Afghanistan, we're morally culpable for that too. And if we pull out of Iraq now and tens of thousands die as the Sunnis and Shiites wage an all out civil war on one another, then we're morally culpable for that too.

We created this mess, we clean it up. You don't let your dog shit on your neighbors lawn without picking it up, do you?

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. WTF is the UN for? What does it do? Who does it benefit?

I'd rather spend tens of billions per month supporting a humanitarian effort intended to lift Afghanistan and Pakistan out of the stone age than spend tens of billions per month sending drones to kill civilians and allowing religious extremists to kill and maim our National Treasure.

I pick up my dog's shit wherever it falls. I've learned though, to take care and guide my dog to the place I want her to shit so as to make it easier to clean up.

[knownothing]

92. How did that UN thing

go over in Rwanda, or in Sudan?

[Turborama]

98. We're supporting a humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, unfortunately not enough people know about it

Reconstruction in Afghanistan

After more than three decades of conflict, the reconstruction process of Afghanistan has begun, though it continues to be hampered by continuing conflict. There are more than 14,000 reconstruction projects under way in Afghanistan, such as the Kajaki Dam.<42> Many of these projects are being supervised by the Provincial Reconstruction Teams. The World Bank contribution is the multilateral Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), which was set up in May 2002. It is financed by 24 international donor countries and has spent more than $1.37 billion as of 2007.<43>

Approximately 30 billion US dollars have been provided by the international community for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, most of it from the United States. In 2002, the world community allocated $4 billion at the Tokyo conference followed by another $4 billion in 2004. In February 2006, $10.5 billion were committed for Afghanistan at the London Conference<44> and $11 billion from the United States in early 2007. One major development goal is the completion of the ring road - a series of highways linking the major cities of Afghanistan.<45><46>

India is spending $1.2 billion in health-care, food and infrastructure aid to Afghanistan, its largest foreign assistance program. In January 2009, India completed the Zaranj-Delaram highway near the Iranian border. In May 2009, an Indian-made power transmission line brought 24-hour electricity to Kabul, the capital. Besides repairing disintegrated roads and constructing highways, India is building the country's new parliament building. It is running medical missions and training Afghan police officers, diplomats and civil servants.<47>

See here for references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan#Reconstruction_in_Afghanistan

And here for more details:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8649455&mesg_id=8655863
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=499756&mesg_id=500229

[Turborama]

93. Yes they would. It wouldn't matter who's hands they'd *literally* die by...

...there would be an enormous increase of civilian deaths caused by the immediate pull out of American troops you call for.

The inevitable bloodbath of civilians and refugee crisis which would occur after a premature pull out (see post 1989 civil wars for a historical example) would make you and any other American who called for said premature pull out culpable.

Do you get that?

[Individualist]

54. +1

[johnaries]

64. NEITHER of these wars are Obama's. That's a ridiculous statement.

Bush lied to Congress about Iraq. Regardless of how we got there, Obama is stuck with getting us out. Some people think that it's as easy as "waving a magic wand." But some of us wonder about about what will actually happen to the people who live there. Some people who claim to be "Liberal" think we should leave no matter the consequences. There are other "Liberals" who actually follow the Liberal creed "no matter how hard it may be" and actually fucking CARE about what happens to the people there.

Well, I could go on, but that pretty much sums up my feelings about being "Liberal"

It's easy to sit back and complain based on "Liberal" values. What is hard is to actually get in there and fucking actually HELP people. Which is often messy.

So, are you a "lounge-chair" Liberal who just wants to complain? Or do you actually want to fucking do something, and be a real Liberal in actions as well?

[SammyWinstonJack]

70. He chose to escalate Afghanistan. Defend that.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

95. So I guess you didn't vote for President Obama? As you should know,

he made it clear what his plans for Afghanistan were. I'm sure that there is no way anyone bitching about the immorality, etc, etc could morally pull the lever for him right, or were you somehow duped?

[SammyWinstonJack]

99. I voted for him I regret that. I think his escalation of Afghanistan in light of the facts isn't

too bright. Have a nice life.

[knownothing]

66. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Does the United States have a moral duty to clean up the mess they made when they created a vacuum at the top of the power structure of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Here's the thing: In Iraq, the moment we leave, the Sunnis and the Shiites will start killing each other in large numbers. That country, no matter what we'd love to think, will never have democracy because they won't be able to get along. Saddam Hussian was an evil dictator who hated the United States, yes, but with his iron fist, he kept the country stable and from devolving into civil war. That was simply because anybody who disrupted the peace or opposed him got immediate jail time or death. Not very moral, no. But when you're harboring two enemies in the same place, sometimes you need extreme methods to keep them from killing each other.

Afghanistan, I'm holding out hope for. I think we can get it to come along, but some of the attitudes of the people in that nation, especially regarding women, will need to come in line before we can leave well enough alone. We have to set them up for success, and at present, I don't think they quite have that capability yet...


So yeah, we're spending a lot of money on Bush's wars still, that never should have been started in the first place. Mainly though, I think we're doing this because we have an obligation to clean up our mess. If we leave a vacuum there, there's got to be something to fill it, and right now, what will fill it is civil war in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, probably the Taliban again. We've got to ensure that that doesn't happen, and it'll take a hella long time to do so. Sorry to disappoint you. But we're not morally justified in failing to clean up our messes.

[LWolf]

145. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

dictates that we bring all troops home now. That we spend not one more drop of blood on an immoral war.

That we spend not one more $$ beyond the cost of bringing everyone home on an immoral war.

[SammyWinstonJack]

68. The question is can Obama?

:shrug:

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. They are NOT Obama's wars. They are though, two wars Obama COULD HAVE EXTRICATED US FROM.

All it would have taken was the political will to make it start happening the day after Inauguration Day.

Apparently, here's the question each newly elected President asks himself: Start angling for a second term now, or take a gamble and do what's right from the get-go? I guess I don't need to tell you how each President in my lifetime has answered that question...

[geek tragedy]

80. Well, he is extricating us from Iraq.

Afghanistan is much less satisfactory.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

127. he is NOT extricating us from Iraq

check the actual plans: we will have troops there for a very, very long time.

Sucker. They've got you fooled.

[Hannah Bell]

90. I wouldn't call them obama's wars. I'd call them the ruling class's wars.

It seems obvious both parties' leaderships favor them.

So I don't see how they're obama's, particularly.

[jotsy]

131. And Smedley Butler would agree.

A speech he delivered to the VFW, in 1935.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0>

Many other YT videos on the page about the near coup of FDR on the page this one came from.

[akbacchus_BC]

96. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, not President Obama, he inherited

two invasions and he is bringing the troops home from Iraq but since the Media is not reporting it, you can believe what you want. Ever heard of 'if you break it, you pay for it' well, President Obama is trying to repair Iraq. Not sure if he is doing a good job of that or not. Honest opinions are sanctioned on here!

As for Afghanistan, Bush should have not went there, that country does not take well to people invading them, go ask the Russians. Having said that, I do not agree with the escalation of troops there. Bring home the frigging troops, apologize on behalf of Bush to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Get the help of the UN and countries in the Arab world that are pro-US to help restore normalcy in these two countries.

Furthermore, why does the US needs military bases in so many countries? Answer, close the bases, bring the troops home, establish jobs for them and use the money for education and health care. As for health care, the president will then be able to push for single payer.

Lastly, why is DADT and Gitmo not addressed yet? If I answer, the consequences will be brutal!

[SammyWinstonJack]

101. -1

:puke:

[akbacchus_BC]

102. What does -1 mean? Was I typing out of turn?

[cliffordu]

100. Yep. Just because he isn't ending them at your pace

doesn't mean shit.

Cause, well, you know.....

[MadHound]

103. It's not about ending them at my pace,

It's the fact that he isn't ending them, period.

[cliffordu]

109. In spite of evidence to the contrary in Iraq.

Must be nice.

[akbacchus_BC]

105. Well, you should know by know that it is all President's Obama's

fault, he is supposed to correct the failings of 8 years of shit. Where is that effing super man when you need him?

How you guys keep posting on here and see shit posts after shit posts, makes me wonder!

[MadHound]

107. Overreact much?

He has had a year and a half to end these wars, and while he is drawing down in Iraq, he is escalating in Afghanistan, thus we're still wasting our money, resources and lives on one illegal, immoral war or another. Not to mention we keep killing innocents by their thousands.

He could have commenced with ending both wars, but instead he is continuing to sacrifice the good of this country on the altar of war.

[akbacchus_BC]

108. You mean Bush's invasions, right? How is the current President

supposed to end them invasions when he so ethical and trying to work with repubs, big mistake ever? He is trying to fix Iraq. I agree with you about Afghanistan! Get the frig out of there!

Oh, I forgot, the US will never get out of Afghanistan, minerals were found!

[cliffordu]

110. blah de blah de blah.....

we got it. On to the next.

:hurts:

[blindpig]

118. It ain't nothing like that...

People are just looking for a change in direction, an indication that things are changing and they're not seeing it. Seems like more of the same and then some.

[deacon]

115. I guess you think this is his economy too. Ridiculous. n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

122. And of course, September 11 would never have happened if Obama wasn't asleep at the wheel

[Nothing Without Hope]

120. No argument from me - K & R

I see the unrecommenders are out in force on this one. Your OP isn't popular, but it is true.

[Nothing Without Hope]

121. Oh, the unrecommenders are out in force on this one

Unpopular truth - keep it coming, please. K & R

[Lost4words]

125. K & R !

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

126. I don't give a damn who the wars "belong" to

I just want them over.

[Soylent Brice]

128. +1

[xiamiam]

129. surprising how many attempt to defend the folly of both of these wars

shocking actually...especially the defense that we are doing it for the afghans.

[Beam Me Up]

134. 9/11

It all comes down to that: The NEOCON's "New Pearl Harbor." (cf: http://cryptome.org/rad.htm">Rebuilding America's Defenses, See Section V: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Expose the truth of 9/11 and these wars will end. Those of us who have seen through this outrageous deception have been saying this for years -- but every time we say anything about it, it gets shuttled off to the DU dungeon. What does that tell us?

[Moochy]

135. No, but let's watch them try!

:popcorn:

[inna]

139. K&R. And some numbers for perspective:

[JoeyT]

141. As far as I'm concerned he took over Afghanistan with the surge.

And he bought Iraq when he refused to prosecute the war crimes that led to it.
Yes, Bush was a war criminal. And the people that cover for him are complicit in his crimes.

[Baclava]

143. No blood for poppies!

nevermind - too late - we are protecting their only cash crop now, I guess

[LWolf]

144. Plenty will try.

I'll bet, if I go back and read through the responses so far, some have.

Tried, that is. And failed.

[whatchamacallit]

147. They *are* Obama's wars now

He believes and promotes the false justifications for them. Every time he talks about the "war on terror" he is renewing his membership in the club. He owns them, and ultimately they will own him.

[krabigirl]

149. No. But while they are his now, he didn't start them.

[mdmc]

151. ..