Why would anyone be happy that Obama's turned out to be a hawk?

[Ken Burch]

That's what the Nobel speech turned out to be.

On foreign policy, he's Scoop Freaking Jackson.

Why would anyone who doesn't own Boeing stock be happy about this?

We all know there can't be any more U.S. wars that progressives could support, and that Afghanistan is simply a fight between
different forms or reactionary religious crazies.

What is going on here?

Did people here actually disagree with Bush about ANYTHING?

[Pirate Smile]

1. His speech was consistent with what he has always said. He was against Iraq - dumb wars not

all wars. He was pro-Afghanistan War always.

Anyone who listened to his speeches, read his books, etc. on the issue should not be surprised at all. That speech was completely consistent with what he has always said.

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. I guess it all depends on the definition of "dumb war"

Have you ever studied Alexander the Great?

Do I need to enlighten you to more wars in the Afghanistan region in the past 1000 years?

[PBS Poll-435]

2. !!!

!!!

?!?

!!!

[JVS]

4. Spite or inability to admit that you're disappointed.

[impik]

5. He didn't "turn out" to be a "hawk"

And using the term "hawk" just prove how little you understand that speech, and even more, how little you were listening to him during the campaign. Because if you were REALLY listening, you'd know that he was never a pacifist, that he opposed the war in Iraq because it was a "dumb war", not because it was A war. And, he always thought that Afghanistan in a necessary war. He's a man who would love nothing more than to be Gandhi, but sadly he reads the intelligence briefings every morning.

That's the difference between Obama and most people here or over the DK or any others "progressive" blog - While he's got a Liberal heart and he aspires for peace, equality and justice for all - He also lives in the here and the now. And here and now, the world is not black and not white - It's a whole lot of grey.

None of that is surprising. All you had to do is to read "The Audacity Of Hope", and you'd know exactly who Barack Obama is - A very rare combination of idealism and pragmatism, a man who reject the "absolute" and a true believer in progress. A little bit every day.

[Ken Burch]

6. There can BE no progress from escalating in Afghanistan

There's never going to be anything progressive there that can ever come from the deaths of American troops.

We should be rebuilding the damn place, not destroying more of it.

And Osama is dead. We all know that.

[impik]

12. Oh, and Obama actually "believe" in a progress through death of American troops?

Anyway, when you'll be the president, you can decide differently. But Obama didn't turn-out to be a hawk. He was always very clear about Afghanistan, and since he is not some hard-head know-it-all, i'm pretty sure that he made what he thought to be the best decision to both protect America, and end the war as fast as possible. Supporting him based on appreciation of his intellect and thinking process - doesn't make anyone a warmonger, and if he took the wrong decision, he's probably going to pay for it. I'm pretty sure he knows that to.

You should read Eugene Robinson:

"...A senior administration official, speaking not to be quoted by name, told me this week that the day Obama decided on the troop increase was the toughest so far for the president. The options, according to this official’s account, were all bad".

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_obama_really_thinks_about_the_surge_20091210

And as for Bin Laden, i'm sure you're right. I still haven't met even one "progressive" who wasn't right all the time.

[Ken Burch]

13. If Osama is alive, at this stage he'd be irrelevant anyway.

And if we haven't found him by now we know we're never freaking going to, so why not just admit that and move on?

[timeforpeace]

150. Always was. Zawahiri was, and still is, the brains of the outfit. bin Deaden was the figurehead.

[mkultra]

116. its pretty extreme to say that only pacifists and hawks exist.

there are people in between.

[Ken Burch]

129. I'm not actually a total pacifist

I'd support a war defending our territory from external attack.

[sandnsea]

7. Which Democrat wasn't going to fight al qaeda?

And stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan while doing it?

Oppose all war if you want to. But don't pretend you give a crap about Afghanistan because you'd be making the same oppositions if any given terrorist shoved a stick of dynamite up your ass. Or would you?

[vaberella]

10. Maybe Kucinich. But then McCain would have won if he said that.

He would have been massacred on the nationl security front.

[Ken Burch]

11. Why can't you accept the fact that Afghanistan and Pakistan CAN'T be stabilized?

OR at least not by outside force?

And that Osama is dead?

Nobody in Afghanistan even wants us there, other than the Mayor of Kabul himself. It isn't a country as we know it and we can't make it become one.

"Victory" as anyone here knows it is impossible there.

[sandnsea]

14. According to you

So if you think you have all the answers, run for President your damn self and then do it your way. Until that time, stfu about shit you clearly know NOTHING about.

[Ken Burch]

19. The leaders ALWAYS say the war is justified and winnable

Given the post-1945 history of U.S. foreign policy, why would you trust ANY of them on that?

And you've provided no evidence that those countries CAN, in fact, ever be "stabilized".

[whosinpower]

23. There is more going on than just force

And that you would give up on the people, leave them to the taliban, leave them to the mercies of religious crazies is ugly.

That would be something that George W. Bush would do - simply because he could not see any way to exploit oil where there is none. Typical. Blow the place up, declare it a disaster, and leave the rest of the world to try to deal with the mess.

So now you have a president who actually wants to try to finish what is started - instead of doing the typical american thing - blow it up, leave a mess and let the rest of the world deal with it.

[Ken Burch]

29. The only legitimate role we could play there would be rebuilding the place

War there is unwinnable and everyone knows it. What happened to the Alexander the Great, the British, AND the Soviets proves it. This country is not ABOVE history.

[whosinpower]

104. History is not static

And you have failed to understand the goals. That is ok. Bush moved the goalposts so many times, did a double switch, and moved everything to Iraq - it is understandable that the goals seem vague.

You cannot rebuild the place when there is little or no security. You know this. And finally, your definition of winning may not have had the same goals as Alexander the great, the british, or the soviets.

For the first time, you have a president who has the gonads, the will, the fortitude to not quit and leave the mess for others to clean up. For the first time, you have a president who agrees with the pottery barn rule. But you would just go along with how America has done it in the past - repeating the exact same patterns, only hoping for a different outcome, that there won't be consequences. Oh you'll whine and complain about how America destroyed and killed thousands - but at the same time, you refuse to even try to fix it - just say, it is unwinnable - that is the easy road out.

Yep - lets go to Afghanistan, blow up a bunch of crap, kill thousands, kick the shit out of Al qaida, declare it a disaster and then leave. Al qaida still exists. You would allow them safe haven once again. How thoughtful of you - to leave the place with even more distrust of the west than before. How thoughtful of you - to leave the place without facing those who suffered under your invasion, and then suffer even more under taliban rule. How quickly you dismiss the threat that failed states represent.

[rockymountaindem]

113. Alexander the Great and his successors did, in fact, conquer Afghanistan

and rule it for several centuries. All this talk about how even he failed there is just incorrect conventional wisdom.

[saltpoint]

144. Agree. Bactria was a daunting geo nightmare to govern but Alexander

and his generals did better there than anyone else in History.

[Baltoman991]

20. Oh!!!

You have proof Osama is dead? Please do share with the rest of the class.

As far as your OP goes, it's just more BS spewed by you. He's not a war hawk. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do. Because you want to ignore that fact daily doesn't mean it's going to go away. You don't like Obama, that's obvious. But please, try to justify your dislike for him with at least some facts.

[Ken Burch]

24. It's never been about dislike of the man and you know it

It's about the policies. Do you think I'd approve of this if somebody ELSE was doing it?

[Baltoman991]

33. No, I don't

know it. Because day in and day out you're spewing BS about Obama being a hawk when, if you listened to the man for the 19 months on the campaign trail, you'd know that he's doing what he said he was going to do. You can tell me all day you don't like him, doesn't mean I'll believe it and your posts on this board prove that point.

Now, how about that proof Osama is dead? I mean, you did ask someone else on this board why the couldn't accept certain facts and Osama being dead was one of those facts. So wheres the proof. Or is this the same game McCain played when he said he knows exactly how to get Bin Laden and will tell us all once he's elected.

[mkultra]

117. nah, you have always spewed contempt for him

and on occasion his supporters. This latest twisting of fact by you is just another example.

[Ken Burch]

130. I endorsed Obama during the primaries

That's not "spewing contempt".

I also started any number of threads calling on HRC to get out of the race when her most insane supporters were demanding that she keep her right-wing campaign going just for the sake of keeping it going(and make no mistake, she would be to the right of what's happening now.)

[mkultra]

143. thats a bit of a stretch

i perused just your journal and yes, you where critical of HRC but you where also just as critical of Obama. You are essentially a DKer. This is fine and all, i actually am sort of one myself, but your methods are doing nothing.

Your not a pure pacifist and you don't really support the mainstream democrats. Maybe you should consider that. Once the cold fingers of reality touch someones face, its very difficult to go back to just ideology.

[Ken Burch]

145. I really and truly despise the way the word "reality" gets used on DU

It's code for "there's no way a 'grown-up' could disagree with what's being done".

It's condescending and insulting and really should never be used again. No one here is entitled to act as if THEIR view is the only valid one. I'm willing to change my views and have on various issues.

Also, while I supported Dennis, I'm not a "Dker". I'm just me. And part of being just me is speaking out when I feel the need to. A lot of others do the same. No one should belittle people who do that.

BTW, what, to you, does "support(ing) the mainstream democrats" actually MEAN? Are you arguing that I can only support them if I refrain from all criticism of them? Nobody does that here with ANYBODY they support.

[mkultra]

147. if the word reality offends you then you have greater issues

Reality is used by pragmatists to contrast their views with those who are purely ideological. It insinuates that you views are pedantic and have never been tested on the plan of physical action. Yes, it is condescending and yes you deserve it. You are probably sick of hearing it for that reason alone.

Supporting democrats means doing what is necessary to insure that the candidate closest to your views wins while the one farthest away loses. Both things. There are only two viable parties, and one is the democrats and the other is the republicans.


When democrats criticized Gore and Kerry during the general and Bush won by a small margin, it makes me disgusted at people like you.

Reality is where we live.

[Ken Burch]

148. I didn't say the WORD "reality" offends me

My objection was to the way it's used here to squelch legitimate discussion.

It's arrogant to say that those of you who settle for centrism and war are the only ones who are connected to "reality".

Reality is that this war is going to drag on for years.

Reality is that the current healthcare bill is watered-down to nothing, especially since Lieberman's going to get his way and remove the Medicare buy-in which was the only remaining meaningful change.

Reality is we're STILL not out of Iraq and there's no good reason for us to still be there.

Reality is that workers and the poor have been burned in almost all decisions made by Congress and this pres this year(the Lily Ledbetter bill at the beginning was really the only big win).

Reality is the moment is slipping away, and its the fault of the centrists that it is.

And it's totally bogus to blame people like me for Kerry's defeat. Kerry lost for one reason and one reason alone: he didn't fight back against the Rove smears. That wasn't the LEFT's fault. IT was the fault of the Dukakis types who were allowed to run his strategy even though no Bukakis person should ever be allowed to take charge of a presidential campaign again. They did the same thing they did in 1988. Worst of all, because of the failure of those centrists then, the LEFT was kicked totally out in the cold in 1992 and blamed for the failures of the all-centrist Dukakis losers.

[mkultra]

151. so your offended by reality itself?

a walk to the store must be hell on you.

[Ken Burch]

153. You didn't read what I wrote

I'm not offended by "reality". I'm offended by the way the word is falsely used here. Those who agree with your approach do not have any greater claim to be representing "reality" than anyone else. You just have your opinions.

You are truly living up to your posting name.

And in any case, if I did what you want and refrained from publicly expressing my views, that would be the same as giving them up. Silence is always surrender and silence always leads to defeat.

[mkultra]

155. you didnt read what i wrote.

[quaker bill]

106. It depends on you definition of stable

I suspect your notion of this goal overshoots the mark by at least an order of magnitude. Recent bombings in Baghdad did not come even remotely close to the definition of "unstable" in a manner that affected the withdrawl schedule. There is no evidence that they were even considered momentarily as a factor. Bush people may have at one time considered ending the culture of "bakshish" (petty corruption by virtually all public officials), since the election fraud, I am pretty sure the Obama folks have shelved the notion entirely. I don't think we are concerned about entirely suppressing the civil war either, as we are going to leave at some point, and eventually they will be sorting this out on their own anyway.

I think taking the al-queda supporting opium cartel out of business, seizing their weapons and destroying the stockpile of drugs, combined with a very assertive S&D mission focused on Ayman and Osama, is more or less the definition of stable. We, quite recently, siezed and destroyed a single stockpile of 91 metric tons of opium. There is evidence of an even larger horde just a little bit further south. There is apparently copious evidence that the proceeds of the drug operation support weapons purchases. I hear that we are now intent on shutting this down, not by eradication of the fields (per Bush), but by capturing the stockpile and destroying the processing facilities.

I am pretty sure that it is the definition of "stable" that is being adjusted to field conditions. I think stable will soon come to mean that they have enough of an army to cover our backsides as we move out. It is nearly there now.

[laststeamtrain]

8. It makes the demented eliminationist inside me happy. n/t.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. I was never under the impression that Obama was a pacifist

Obama seems more like (Bill) Clinton in terms of his use of the military, specifically willling to use it as necessary but not recklessly, pretty much like Clinton did during his Presidency. I myself don't lust for war but recognize that some situations may necessitate military action while others may not and I trust Obama and his team to make those choices.

[Imajika]

15. Obama did not ask for the Nobel Peace Prize..

..pretty sure he even said others deserved it far more. He could have declined the prize, but instead chose to use it as an opportunity to call for the world to work together on these issues as much as possible. Personally, I thought his speech was great, and I think most Americans would agree with that assessment.

President Obama is NOT a pacifist. He never ran as a pacifist. He has never been against all wars.

I am not really sure where people got the idea he would turn out to be a dove as President. I mean, he said over and over and over during his campaign for President that he intended to put more troops in Afghanistan and focus on the Afghanistan/Pakistan frontier.

Obama is a center left Democrat. He is just not very liberal/progressive, and he never claimed to be.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Obama is not a hawk, and if you believe this, you need to go and join

Dove Underground....

Cause there are few Democrats against all wars, last I checked.
One running for President might get 1% of the Democratic vote
during the primaries, if that!

[donco6]

18. Well, and that's what it's all about, Frenchie.

Win elections at any cost. ANY cost.

[mkultra]

118. if your running against republicans

then its better to win than to lose.

[whosinpower]

17. Ken - I disagreed with Bush ALLOT

Particularily when he totally ignored a certain presidential daily brief - entitled Al qaida determined to strike the US.

I am reasonably sure that you too, were disgusted by his lack of interest. I am not sure going all out war was the best solution - but you cannot turn back the clock, and remake history. We are there now.

To pull out now is the height of irresponsibility. The taliban come back, Afghanistan falls further into dissarray. Al qaida regain their safe haven....except this time, they have friends in nuclear armed Pakistan. Perhaps that is the consequence of Bush declaring war on the taliban. Perhaps that is the consequence of his lack of interest in Afghanistan, and rabid desire to invade Iraq.

We don't get to read all the presidential daily briefs that Obama does. I, for one, am glad he is not ignoring them. Call him a hawk if it pleases you. The path that he must walk, and the decisions he must make are his own. I won't be able to change your mind that you feel he is only doing this to benefit the military industrial complex.

[jenmito]

22. Ken never said he was against the Afghan war during the campaign. He said he spoke out

against the Afghan war during the campaign but when I did a search of his posts and found he didn't, he claimed he meant he spoke out other places. :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

25. That doesn't matter.

There's no reason for you to be dredging that up again. It doesn't mean I don't have the right to speak out against the war.

[Teaser]

30. whether it matters or not, I'm still laughing at you.

most people are.

[Ken Burch]

34. You can't know that. Anyway, it's about the war, not ME

n/t.

[jenmito]

31. Whatever. Your new-found outrage HERE says more about you than it says about Obama,

who was always for that war.

[mkultra]

119. its proves your intent is to smear rather than simply voice concern

[Ken Burch]

132. my intent has never been to smear

My intent is to help build opposition to this war, because only in abandoning this war can progressive change at home be possible. Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King got that concept over forty years ago. Why haven't you?

[depakid]

21. I don't think Obama's a hawk at all

Remove the ongoing inherited trouble in Afghanistan and where else would he be "hawkish"

[Ken Burch]

28. We can't remove ANYTHING in Afghanistan

Nothing there can possibly be worth ending up in a war that will go on for years and years. Nothing, other than attack on our own soil, can ever again be worth a protracted ground war.

[depakid]

39. The thought is that in 2011, we'll be headed out

and in the meantime- I don't expect any more cowboy crap in other nations.

[Ken Burch]

40. If that turns out to be wrong, we're screwed as a party

And as a country.

[jenmito]

26. Did you follow his campaign? Yes, you did. You KNOW he didn't "turn into a hawk." He ISN'T

a hawk. He's a reluctant warrior. Obama, like you, was not against the Afghan war during the campaign. On the DU, you said you were against the IRAQ war-not the Afghan war. You're the inconsistent one-not him.

[Ken Burch]

27. I was against the war. It doesn't matter if I posted about it at DU

You're lying about me to imply that I was ok with the war then.

[jenmito]

32. I'm not lying about you. On this site, which is the only place I know you from, you did not

speak out against that war. Why should anyone take your word for it that you spoke out against it OTHER places but not on this political website?? I'm speaking the truth as I know it.

[Ken Burch]

35. There's no reason to dwell on this at all.

It doesn't matter. My opposition to the war is valid, and so is the opposition of everyone else who opposes it, NO MATTER when they posted about it on DU. Let it go already. You know there's no good reason for you to be keeping this alive.

[jenmito]

37. There's no reason for YOU to dwell on this "Obama turned into a hawk" thing, either,

but you do. Just like there's no reason for you to dwell on this "there can be no 'change' as long as we're in Afghanistan" thing, either. But it doesn't stop you.

And where's your proof of the "fact" that bin Laden is dead?

[Ken Burch]

38. "Turned OUT to be", not "turned INTO".

There's a huge difference in the concepts.

And as to what war does to social change, remember the warning Rep. Obey offered to President Obama about this.

I just don't want this to turn in to the second half of the Johnson Administration. And that's where escalation takes us.

[jenmito]

41. There's NO difference. You're saying you're surprised by something he was

consistent about the entire time. He didn't "turn out to be" ANYTHING. He always talked about Iraq being a distraction from Afghanistan, and that we should be concentrating on Afghanistan, even adding troops. YOU'RE the one who turned out to be a critic of Obama on the Afghanistan war when you weren't before (on this site).

Why did you never make your "concern" about social change not being able to happen as long as our troops are in Afghanistan HERE?

And AGAIN-where's your proof of the "fact" that bin Laden is dead?

[Baltoman991]

42. Hey Jen

how goes it? Good luck trying to get the answer to the Bin Laden question. My requests were ignored as well.

[jenmito]

43. Hey, Balto!

Long time no see! It goes ok. And you?

I know-I read your posts asking him to no avail. I thought I'D give it a try. No luck, of course.

[Ken Burch]

44. There'd have been major AQ events happening if he were still alive

There'd have been many more tapes.

If the man were alive, it wouldn't matter because AQ has shot its wad.

[jenmito]

48. That's your proof? Please.

You have NO proof. I can just as easily "prove" he's still alive: If he were dead, there would be tons of activity on the internet discussing his death. Lots of "chatter." There's been none of that, proving he's alive.

[EFerrari]

52. So no activity on the intertubes proves bin Laden is alive?

LOL

[jenmito]

53. Duh...

it proves he's alive as much as Ken's idea proves he's DEAD.

[EFerrari]

55. bin Laden hasn't been a locus of power for some years.

Alive, dead or undead.

[jenmito]

56. But Ken keeps saying he knows for a fact that he's dead.

:shrug: And it would be a symbolic victory for us to get him.

[EFerrari]

79. And you keep making this about Ken Burch and not about the issue.

:shrug:

[jenmito]

85. The issue we're discussing is that Ken Burch repeatedly said bin Laden is dead.

You should know what you're talking about before butting in.

[EFerrari]

87. Well, no. That's your hijacking.

[jenmito]

90. What a joke.

[EFerrari]

91. You betcha.

[Baltoman991]

61. Do you think

9/11 was planned in a day? A week? A month? A year? It tooks years of planning and just because you haven't heard a word from Bin Laden since 9/11 doesn't mean a damn thing. You want to allow the chance that he's out there plotting another 9/11? Over 3000 dead wasn't enough for you?

[Ken Burch]

65. If there was a way of getting him(assuming there was any reason to think he's not dead

and not having access to dialysis for years rather argues against that)without inflicting massive casualties on the Afghan people, people who are NOT to blame for what AQ did(because you can't hold all Afghanis responsible for the Taliban, after all)it would be different.

What if it ended up meaning 10,000, or 20,000, or 30,000 or more Afghan civilians being killed in the effort to find an unfindable man?
What if it ended up being a million like in Vietnam? At some point in that wouldn't you have to say that trying to find the guy had done more harm than any possible good?

We all mourned what happened on 9/11. Your dead friends wouldn't want us to have a future of permanent ground war in a tribal country to make up for what happened to them.

[Baltoman991]

73. Who in the hell

are you to speak for my dead friends and what they would want? Families and friends of lost loved ones of 9/11 want justice. Because you want to cower in a damn corner somewhere means nothing. Don't even pretend to know what my friends would have wanted because I'll tell you right now, you'd be wrong. And the families of those friends I lost will tell you that you're wrong.

[Ken Burch]

75. OK, it's now clear. You care so much about vengeance that the future means nothing to you

That a decent life for people in Afghanistan and HERE means nothing to you.

You're letting rage poison you. And it's rage that no longer serves any purpose.

What matters is making things better for the LIVING. Not devoting your whole life to raging about what can't be undone.

Finding Osama would change nothing, even if he is alive. It won't bring back your friends. And it can't ease their families' pain.

You sound like one of those people that has a cookout outside the state prison when their giving somebody a lethal injection inside.

[Baltoman991]

77. Take your

bullshit to someone who gives a flying flip about what you have to say. You don't know me. You don't know what my mind set is. Once again, you're guessing at something that you have no clue about. And ya know what, I do believe in the death penalty. Got a problem with that? Tough shit.

You want to be a freaking pansy and allow those responsible for 9/11 a free pass? Knock yourself out. But don't dare pretend that you give a damn about those who died that day or the families of those who died that day because your posts show without a doubt, you don't give two shits about them.

Vengeance? No, I want justice and the families of those who died on that day deserve that. What they don't deserve is some pansy tellin them "oh, just forget about what happened, getting Bin Laden won't bring your loved ones back. Lets just forgive and forget.


BULLSHIT TO THAT OK.

[akbacchus_BC]

67. With all due respect to your opinions, here is my question ... how could

Bin Laden be alive after all these years given that he had a kidney problem and was on dialysis? I sure don't think AQ have a miracle hospital in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan! If that is so, I'd like the name of that hospital!

Peace

[Baltoman991]

70. I have a sister

who has had kidney problems and has been on dialysis for years. It happens. And who knows whether or not he's had a kidney transplant. You don't know for sure he's dead just as I don't know for sure he's alive. But it was stated as a fact that he was dead and thats bs.

[akbacchus_BC]

74. You really think that a miracle hospital is in the mountains supporting

Bin Ladin's need for dialysis on a daily basis?

[akbacchus_BC]

76. Sorry, my reply was intended for Ken Burch, not you. I understand

how you feel losing relatives in 9/11. My apologies

[EFerrari]

78. I usually check under my bed before I go to sleep

because that's the kind of fearmongering you're engaging in.

lol

[Baltoman991]

82. Is it? Sorry

you can't comprehend what you read. 9/11 happened. You can deny that if you wish. I can't. I lost that day in a personal way. So why you belittle anyone who still relives that day 8 years later, I'll continue to push for my government to bring the man responsible for that day to justice.

So joke all you want about it, it just shows your true colors. You're just another one who thinks 9/11 never happened or that those responsible for that day should just be left alone.

[Ken Burch]

84. We all lost that day.

Some of us don't want to lose our children or grandchildren in the name of getting payback for that.

I care about the future. I care about life.

You need therapy.

[Baltoman991]

89. I need therapy?

Yeah, you're probably right. But not for the reasons you think. I'll have to ask my shrink why I continue to listen to idiots on message boards and respond to them.

You don't give two shits about life. Why? Because those lives lost on 9/11 should just be forgotten and I'll say it again, each and every post you're making is proving that point more and more.

[Ken Burch]

96. The lives lost on 9/11 should be remembered.

But in a way that is POSITIVE, in a way that honors what they could have been, not that focuses on rage as the end all.
Those who fell should be commemorated in a way that helps build the future and creates hope. That is the way to defeat Bin Ladin: by letting life defeat death.


You can't let what happened that day strip you of your humanity.

[EFerrari]

86. AQ isn't in Afghanistan. If you are so invested, you'd know that.

Bin Laden is either dead or long gone from Afghanistan.

You need some serious help dealing with your own reaction to 9/11 because the course you are supporting has nothing to do with it.

[Baltoman991]

93. LMAO!!!

Did you and the other poster get together on this one? Both of you have told me I need help. So allow me to repeat, yes, I probably do need help. Help in understanding why I even bother with idiots on a message board who have no clue what so ever.

I'm fine though, really. I seek justice, not vengeance. Perhaps if you and the starter of this assinine thread knew anything, you'd know theres a big difference between the two.

[EFerrari]

94. Which avoids the fact that AQ is not based in Afghanistan.

And I'm quite clear on the difference between justice and vengeance, thank you.

[mkultra]

120. sorry but this is blind ascertion on your part

there is little to no evidence of what you are saying and some facts stand against you. To assume that AQ went from 4000 to 400 because of the Iraq war(or even during that time) is something i would like to hear you explain. Despit the single pentago report claiming that there is no more than 400 left, those "400" are doing a hell of a lot of damage in pakistan which is where AQ probably escaped too. Many AQ probably turned Taliban to stay local and they can turn right back if needed.

The point is that these people are still coordinating attempts from this region and the only way to get rid of them is to kill them. The only way to do that is to go from both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the exact strategy and i am for it. I am no pacifist and i think that most people that claim to be really aren't that passive.

[quaker bill]

108. it does not matter

it is not who he is to them, it is who we (collectively) see him as that matters. This is not a practical matter, it is a political matter. No President gets to knowingly leave him alive and not face dire consequences at the polls.

[Baltoman991]

49. So basically,

your telling someone to accept the fact that Bin Laden is dead really isn't a fact at all. It's just speculation on your part right? Thought so.

[Ken Burch]

51. If he's not dead he's uncatchable and irrelevant

You might as well face it: we're never gonna drag the guy into a court and see his hanging on YouTube. And it's pointless to WANT to see those things.

Do people honestly think that a public execution of the guy would STOP the people who agree with his way of doing things?

[Baltoman991]

54. Stop please!!!

You're making it worse for yourself. You've gone from he's factually dead to screw the victims and families of 9/11 who want justice for their losses.

And before you get all pissy about not saying that, read your post. It's exactly what you're saying. The man responsible for over 3000 deaths is, in your opinion, not relevant any longer. I say BS. I lost friends on 9/11. Friends of mine lost family members on 9/11. So I say take your bullshit somewhere else if you think capturing Osama bin Laden is no big deal.

[Ken Burch]

57. I get that this is personal for you.

I respect the pain you feel for your loss.

But escalation ends up punishing the entire population of Afghanistan for what AQ did.

It was AQ's fault, not the Afghani people's.

And even if the man is alive(and given the fact that he had kidney trouble and wouldn't have had access to a dialysis machine for years now)we're not GOING to catch him.

Why mortgage the future to avenge the past?

I doubt your friends would like this country to be focused on vengeance to the exclusion of everything else, especially since vengeance is almost certainly impossible.

And if you DID find and kill the man, you'd make him a martyr and cause massive enlistment in his cause. Why on earth would you want THAT?

[Baltoman991]

60. Sorry, you may

want to roll over and allow those responsible a free pass, I don't. You can call it what you want to call it. I call it seeking justice for the deaths of over 3000 Americans. Don't patronize me and tell me you feel my pain when in the next breath you're telling me I should just sit back and let the man responsible alone.

Sorry, I'm not a war hawk nor am I someone who turns a blind eye to wrong doing. I want the man caught and brought to justice. Having it your way allows him to plot again. And if you think because it's been 8 years that it's all over then you're the one who needs a reality check.

[davidpdx]

110. Why do I remember a particular former president calling him irrelevant?

Oh yeah, that would have been GW Bush.

[Ken Burch]

131. Bush was an idiot

I'm not saying this for the reason Bush was. Bush was just saying that for the sake of keeping the wars in both places open-ended.

[treestar]

123. He was not the only one

Even if he is dead Al Qaeda still exists.

They keep being able to replace #2. They obviously can continue without bin Laden.

[Ken Burch]

128. If he wasn't dead and then the U.S. killed him, he'd become the Che of Islamism

Does anybody think THAT would work well for us?

[EFerrari]

50. You're right. AQ has shot its wad. The only thing the brand is good for any more

is to shill for Pentagon contracts.

[jenmito]

58. He's wrong when he said (repeatedly) that it's a fact that bin Laden is dead.

He's changing the subject now. You know-to "It's not important anyway." Seems to be a recurring theme with him.

[EFerrari]

80. Maybe you need to reread the OP to recover from your own spin.

[jenmito]

83. No, I don't. But YOU need to read the thread to know why I said that.

[EFerrari]

88. Well, no, I don't.

[jenmito]

92. You jumped in the middle of this thread doing nothing but defending Ken Burch.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

97. And here you are, still not addressing the OP.

[jenmito]

111. Ummm, I addressed the OP yesterday. If you had done anything on this thread besides following me

around and defending your board buddy, you'd know that. :eyes:

[spoony]

59. What do you dig through people's posting histories?

Otherwise how do you presume to know everything someone posts? Neither option speaks well for you.

[Ken Burch]

62. The poster you're responding to is obsessed with silencing antiwar opinion on DU

And apparently thinks that harassing me is the best way to do it.

But I won't be silenced, and neither will anyone else here who is against this unwinnable war.

[spoony]

64. Indeed, I saw

a thread a week or two ago from them demanding that people prove they were against the war with past posts. I guess they fancy themself a judge?

Good to see it isn't working to intimidate you, mate.

[Ken Burch]

66. McCarthyism must always be resisted.

Thanks for the support.

[jenmito]

71. Puleeeze. Just because I checked out your claim that you spoke out against the Afghan war

has nothing to do with wanting to silence you.

[mkultra]

121. actually, they where just proving your a liar.

[Ken Burch]

135. Actually, you just proved yourself an extremely poor speller

The poster is obsessing on me for no reason, and discreding herself in the process.

[jenmito]

69. Yup, when I have a reason, I DO. I paid for the ability to do so.

He claimed he spoke out against the Afghan war during the campaign. I searched his posts and found he didn't speak out against it. So then he claimed he meant he spoke out against it in places other than here. Right.

[spoony]

95. You donated so that you could dig through people's histories...

Those are some seriously warped traits you're exhibiting. It's stalker-ish. Not to mention narcissistic, to think that you have the right to request people justify themselves to you.

[jenmito]

114. Not only to do that, of course, but now I can and WILL and DO do that whenever I

feel like it. Do you have anything to contribute to this thread other than questioning my use of the search function? :eyes:

[jenmito]

36. "Did people here actually disagree with Bush about ANYTHING?"

No-we all agree with Bush on EVERYTHING. Can't you tell?

[EFerrari]

47. How would one tell? Yesterday, someone was defending

the Iran Contra criminal Bob Gates.

You know, taking a personal swipe at Ken Burch is not an argument. And especially Ken Burch who has consistently displayed his integrity at DU. You didn't see anti war posts from him, ask him his position, don't impugn his character.

[treestar]

125. I know, jenmito, isn't it ridiculous?

This black and white thinking is worthy of freepers.

[WeDidIt]

45. So, uh, you tought Obama was a big fucking LIAR?

He fucking TOLD YOU hios feelings on Afghanistan and you just blew that off as lies, didn't ya.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[GreenArrow]

63. To be fair, he ran as a hawk,

at least on Afghanistan, as did his opponents, both in the primary and the general. For non-hawkish voters, there was really little to choose from.

[EFerrari]

81. Bingo.

[Bonobo]

68. When did you stop beating your wife? nt

[akbacchus_BC]

72. That's a low blow, LOL. Can we discuss the OP's asinine statement

that the current President ran as a hawk.

This President is trying his best to do whatever is necessary to overturn the stockpile of shit he inherited. I do not agree with the escalation of troops in Afghanistan but only he and his advisors know what is the best strategy to responsibly leave Afghanistan with less blood shed. My foremost apprehension is that I do not want any more American or Canadian soldiers to be in harms way as well as civilians. I too want peace in the Middle East.

Perhaps, if we maintain that Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and it is not about two wars, more people would understand the necessity for the troops to leave.

That's all!

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

99. Gratuitous personal abuse. Nice

My mother's fine with me. And she's against the war too.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

102. I can take it

I can also point out that there was no excuse for it and that it is also evidence that you have no actual argument to make.

This has never been about ME. OK?

And my dissenting views about the administration have been very specific and free of personal hatred of the man. I just disagree with some of the things he's done. I don't HATE the man.

[elana i am]

100. so where were you when obama was campaigning?

at least make your argument honestly.

i heard with my own two sticky-outy little ears *repeatedly* that he was going to get us out of iraq and double down in afghanistan.

i didn't like it. i saw that hawkish stance from day one, so i didn't even vote for obama.

but here's the thing...i can say that he has stuck to his campaign promises, and that he deliberated very carefully, and rejected every plan until it included a date and draw-down of forces. i mean, anyone with eyes and ears and no delusions could see this turn of events coming.

what i didn't expect was the HOW of all this. i have to give obama some credit for not fast-tracking the decision without any deliberation, for setting limits, and for rejecting any plan that didn't include an exit strategy. THAT is what i didn't see coming in a million years.

[Vidar]

103. Sarah Palin for one

[DCBob]

105. He is NOT a "hawk" and he "turned out:" to be just about exactly as he campaigned..

Why would anyone be upset about that?

[Jennicut]

107. Turned out? On Afghanistan he was always one. Little late on that complaint.

I disagree with him on Afghanistan but am not surprised by his actions regarding the war there.

[quaker bill]

109. Most of the world

has a different opinion, but you have a right to yours. BTW I and much of the rest of the world can disagree with you and G.W. Bush at the same time. You may think you are Ghandi, but thoughts are simply not all that golden and pristine.

[branders seine]

112. cult of personality trumps ideology

rah rah go team big game American mentality trumps intellectual honesty

[Pirate Smile]

115. You might be interested in this analysis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x52725

[Aramchek]

122. That's why he's sending 80,000 troops?? oh, wait, he's not.

[treestar]

124. A hawk starts wars

Obama inherited this mess.

And we as a nation are responsible for it.

[Feron]

126. A hawk would be drumming up an Iranian war.

And would not giving a timetable for Afghanistan.

I want the troops to come home now, but that doesn't make Obama a hawk.

[phleshdef]

127. How soon people forget what it was like when we actually had a hawk in charge.

Fucking selective memory BS is killing me.

[Honeycombe8]

133. He's clearly not a hawk. Passifists, however, don't believe in war for any reason...no just war.

That is apparently what you believe. You have the right to believe that.

But that doesn't make those who do believe that some wars are just...doesn't make them hawks.

Hawks are like Bush and Cheney...their first reaction to a situation is to bomb baby bomb.

[Ken Burch]

136. IT's "pacifists", not "Passifists"

And I'm not against ALL war.

I support defense of our own territory against external attack.

And I support the right of oppressed peoples to rise against their oppressors.

Our country's forces, since 1945, have always fought in defense of the oppressors, however.

I don't expect that to change, because the wealthy have too much stake in keeping our troops fighting for what they've been fighting for.

As Phil Ochs put it, and as is still the case today:

"We own half the world, O Say Can You See
And the name for our profits is "democracy"
so like it or not, you will have to be "free"
Cause We're The Cops Of The World, Boys,
We're The Cops Of The World."

[Honeycombe8]

141. Wow. Your thinking is warped, IMO. On the one hand, you say some wars are just

(BTW...rising up against oppressors...that's not technically a war; that's like saying there's a war against terrorism..."war" is used loosely in that context, at best), but on the other hand, you say wars are basically evil.

Make up your mind.

BTW...there's nothing wrong with being wealthy. Would you give away all your money if you got a huge raise at work, which, in combination with your frugality, made you wealthy after 20 years? Of course not. You earned it. You deserve the wealth. That is the American Dream. Based on capitalism, of course. It's wonderful. It's the only reason that a woman like myself can be self sufficient. Capitalism....and wealth, if you're willing to work hard and sacrifice (no Ipods for me, thank you....money earned hard will not be spent on electronic music toys.)

(Note: thanks for the correction of pacifists...you know, it looked wrong when I typed it, but I had a brain glitch and just couldn't remember how to spell it. Too lazy to look it up. And I was an English major!)

[johnaries]

134. Obama is not a hawk. And your assessment of Afghanistan

has no basis in reality or logic.

[cliffordu]

137. I might be stupid, but is this

another one of those Obama == bush posts???

[SIMPLYB1980]

140. Yep. nt

[Ken Burch]

154. NO, it isn't

Obama is NOT Bush. But this war is still pointless and unwinnable.

[polichick]

138. I chose Obama over Hillary because he seemed less hawkish...

...and now we have both. D'oh!

[ZombieHorde]

139. "Why would anyone who doesn't own Boeing stock be happy about this?"

Most DUers have stock in Boeing, Haliburton, and Blackwater. These are the most popular items on the DU market place forum.

"Did people here actually disagree with Bush about ANYTHING?"

No, Bush's foreign policies were very popular here, just like the PATRIOT act. We all loved these things and posted about our love every day. Where have you been?

[zulchzulu]

142. I never agreed with the War in Afghanistan policy, but don't think he's a hawk

He inherited the stupid wars and has to back out of them. I'm certain that the recent plan in Afghanistan is a mop-up operation with withdrawal dates starting in 2011.

[mkultra]

146. ObAMA IS thE NEW SATAN!!!!

why do people here support satan.

[KrR]

149. A Strawman and a lie in the subject line alone... n/t

[mkultra]

152. hawks are pretty birds