People can rationalize all they want. DU'ers can convince themselves that BUSH got us into this

[cherokeeprogressive]

Bush is gone. He's a lame duck that might as well be flying south for the winter.

The United States though, is still killing "innocents" in its need to kill "Bad Guys".

DU'ers will rationalize this how? I'm dying here. Is it okay for a president to kill innocents because the person who preceded him did? How is that okay?

How is it that "progressives" don't absolutely DEMAND that no more DRONES kill anyone in a wedding party or funeral procession?

Not ONE more drone should kill ONE MORE innocent. Isn't that the heart of why we're progressives in the first place?

How is it okay because well... we've elected Obama and now the streets of Nice, Paris, Berlin, Naples, and Malaga are friendlier places to have lunch?

Suddenly the world has forgotten that we're sending UNMANNED drones to kill people in the Middle East? I don't think it has.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. You got into progressivism because of drones?

Huh.

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. Let me check...

Um, no. I learned I had a progressive attitude when I found out that my Mom's brother was forced to be "point man" for his squad in 1965 Vietnam simply because he had told someone he was half Cherokee. I didn't learn that little tidbit until I was 16, and he was helping me swap the 289 from a '66 Mustang that was in his garage for the one that was in the '67 my dad bought me, against my dad's advice. He was, before he went overseas, My Hero (He is, at this moment, STILL my hero). He was the first person who brought me up the hill to where I live now; Big Bear Lake.

I remember helping my Grandmother put cookies, cigarettes, gum, cans of Coors, and reel-to-reel tapes in "care packages" that we sent to him when I was young. I remember Walter Cronkite talking about how many Vietnamese soldiers had been killed every week as opposed to how many Americans had been killed.

I remember when we heard that he was carrying a "jerry can" full of gasoline and got it got hit by a NVC sniper. He spent 8 months in a hospital in Saigon before he came home, and 4 more at Walter Reed. I remember when he came home, and acted like he was ten feet tall, and bulletproof. I remember his first DUI. I remember his second DUI, when he drove his car into the house of my Grandparents' next door neighbors. I've seen how badly he's treated his wife and daughters, who are my cousins.

He's working on being better. I think he's succeeding.

Nah, I didn't come across my philosophy yesterday, or even eight years ago. Thanks for asking though.

By the way, my DD-214 says that I have 1 year, 5 months, and 18 days at sea. I used to be "gung ho". Today? Not so much.

[LWolf]

35. Completely off topic response,

although I agree with your OP. My ex was civilian support for some of those UAVs.

Off topic:

I hope you like Big Bear. My oldest friend and I spent a great deal of time in that area growing up. Her lifelong goal was to live there, and, at the age of 50, she just bought a house. She's commuting on weekends for the next year while her daughter finishes high school, then she will be there permanently. She's already pushing me to find financing for a trip down, so that we can revisit all of our childhood haunts together, lol.

[Senator]

23. I Did. Because of DC-Dem Drones droning on...

...and on, and on about keeping their powder dry, and fearing "divisiveness," and appealing to the non-principled "center," and learning from the other side, and fearing the smearing, and triangulating the polling, and ignoring non-swing states, and manipulating that last half percent in that key demographic...

All so that THEN, AT LAST we'd be able to...

Listen to more droning on ...

...with their Impeachophobic mumblings about how simple formal objection to torture and war crimes would be too hard to do, and too easy on them, and too soon to risk it, and too late to bother, and too bothersome to the torture supporters, and worst of all -- the whole thing was http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">NOT "grave" enough to bother with.

Turns out drones are a very effective weapon ... for the other side.

--

[liberalmike27]

29. Of Course Bush Got Us Into This War

And, Conservative policies got us into the huge unemployment, debt, and all of the problems we are experiencing now.

And for the record, I do think Obama is making the wrong moves by Escalating Afghanistan, and continuing in Iraq. I do think killing whole families, and wedding parties is a very, very wrong-headed policy. It will only incite more in the future, to seek out, and kill Americans, and NATO Forces.

I think Obama and the Democrats in the Senate have not done enough to repeal the tragedy of the Patriot Act, and other executive powers.

I haven't seen a reregulation of the banking sector yet, like the repeal of Glass-Steagall, or putting some limits on trading, and types of trades.

And let us look at the problematic underpinnings. While they continue to talk about trying to reextend credit, we are still exporting jobs. We still haven't put tariffs onto incoming products, like all the other examples of successful countries, like S. Korea, or Japan. By the way, not only would this lessen unemployment, but it would collect back some of that money in the process, since tariffs are taxes, that have been lost, that have actually created some of the Debt over the years.

The deeply conservatized nature of things that we've all been brainwashed by the media, into almost agreeing with over the years, is going to be a tough shell to break. Most people have been hardened for all of their lives with this conservative brainwashing coming from the media. And the FAUX viewers, my God, those people live in a fantasy world.

I don't know how bad it has to get before some real things to be done. FDR would already be out there talking about "economic-royalists," but with Obama, he seems more like Clinton, still preferring to not look into the mouths of where the problems lie, and see all the mouthful of gold and diamond filled teeth.

[marketcrazy1]

34. "the repeal of Glass-Steagall"

I think (hope) you mean the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. and the repeal of gramm-leach bliley and the commodities futures modernization act.......

[defendandprotect]

85. He was calling for Re-regulation -- i.e., Glass-Steagall for one . . .

[crikkett]

65. Dodging the question is not a good answer.

The complaint is that six months into a new presidency, innocent people are still being killed by remote-control.

The accusation is that there's no good excuse for this.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. K&R. Well said.

But I still think that the guys who flagrantly broke the law and lied us into an unnecessary war should be held accountable for their actions. :-(

[Odin2005]

3. Afghanistan isn't Iraq.

:eyes:

[Wilms]

5. Right.

It's much more like Vietnam.

[EFerrari]

19. Like Vietnam without the organization. n/t

[Wilms]

20. And without the Agent Orange, too.

Depleted Uranium is another story.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=z76&q=Depleted+Uranium+Afghanistan&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[Sebastian Doyle]

25. With two MonSatan shills in the cabinet now

Don't be surprised if they bring back Agent Orange. :evilfrown:

[dflprincess]

62. They won't use Agent Orange in Afghanistan -

it might hurt the poppy crop.

[crikkett]

66. .

:thumbsup:

[chucker47]

39. Vietnam?

What do you know about the Vietnam war? In what way is it like Vietnam? You make provocative statements as if you were there in combat. Maybe you were. I was.

[sabrina 1]

42. 'In what way is it like Vietnam'?

It cannot be won. That's one way.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

111. Pursuit of (offshore) oil fueled the American war of agression in Vietnam.

That's another way.

[ProudDad]

53. A quagmire for no good purpose

killing innocents for no good reason...

Propping up a puppet government to supply the excuse...

Doing the same stupid shit expecting a different result...

In other words, insane!

That's how Afghanistan is like Vietnam...

[dflprincess]

64. It is also like Vietnam in that other empires have tried and failed there

just as the French tried in Vietnam before we did.

What surprises me is that the U.K. is back in Afghanistan - I thought they learned their lesson about it in the 19th century (must be a "those who do not learn from the past..." moments for them.)

[defendandprotect]

89. In fact, we/CIA baited the Russians into Afghanistan and everyone should know that story!!!

We were trying to give them "a Vietnam-type experience" . . .!!!

We went in 6 months before the Russians came in to bait them in . ..

and we stuck to the usual pattern -- using religous fanatics --

i.e., Taliban/Al Qaeda we set up and financed -- $124 million and more --

and tens of millions the month before 9/11!!!

[bertman]

69. chucker47, what I know about the Vietnam war was that we killed lots of innocents while

trying to kill the VC and NVA. We recruited more and more enemies of America by burning "hooches" , destroying water buffalo (the Vietnamese equivalent to the farm tractor), pigs, ducks, breaking or emptying drinking water cisterns, and just being invading round-eyes in a land of slant-eyes. We hardened the resolve of the Vietnamese who were fighting us by designating "free fire" zones, then killing anything--man, woman, or child--that moved in those zones, whether they were people who had lived their all of their lives or maybe a VC or two. We poisoned huge swaths of countryside with Agent Orange and sprayed the people who lived there like they were mosquitoes, without even the slightest regard for the consequences of dosing people with toxic chemicals. We swarmed fully-armed and kill-ready into weddings and funerals where no VC or NVA were found--only villagers who had expected to celebrate the wedding of their children and friends.

We did it there and we're doing it now in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Killing civilians is not collateral damage, it's a war crime. Not knowing there were civilians present is not a reason. It's an excuse, and a lame one at that. If we have the ability to target for a drone, then we need to verify for the drone.

But that's not being done because we're dealing with a bunch of hajis or ragheads or taliban, and we don't worry about collateral damage when we want to kill the enemy.

This war is just another case of the American invader trying to impose his/her country's will (installing a compliant pro-U.S. "elected" President) on people who don't want to be ruled by America.

I know about Vietnam. I was there.

Welcome to DU, chucker 47. And thank you for your service. I look forward to hearing from you.

[defendandprotect]

90. Not to mention the Operation Phoenix TORTURE program . . .

and Mai Lai . . . evidently one of many such incidents!

[defendandprotect]

87. Gulf of Tonkin lies = WMD lies .... it's all based on lies for purpose of exploitation ...

Whether you were around or not -- there or not -- the very purpose of VN was exploitation

despite UN rulings --

We financed the French to try to keep the battle going --

Operation Phoenix torture -- Torture of "terrorists" locked up in Abu Ghraib

and then we took it over --

A filthy cesspool --



We also need to see some of the photos coming out of Iraq -- 1.3 million innocent civiilians

dead now -- I've seen a few and they are shocking from the new weapons -

and now we're using drones -- keeps our hands clean?

[lfairban]

120. You forgot the biggest lie

The lie:

The U.S. intervention in Vietnam was to prop up South Vietnam against aggression by the North.

This was US propaganda used to justify the invasion. Durring the 60's, the assertation was made that the 1954 Geneva agreement split the country into two political entities. IIRC, the "Pentagon Papers", reported that South Vietnam was an artifact of US foreign policy, and reprinted the '54 agreement that clearly states that it does not split the country into two political groups.

What we represented as a defense was theirfore actually an invasion of a sovereign nation.

[defendandprotect]

121. So true . .. the lies and disinformation were so huge no wonder citizens

couldn't get it - -

As President Kennedy finally told an aide the huge interest in VN finally spurred him

to looking it up . . . "Nice piece of real estate" -- tin, rubber, drugs -- location,

location, location.


The U.S. intervention in Vietnam was to prop up South Vietnam against aggression by the North.

Daniel Elsberg in his book has an explanation of where the United Nations left Vietnam

in it's efforts to end France's control of it as a colony.

NOTHING like what happened. But, unfortunately, I don't have that quote from the book.

This was US propaganda used to justify the invasion. Durring the 60's, the assertation was made that the 1954 Geneva agreement split the country into two political entities. IIRC, the "Pentagon Papers", reported that South Vietnam was an artifact of US foreign policy, and reprinted the '54 agreement that clearly states that it does not split the country into two political groups.

What we represented as a defense was theirfore actually an invasion of a sovereign nation.

We did so much crap in that small beautiful country -- including the slaughter of millions of

Vietnamese -- and never any reimbursement. I think Kissinger promised them $3.5 billion which

they, of course, never got. Napalm -- generally spewing our insanity over these poor people.

I'm not clear on all of the manipulation . . . last thing I read was how we moved all of the

Catholics down into South Vietnam.


One quote will forever remain with me --

"Americans are really smart about really stupid things!"

That was said by a woman from the Bikini Islands trying to return home after we had

blasted the islands with our atomic weapons--!!!


ugh -- sigh ... blast!!

[Enthusiast]

106. Like Vietnam with an

even more fanatical enemy and a more ruthless military industrial complex.

[Rhiannon12866]

6. No, but we haven't accomplished anything there, either.

We stood a chance until Bush* preemptively moved so many of the troops in Afghanistan in place to invade Iraq. :-(

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. So... you were for it before you were against it?

[Rhiannon12866]

13. Nope, I'm not Sarah Palin, trolling here on DU...

My point was that the last administration, those who were in charge of the country when we were attacked on 9/11/01, invaded Afghanistan with the stated mission to seek revenge on al-Quada and capture or kill Osama bin Laden, who were responsible for the attacks. But Bush*-Cheney had a more pressing objective, the invasion of Iraq. So before they finished the mission in Afghanistan, they removed troops from their stated objective and moved them in place to invade Iraq. Ask Bob Graham; he has the notes. ;)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. We need to get out of Afghanistan right away -

the war on terror isn't a ground war. There's no country called "Terrorism," and this war is going to be fought by intelligence operatives, using all our best resources.

Boots on the ground, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a bad, wrong philosophy.

Home. Now...................

[Rhiannon12866]

15. I agree with you. Dennis Kucinich has been my candidate since 2003.

The last administration blew the ground war mission in Afghanistan, a near-impossible effort (ask the Russians), and there never was a reason to invade Iraq. It's long past time to bring our troops home. ;(

[defendandprotect]

122. Would have happily voted for Kucinich --

[emmadoggy]

60. Bingo.

Totally agree. Wars are fought between countries and governments and their military. Terrorism is a criminal act by groups and individuals and should be treated as such... through intelligence gathering, apprehending and prosecuting.

The "War on Terrorism" is a joke and a disaster.

[Hannah Bell]

24. right. it's afghanistan. so?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

48. If the "war" in Afghanistan is so fucking noble,

why aren't you over there fighting it? An able bodied 23 year old, (who thinks "Afghanistan isn't Iraq") should put his fucking money where his big fat, cowardly mouth is.

[Odin2005]

49. You must of missed that story about the autistic guy that tried to join the marines.

Given that I have Asperger's Syndrome, a form of high-functioning Autism, I would do just as crappy in the military as that guy. That doesn't mean I have a right to voice my opinion on foreign policy. God, I am sick of that BS fallacious argument.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

50. Right

I'm sure if it weren't for Asperger's your ass would be right there on the front lines fighting those dastardly terrorists. :sarcasm:

You have every right to your opinion. However, if you actually bothered to inform yourself of the current situation, (not to mention your countries' history of foreign intervention in the affairs of other nations) you wouldn't sound like such an uninformed, mouth breathing simpleton, who can only offer basic catch-phrases and nationalistic rhetoric when discussing complex foreign policy issues.

[Odin2005]

52. Oh, you mean conspiracy theories about pipelines and AQ not being behind 9/11?

:eyes:

And in any case the argument is a fallacy, most people will serve society better in non-military things, that doesn't mean they are not allowed to have an OPINION about foreign policy.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

54. No fallacy,

those who ask their fellow citizens to do things they would never do(don't give a shit what your excuse is) are fucking cowards. Also, those pipelines are well documented.

What's the endgame? Eight years and counting! How many billions of dollars need to be wasted, how many more lives need to be lost in this pointless, un-winnable "war" before cowardly piss-ants like yourself are satisfied?

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

75. What a classy response. Isn't it your bed time?

Until you've lived it yourself, not vicariously through "cousins" real or imagined, it might behoove you to weigh the opinions of others. Dismissing them because they don't fit your narrow view of the world is quite childish, and an indication of your immature and ignorant worldview.

I advise you to grow up, and remember: "It's better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt".

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

77. Hypocrite?

A hypocrite is someone who spent the better part of the last eight years complaining about Bush and now cheer Obama for doing the same things.

It's obvious most of you people have no real convictions, just a bunch of mindless cheerleaders who don't give a shit about policy.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

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

[MercutioATC]

8. That's a lot of stream-of-consciousness for one post.

If your contention is that the current administration has not corrected many of the policies of the last administration (despite very vocal commitments to do so) you're absolutely correct.

Maybe Obama the President is SO much more intelligent than me that I can't even comprehend how he's fulfilling the promises of Obama the candidate.


He's a whole hell of a lot better than McCain would have been and I don't regret my vote for a second, and I'm a cynic. I expected his bark to be a lot fiercer than his bite.

As it turns out, even his bark seems insincere now. He won't actively sell us out like McCain would have, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence that he's the agent of change that he claimed to be.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. I too, expected the bark to be worse than the bite. And I too, feel like the bark seems to

have been intended to be nothing more than what was needed to be said in order to be elected.

HE'S BETTER THAN MCCAIN.

That was the alternative, and I wholeheartedly believe that my vote was the right one.

I want my BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN ARMS to stand down at President Obama's direction. I want them to come home today. Not tomorrow, not next week, but TODAY. I know that I might as well asking for lottery numbers, but damn, I want them home.

I have two nephews and one niece in a place I wouldn't go on a BET. And truth be known, I wouldn't put their safety in the hands of their superiors.

[leftstreet]

9. K&R

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. There are a lot of people

who supported Obama with everything they had who are not happy with how he's handling things right now.

I'm horrified at what he's doing in the Middle East.

I'm horrified at the old Wall Streeters who are now his advisers.

I'm horrified that a woman who was one of my best friends years ago was just announced as his pick to be Ambassador to The Netherlands. She's very wealthy, and gave Obama a shitload of $$$ during all his campaigns. She was also a Young Republican when I knew her, but she got religion when she married an even wealthier older man who's been one of Obama's political godfathers for his whole career. She bought this job.

I don't know why I'm horrified, though - all politicians are liars. I got sucked in by Obama, and really believed he was different.

But, he doing some good things, too.

That said, your rant against DUers doesn't have a very sound basis.....................

[mrdmk]

41. Please do not feel like you were suckered into anything, so don't beat yourself up to bad!

The only way to evaluate a politician is by their voting record, not what they say. Mr. Obama had a very conservative voting record in the US Senate. In the state Senate of Illinois, Mr. Obama's record was much more moderate. It was more than obvious what kind of President he was going to be, moderate to conservative.

The other choice at the time for the Democrats was Hilary Clinton. Her track record in the US Senate was more or less the same. Not much of a choice there.

Then there was the general election. It was between Mr. Mc(bomb, bomb Iran I) Cain or Mr. Obama. So our choice was either a person who was more than willing to get us into another war or a moderate/conservative Democrat. Mr. Obama, now President Obama was the lesser of two evils by far.

In my view, people are going to be tired of being told how rosy everything is with all of these illicit green shoots. Obama has one year of this madness, then he will have to face the protesters. Lots of protesters. Many more protesters than one can imagine because these people have nothing to lose. Believe me, this time the protesters will be seen on TV and heard from on the radio. If nothing is done at that point, I dare not say what will happen then other than, anybody remember the Roman Empire.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[quickesst]

72. "Please do not feel like you were suckered into anything,"

I'd say, not quite, and people will go to great lengths not to admit the only suckering that was done was to themselves, by themselves. Must be disappointing for many that the Utopian Destiny Express rumbling through the primaries was a train to nowhere. Thanks.
quickesst

[Greyhound]

12. K&R.

The (un)wrecks are piling up.

The idea that the mass-murder sprees in Iraq and Afghanistan are anything other than using our over-priced military to steal other people's resources and protect the proceeds from that theft are insane, but this is America.

[JohnnyLib2]

16. Important points, powerfully made.

And you will probably be shouted down. :banghead:

[sabrina 1]

18. Not by me

I couldn't agree more. Maybe people ought to read some of John Pilger's devastating, heart-rending reporting of what happens to innocent civilians when one of our drones strikes their neighborhood.

I am astounded at people who I thought abhorred the killing of innocents, who now are willing to rationalize it. So, the rightwingers I argued with all those years who claimed it was politics, not principles that was driving the 'anti-war crowd', weren't totally wrong. Sometimes I feel like a fool, but I really thought it was about principles.

War is archaic, it is never about anything but resources and/or the sale of all those weapons we spend so many trillions of dollars on. And it's about killing, mostly innocent men, women and children. We did NOT go to Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Laden, nor did we need to invade an entire country even if that was the reason.

I was against the Afghanistan war from the beginning, and I'm not going to change my mind because a Democratic president is in the WH.

But to say I'm disappointed in Obama would be wrong. He warned us if anyone was listening that Afghanistan was going to be his war.

The problem is no one can get to be president in this country if they are for peace, if they can find ways to solve problems without war.

I don't think they want to win. Perpetual war makes people like Dick Cheney et al very wealthy and very powerful. There is no good reason for us to be at war anywhere, unless you're Dick Cheney and his chickenhawk, warmongering, profiteering cohorts. And they know that they will always have half the country supporting them depending on which party is in power.

Not disappointed in Obama, but I am disappointed that the anti-war movement appears to have died because of party politics. I did not expect that.

[Political Heretic]

22. That's because they didn't actually abhorred the killing of innocents at all...

...they, at best, abhorred the killing of our troops. Take that out of the equation, and no one gives a shit.

As long as we can severe childrens heads from their bodies with drones, all is right with the world.

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. +1

I was against the Afghanistan war from the beginning, and I'm not going to change my mind because a Democratic president is in the WH. :applause: :applause:

[unapatriciated]

63. make that a second not by me.

[Political Heretic]

21. It was happening before Bush, and it will happen after Obama until we transform our system

As long as our government first represents the interests of the financial elite and the MIC, we will continue to involve ourselves in quagmires all over the world in pursuit of those who threaten those financial and military interests (not "people") or in pursuit of assets, resources, and territory deemed profitable, or in the quest to overthrow government and set up puppets that will be profitable...

...our foreign policy is bigger than any one person or any one administration. It's an entire institution and until there is a radical dismantling of that dominating structure, we can virtually count on cycle after cycle of perpetual aggression and violence.

[defendandprotect]

91. End campaign finance BRIBERY and regain control of our government -- !!!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

26. K&R

[stray cat]

27. As a doctor if you treat a patient whose cancer was misdiagnosed by an earlier doctor

so malpractice is likely to result in the patients death - are you the guilty party because you agree to treat the patient and try to repair the damage?

[katandmoon]

28. You are if by "trying to repair the damage" -- you simply continue the same failed treatment

[Lorien]

30. So Iraq was a cancer that Bush was trying to treat?

the analogy doesn't work very well. Continuing an immoral war is unjustifiable, period.

[troubledamerican]

38. "...whose cancer was misdiagnosed by an earlier doctor" -- you completely misread the post

[Hydra]

32. What sort of cancer are we removing by killing civs with Drones? n/t

[defendandprotect]

93. Re-funding illegal wars isn't trying to "repair the damage" . . .!!!

[mike_c]

33. absolutely right-- K&R!

Thank you. "Our side" did not win in 2008 if the side that won is continuing the oppressive policies of the side that "lost." Changing the names and the letters after the names is immaterial if the policies do not substantively change.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. It's ever so nice to know that America can still produce...corpses.

[Texasgal]

37. Who says it's OKAY?

Who is rationalizing this?

[Curtland1015]

40. No one. TC is likely just mad that everyone isn't calling for Obama's head...

...because he didn't pull every one of our troops out of the middle east the first day he came into power.

If not, TC, I apologize... that's just how it sounds.

[Occam Bandage]

58. TC is OP round these parts. nt

[keep_it_real]

43. If Obama is killing innocent civilians with drones than he is as bad as bush.

[defendandprotect]

94. So sadly true . . .

[Autumn]

44. Don't you get it?

"The American people voted for an expanded military effort in Afghanistan because" ____________________ in this case Obama campaigned on it "Therefore, this is... "the right thing." Anyway that is what I have heard. I found that drivel disgusting.

[Cali_Democrat]

45. Well said

:thumbsup:

[tekisui]

46. knr!~

[mirrera]

51. Well said... n/t

[Occam Bandage]

55. I didn't elect Obama to replace drones with helicopters. nt

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

56. I didn't elect Obama to carry on the failed policies

of the previous admin.

[Occam Bandage]

57. He always promised to redirect resources towards the war in Afghanistan,

which at the time had quite a bit of left-wing support.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

59. Left-wing support? Really?

if I remember correctly many on the left(people who have been 100% right about damn near everything over the last eight years) have been weary of Obama's apparent Afghanistan fetish.

Don't confuse the opinions of rank-and-file democrats with "left-wing support".

[Occam Bandage]

61. Yes. Really.

Obama's initial support for redirecting resources from Iraq to Afghanistan inspired quite a bit of "I've wanted that all along" here and elsewhere in the left-wing blogosphere, and the issue polled quite well among Democrats at large. The only metric by which you can claim otherwise is a no-true-Scotsman twist in which you simply define "left-wing" as "opposed increase presence in Afghanistan before the inauguration."

I myself am quite left-wing, and tentatively support continued American presence in Afghanistan contingent on demonstrated and objective progress towards stability.

[Odin2005]

68. No use reasoning with the Naive Pacifists, they are not open to facts.

They automatically assume that any military intervention we do must be part of some evil plot just because of DimSon's Iraq BS. You can;t reason with fools with ideological blinders.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

71. "ideological blinders"

:rofl:

[superduperfarleft]

109. No use arguing with the naive chickenhawks either.

Don't you have some Other Priorities you could be attending to, college boy?

[earth mom]

73. Tell it like it is. It's GENOCIDE. Anyone who defends it is fooling themselves. nt

[MadBadger]

76. I dont think the OP is calling it Genocide at all. You are the one making that massive reach

Careless acts that are killing innocent people, maybe. But Genocide? Where did you pull that one out of?

[Aragorn]

81. genocide

by a thousand cuts. Ignoring the ongoing killing of so many civilians because they are not "like us"? What reason, if not that one?

[MadBadger]

82. The civilians are not the intent of the drones

Civilians are collateral damage. Wrong, sure, that argument can easily be made. But to say we are targeting the civilians because they are not like us is a bullshit charge.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

119. True dat!

re: "bullshit charge"

The "we" you mention care not a whit more for civilians 'taken out' by "drones" over there than they care for civilians 'taken out' by an eternally dysfunctional 'health care' system over here!

With a global population that is roughly 80% non-white one would probably be safe in assuming that the majority of the perps are non-white also.

A little bit of genocide doesn't seem to bother most here!
----------------------------------------------------------

"No one escapes their past. No one escapes Judgement."
--Lewis Prothero, V for Vendetta

[bertman]

74. Thank you for the reminder, cherokeeprogressive. My immersion in so many other political

issues (and non-issues) had rendered me temporarily blind to what is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I empathize with you and share your sadness and anger about this drone war. It is becoming more and more like Vietnam. Just substitute "terrorism" for "communism" and the script reads very close to what we had in Vietnam.

Candidate Obama did say he was going to pull troops out of Iraq and build up our forces in Afghanistan so we could defeat the forces of the Taliban and al Qaeda. I thought at the time that I might be able to support that, but now that I see what this is in a different perspective, I feel like we need to just bring our armed forces home.

For us it's seeing friends and family, like your uncle, who come home fucked up mentally or physically or both. That is a horrible legacy of any war. But what we don't have to live with is the terror of not knowing if our homes are going to be rocketed or our children are going to be killed by a mistaken drone attack. We turn off the teevee and the war goes away. The Afghanis and Pakistanis just live with it day in an day out.

If they want to throw out the Taliban and al Qaeda, let them earn their own freedom, if that's what they want. Otherwise, America needs to stay out of it.

I'll be sending the President, my senators, and rep my demand that we disengage immediately. Thanks to you for reawakening me.

[lexanman]

78. Uh

Bush did get us into this. Its just that Obama is continuing it.

[Rex]

79. Convince? What, were you living in a barn for the last decade?

I can't help but laugh at you, because you fail to understand the enormity of damage done by Bush/Cheney. People like yourself always love to gripe like Obama has a magic wand. :eyes:

Where were you when Bush was destroying this country?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[smiley_glad_hands]

84. Respectfully, I couldnt disagree more.

So lets pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and just let the whole region implode. Don't forget about Pakistan, just let the Taliban take control and get some nukes, launch them and die from the retaliatory strike. Is that what you want? A nuclear war, cuz thats where we're headed otherwise.

On edit: Its ok to be an idealist, but the reality of the world always bites you in the ass.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

100. "If we leave Vietnam,

the commies will take over Vietnam, then Thailand, then Malaysia, then Burma, then Indonesia, then India, then......"

[smiley_glad_hands]

110. As much as you want it to be so, it is not. eom

[defendandprotect]

86. We are all here knowing that Dems were elected in '06 TO END THE WARS . ..

OBAMA was going to end the wars --

It's sickening -- exasperating -- disgusting --

But, people here have to wake up on these things -- they have to WANT it -

and they have to be ready to move TOGETHER.

You know how many posters I find in these threads who support these wars?

They don't really come out and say it -- but they're around.

And, of course, I don't see the DLC calling for the end of the wars, either?

Nor DLC here --

[smiley_glad_hands]

92. Um no they werent elected to end the wars.

There was no talk of pulling out of Afghanistan, in fact, there was a push to refocus on Afghanistan, as Obama is and campaigned on, along with his Pakistan policy. This is not new, he campaigned on it.

And as far as Iraq goes, we are making progress in an eventual exit, just as Obama promised in his campaign.

Now you can have issue with dems who campaigned in 06 for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, but if you bought that, especially while W was president, then your just silly.

[defendandprotect]

104. See the VIDEO of Pelosi in '06 CONFIRMING Dems were elected to end the wars -- !!!

And, while I agree with you that Obama can probably hide behind sematics ...

his conscience should be his guide re these illegal wars --

There should be no re-funding of Bush's wars -- and we should get out.

Why are you so passive on war?

[MadBadger]

107. Post the video then

[defendandprotect]

115. You missed it and now I'm supposed to find it for you -- !!!

If I come across it again, I'll repost it --
Otherwise, go look for it yourself.

[MadBadger]

117. I dont think such a video exists.

[defendandprotect]

118. It does exist . . . but obviously it would be a waste of time to bother

giving you a link if I found it --

Meanwhile . .. "You can't wake up a man pretending to be asleep"

[smiley_glad_hands]

112. Obama doesnt need to hide because he is doing exactly what he campaigned on.

And yes, there were some dems in 06 that ran on ending the war in IRAQ, but if you thought that was ever going to happen while W was in office then you are just plain stupid.

[MadBadger]

101. Obama was NEVER going to end the war in Afghanistan

You werent listening.

[DissedByBush]

88. I am hoping there is something I don't know about

Obama promised us a lot before he got elected and now he is changing course on some of these things.

I am hoping that as president he became privy to some information that convinced him of the need to do what he now continues.

I am hoping Obama didn't just lie to us.

What I am having a hard time with is the possibility that this may mean Bush was right on some things. Ick!

Take illegal wiretapping. Not only is Obama defending it, but his legal arguments go further and scarier than Bush's.

Why? Did Obama betray us? I hope not. I hope he just found out something we don't know.

But that is just hope. I have no logical reasoning or evidence behind it.

[smiley_glad_hands]

95. Obama campaigned for the current Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan policies.

You wanna take issue with him for defending illegal wiretaps, fine, but at this point, I believe he is just defending the institution of the Presidency while changing policies for the better without creating turmoil and chaos in the agencies he is responsible for as the Executive of the USA.

[DissedByBush]

97. That could be one of the things we don't know

How fast he can turn the government from Bush's policies without creating chaos could well be one of those things he became privy to only after taking office.

[stopbush]

96. You miss the point, which is that decisions that presidents make have long-term

implications.

Like Reagan's screwball views on the economy or Nixon's trampling on the Constitution. Presidents and administrations make decisions that effect people's lives for decades, for good or bad.

There's no "on/off" switch when it comes to presidential decisions, and the wars that bush got us involved in are good examples. The time to make a difference is before the action is taken, not after. Blame our spineless Congress critters for not standing up to be counted when it would have made a difference. Obama doesn't have a magic wand that he can wave to undo bush's errors.

Your thinking is simplistic if not dangerous.

[smiley_glad_hands]

98. Please stop, you're making too much sense. eom

[stopbush]

99. Here's some more sense: the Rs get the fact that decisions have longterm implications.

That's why they put up a bit of a fight over Sotomeyor - they realize she will be on the SCOTUS forever.

Compare that to the walk in the park Ds gave to Roberts and Alito. The Ds treat these SCOTUS appointments like they're fast food - we voted for McDs today, but we can always have BK tomorrow. It doesn't work that way.

The Ds in Congress did the same thing in authorizing bush's wars. Not enough of them stood up to the political pressure. Had they done so, things would have been much different.

[HughMoran]

103. For what it's worth

I agree with you. Unfortunately, practical thinking/common sense serves no purpose in these type of threads with these sorts of people. Stating obvious things like:

1) Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do and
2) Most of DU supported our involvement in Afghanistan and
3) It's a million times easier to get into a conflict than get out of it, as you pointed out.

...do no good when arguing with purists.

The time for "not getting involved" is long over.

[G_j]

116. however, if you look at the history of the Vietnam war

it does not support your justification for escalating the war in Afghanistan.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[flyarm]

105. My best friend just returned from Italy..she was in Rome during the G8..she said ..

there were huge protests against Obama..and she and her daughters got caught in one on the street..( they were staying in the Hotel next to the US Embassy) so do not believe it is better..as she and her college age girls told me tonight ..they were scared shitless..they didn't want to speak English ..so they just used sign language with each other, to get out of the crowd of protesters , so they would not be identified as Americans!

[nini]

108. that's funny.. the Italians over there I know love him

:shrug:

on edit: I'm not saying that protest did not happen just that the entire country doesn't necessarily feel that way - kinda like here.

[immoderate]

113. Afghanistan is a quagmire. It will wind up like Vietnam.*

*If we're lucky.

--imm

[Orsino]

114. When you can find a majority of Americans...

...willing to defy their television sets and support a withdrawal from our wars, then you can assign most of the blame to the current Administration. However, Bush & Co. sold us on this war, and it's going to take some serious unselling before Congress and the president will feel safe in getting us out. The tea-baggers and their MSM enablers will drown out serious antiwar legislation with cries of "cut-and-run," and our fightin' Dems will fall silent.

Until this changes, those of us who are serious about ending war should not rest, no matter what sorta-kinda drawdowns are in the works.

[KoKo]

123. Simple...because Dems have more hope in a Dem President than the Fascist/Dictator who was there

by a Supreme Court ruling.