Can someone in plain English explain to me why war escalation in this administration is forgiveable?

[newtothegame]

I'm just looking for a succinct answer as to why this is ok now. Any help would be appreciated!

[Romulox]

1. It's *our* military-corporate complex now. That's why. nt

[cali]

2. I can only answer for myself.

I don't find it acceptable, but I'm not about to give up on this president or this administration over the issue. Baby, bathwater, etc.

[newtothegame]

5. I'm not ready to give up either, but I wonder what issue would put me there if it's not WAR? n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

124. "Baby, bathwater, etc."

Sure .... its not your kid over there gettin' shot ... so that cavalier attitude is understandable.

By the way, I agree with you that the war is not acceptable but is also not a reason to totally condemn the current administration. I just don't think your attitude toward other people's kids speaks well. People die in wars. They're all someone's kid or parent or spouse. Your dismissive attitude dehumanizes them.

[cali]

146. what bullshit.

saying that you don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater is in no way dismissive of other people's children. Pathetic attempt on your part. And as it happens, I actually know someone who's son was killed in Iraq. So fuck your sick little game trying to demonize me. Not that I expect much better from you, stinky.

[skooooo]

3. If you're referring to Afghanistan..

...then I give Obama the benefit of the doubt, because that's where bin Laden is. I'm not sure there are many good alternatives - and evidently Obama doesn't either.

In Iraq, I'm not sure what's going on.

[eridani]

83. Nope. If still alive, he's in Pakistan n/t

[JackRiddler]

108. Why would OBL (if he's alive) be in Pakistan?

He's from a family worth tens of billions of dollars, who belong to the global money elite. He has 50 siblings, at least a few of them without a doubt sympathetic to him, and, supposedly, four wives. He could be anywhere, in any disguise. Assuming he's alive, and especially if he's sick, why would he be in Pakistan? Waiting for a missile to be fired from a drone to burn him to a crisp and leave nothing recognizable for anyone to know OBL is dead? Of course, this may have already happened (assuming that at least some of these "militants" we're killing aren't just more lucky peasants in the wrong place at the wrong time).

Cue up the video studio. Better yet, use the outtakes from the 2004 performance again (as with the 2007) video, and pretend it's new.

[smoogatz]

113. Because it's one of the few places in the world in which he's out of the reach

of the U.S. military and/or local law enforcement, and there's nothing the U.S. can do diplomatically--no combination of threats or bribes--that can significantly alter that dynamic. Full-on U.S. military incursion into Waziristan would trigger the collapse of the Musharraf government and a takeover of Pakistan by Islamist militants--not exactly what you want in a nuclear-armed state that's already proved to be a state sponsor of terrorism. There's also the fact that OBL is a heroic figure among Islamists whose presence would likely be welcomed in Waziristan and other regions of Pakistan.

On edit: there's also the fact that OBL and al Qaeda have historically had the backing of elements of the ISS, Pakistan's intelligence service. And that the Taliban are known to be reconstituting in Pakistan with help from elements of the Pakistani government. The better question might be "why wouldn't OBL be in Pakistan?"

[JackRiddler]

122. Some huge complex in Saudi Arabia...

occupied by a giant clan of rich people, where no one outside it even knows who goes in and out, would be within the reach of the US authorities? Uh-huh.

ON the contrary, it's the Pakistani peasants being killed by unmanned drone monstrosities who are obviously too well within reach for their own good.

If he's under a different name and clean-shaven in a private kidney ward in Aruba, you'd know this how?

Remember, we're talking about BILLIONAIRES.

[smoogatz]

123. OBL is a sworn enemy of the Saudi royal family.

You really think he's alive and well in Saudi Arabia? But Aruba--sun, sea, plenty of hot babes in bikinis. That would fit the pattern, all right.

[JackRiddler]

132. Uh-huh.

The Saudi royal family is pretty big and I'm sure there's a whole web of enmities in there. I think I'm failing to make the point: billionaires have huge resources for hiding all around the planet. Plus, the guy was on dialysis in 2001. Plus, for that reason, I tend to agree with the "died long ago" hypothesis. Which, in turn, is supported by the fact that anyone can throw some sampled audio or even the lousiest of fakey video on the propaganda market and Rita Katz and the chickenhawk war brigade will pick it up and pimp it as the Real Thing -TERRA TERRA TERRA COMING! - without objections from the media. Which wouldn't be so likely if the dude was still breathing.

[eridani]

136. True, he could be anywhere

Robert Fisk thinks that Saudi Arabia is also a reasonable possibility. The principal translater of bin Laden's speeches thinks he is dead. The tribal areas of Pakistan are just like the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan, only is a country that has nukes and therefore can't be confronted about it directly.

[DemBones DemBones]

142. He could be here, he could be there,

Those Merkans seek him everywhere.

Is he in Heaven? Is he in Hell?
That damned elusive Pimpernel!

[Hannah Bell]

114. Bhutto said he was dead.

"On November 2nd, 2007, one month and 25 days before her untimely death, Benazir Bhutto gave an interview with Sir David Frost (formerly of BBC, now working for Al-Jazeera English TV). In the interview, she said something no one expected to hear: and that Frost himself didn't even seem to catch. She said that Bin Laden was dead - murdered, in fact.

In the video below from Al-Jazeera English TV, if you set the scrollbar to 6:10, you will hear the words straight from her lips: she names Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, aka Omar Sheikh (also known by the alias "Mustafa Muhammed Ahmad"), as "the person who murdered Osama Bin Laden."

Sheikh is best known for being suspected of the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. He is currently in custody and was sentenced to death on July 15th, 2002, for the murder of Pearl."

http://www.connietalk.com/bhutto_interview_012108.html

[lonestarnot]

144. And we haven't heard from the dead either, so he must be REALLY dead.

[politicallore]

4. we still have 30 days to get out right???

He won't miss that deadline... right?


Look... I knew this would happen, I wish you did too.

[polmaven]

61. Exactly to which deadline

are you referring????? I recall nothing that the president may have said that would have indicated the would have all troops out of either Iraq or Afghanistan by the beginning of May, 2009. :shrug:

[Skidmore]

6. Perhaps because there is some truth to the idea that until

religous fundamentalists in the world are dealt with, there will be no peace. I would also add Christian and Jewish fundamentalists to the mix too. There will be no peace as long as people are willing to blow themselves and others up so they can see their god.

[Winterblues]

14. The answer to that is more guns, the USA is the world's leading dealer in Arms but

We can do so much better. We can give trillions more to the Defense Industry so everyone in the world has plenty of guns... It works so well here at home..

[Skidmore]

23. The whole world can do better.

Starting with equitable distribution of wealth, adequate food, shelter, healthcare, and education for everyone, justice and equal rights for all. The list is endless of ways we can all do better. I have no pat answers for why we don't do better, but I do know that until people like those who populate the ranks of the Taleban and other religious extremist groups can be reached or denied new member, the state of violence in the world will remain elevated.

I'm frankly more concerned about those who continue to push for nuclear solutions to both national security and energy needs. They present a higher threat to mankind and the planet than any erstwhile terrorist in a remote village--and they have the wealth and clout to make them politically viable.

[eridani]

85. Bullshit. Our official imperial bullies are happy enough to use fundies of all stripes

--when it suits their purpose. They were even recruiting jihadis in the US to fight in Afghanistan in the 80s.

[geek tragedy]

91. Because letting Al Qaeda and the Taliban rule Afghanistan

would have severe and dangerous implications for the entire world, and provide even more instability for Pakistan.

[otohara]

128. Simple

truth! :hi:

[spoony]

101. If that's your justification for waging war

then you have just as dangerous a mindset as they do.

[JackRiddler]

138. So do I take it you're also for military actions in the homelands of the other fundamentalists?

The way to deal with all of these issues is sustainable development against poverty and an end to economic injustice. Military adventurism only makes the problem worse. There are no simple solutions, but war is not any kind of solution - it's the problem.

[redqueen]

7. Because you can't always get what you want.

Simple as that.

We elected the best guy we could have. He's doing a fantastic job overall.

Big picture.

[readmoreoften]

120. Tell that to the dead. /nt

[mike_c]

8. the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan are wars of aggression....

on double edit-- I'm sorry, I read your OP as "unforgivable" rather than "forgivable." It's still early on the left coast....

Google "war of aggression," then follow some of the links. Follow some of the other terms that come up too, such as "United Nations Charter", "Nuremberg principles,", and Chief Justice "Robert Jackson."

America's wars are wars of imperialism. They're empire building. They have absolutely nothing to do with self defense. There is no honor in fighting them, only thuggery in defense of an aggressive imperialist foreign policy.

They bring shame on us all.

on edit-- I'm also ashamed of all the people that seem willing to accept war crimes because they're being committed by a democratic president.

[Skidmore]

12. Raising my eyebrows only because good luck with that

argument that somehow Afghanistan is a "jewel in the crown" for any empire. Have you ever been in that area of the world?

Now I don't like war one bit. I've survived a war--a war based on religious fanaticism.

[mike_c]

26. fossil fuels, proximity to fossil fuels, pipelines, poppies, Pakistan....

Afghanistan evidently has a great deal of strategic importance to U.S. plans in the region.

[redqueen]

18. No, it's not that at all.

I don't know about everyone else, but I seem to remember it being pretty common knowledge before the election that we'd be sending more troops to Afghanistan.

[newtothegame]

21. But he made it SOUND so good; you know, he has a way with words...

War never sounded so sweet.

:sarcasm:

[redqueen]

22. What the hell does that mean?

:wtf:

[uppityperson]

133. What do you mean? Your post is confusing, with sarcasm smiley and all

What are you saying here, serious question, will save snarking for later.

[blindpig]

25. So why was it acceptable then?

Why is it acceptable now?

[redqueen]

27. Um... because we wanted to win the fucking election?

What the hell is going on around here... seriously.

Look... if you were opposed to it before then fine. Be opposed. But you cannot seriously be telling me that you think that he'd have been elected if he'd said otherwise.

Forgive whatever you want or don't... the fact so many ego-strokers around here seem to want to ignore is it won't make one bit of difference.

[mike_c]

29. being a prospective war criminal is the only way to win elections in America?

Why does that not surprise me?

[redqueen]

33. Because it's been the case since way before you were born?

:wtf:

:crazy:

[mike_c]

38. you might be willing to accept war criminals as leaders....

I'm not, thank you.

[geek tragedy]

94. Obama is not a war criminal.

Sorry, but you won't find a single credible legal authority to back you up on that.

Your hardcore pacifism is not international law.

[EFerrari]

129. But Gates and Petraeus arguably are. And it is a crime not to prosecute

the war crime of TORTURE. That is international law AND US law, too.

[blindpig]

50. So what was the point?

Why bother if all ya get is a prettied up version of the Same Old Shit?

If he'd been a genuine populist, taken it to the people, said to hell with the Money Men, proposed real single payer health care, yes, he'd get elected. Or else the utter bankruptcy of our electoral system would be laid bare, which would also be a good result. As it is, more kabuki theater.

[mike_c]

28. that's one of the reasons I've never been an Obama supporter....

One of several, actually. I did not support Bush's war crimes and I do not support-- or forgive-- Obama's war crimes.

[redqueen]

30. Well bully for you. You voted for him though, right?

And you knew his plan?

What's the point of this thread? To remind ourselves that once again, we didn't elect Kucinich?

[mike_c]

39. no, I voted for a candidate who pledged to END the illegal wars....

eom

[redqueen]

40. Kucinich?

Imagine if we'd have got half of the Dems in the country to vote for him... then we'd have had McCain.

Wouldn't that be awesome!



Anyway... peace.

[timtom]

59. Oh, God.

I could only have hoped.

I'm heartbroken the way DK was marginalized. A truly intelligent AND compassionate man.

[geek tragedy]

93. Legally, the invasion of Afghanistan was not a war of aggression.

The UN and the community of nations supported its validity as an exercise in self-defense.

So, some leftwing commentators may like to use rhetorical flourishes for that kind of thing, but they're abusing legal terminology to express their moral outrage.

And, we'll just have to live with your kook fringe being 'ashamed of us.' Because, you know, you people who believe in surrendering to terrorists are such source of pride to Democrats.

[mike_c]

98. what's a thread about war and imperialism without RW talking points....

Surrendering to terrorists?! :rofl:

[datasuspect]

9. because it generates revenue

[jody]

10. I'm sure you will read posts proving war escalation is forgivable but IMO that won't satisfy

the millions of people who are killed, maimed, traumatized, and had their country devastated.

Obama inherited an immoral war but whatever occurs on his watch as Commander in Chief is his responsibility and his alone.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. It is being escalated by DEMOCRATS, that's why it is forgiveable

Apparently, how the party name is spelled makes all the difference.

[Synicus Maximus]

141. You're right

As long as we do the escalation it is totally forgivable, cause democrats can do no wrong.

[NightWatcher]

13. because Obama said he would escalate against Afghanistan (home of the 18 Saudi's w/boxcutters)

this is our WAR ON TEROR, so it's supposed to be ok.

I mean, arent you scared of Afghanistan?

[FudaFuda]

32. this has been the defense I've seen most, and that puzzles me the most

'he said he would during the campaign, and he was elected, so it's ok.'

why criticize freepers for blind allegiance and wilful ignorance for Bush, if we're gonna tolerate it when our own is in the chair? actually, not tolerate it ... some here seem like they want to require it

[NightWatcher]

44. some here are anti war at all costs. some think it's ok if Obama wants it

It's Obama-worship plane and simple.
I voted for, volunteered for, etc, but he is wrong on this War in Pipeline-istan. Afghanistan poses no threat to anyone except the oil barron who wants to put a pipeline right trough their backyard to pump out the resources under another man's feet. It's the American-Way.

[ieoeja]

100. And most people here were pro-Afghanistan even when Idiot was president. nt

[eridani]

87. No, Saudi Arabia was the home of the boxcutter guys, who took their flying lessons--

--right here in the USA.

[Echo In Light]

15. "America has one political party with two right wings" - Gore Vidal

[geek tragedy]

92. Gore Vidal admired Timothy McVeigh.

So, he's so leftwing that he went around the planet and became rightwing.

Fuck him.

[Mari333]

Its not. nt

[leftofthedial]

16. Because Barack is infallible.

Same reason the bush-paulson bailout giveaway for banks is now a good thing.

[MadHound]

17. Because it is being done by a Democrat,

And for many people, anything done by somebody with a D behind their name is just fine with them. Sad but true.

[MrCoffee]

19. It isn't.

[redqueen]

20. The word "forgivable" makes this thread weird.

What difference does it make if we personally do or do not forgive the people involved in making these decisions?

Are we talking about politics or psychology?

[No.23]

45. Maybe the poster of the OP really meant "acceptable"?

[doc03]

24. Obama said he would focus on Afghanistan and the Taliban

where have you been during the last couple years? Obama thought we shouldn't have got sidetracked in Iraq but we are now like it or not. Like Colin Powell said if you break it you own it, we have to try and stabilize Irag as best we can before we get out. Do you want another scene like when we pulled out of Saigon under fire with people hanging from helicopters trying to escape and falling to their death? The stupidity of the far left simply amazes me.

[mike_c]

36. why?

Obama has never explained why. What does he hope to achieve? Subjugation of Afghanistan? Why? Destruction of the taliban? Not possible, at least not with guns and bullets.

What objectives does Obama seek to achieve by escalating the illegal war in Afghanistan?

I think he is either as clueless about objectives as his predecessor was, or he has bought into the neocon agenda of controlling the region through a strategic armed presence. Projecting force for imperialism.

[Echo In Light]

47. Doing so strategically dovetails on the Afghanistan = OK/Iraq = unfounded meme

The public mind has had that drilled into it repeatedly as a 'safe' form of M$M "criticism" ... much the same way, say, as the M$M's directing the public mind away from accurately perceiving Bush/Cheney crimes by pitching the inconsequential "incompetency" ruse that was effective in steering people away from expecting any actual accountability.

[doc03]

49. Why? After 9/11 the Democrats supported Bush in going into

Afghanistan to root out the Taliban, They also criticized Bush for letting Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora. The Democrats also supported Bush when he got sidetracked going into Iraq. You can go clear back to the Kerry campaign when things got bad Democrats like Kerry and John Murtha were saying we should redeploy our troops to fight the Taliban (the real enemy) in Afganistan. But like I said we
f---ed up going into Iraq and now we own it. Do you want to see us pulling out of Baghdad under fire from Iranian backed terrorists with people hanging from helicopters and planes falling to their death?

[Echo In Light]

53. But by being in Afghanistan the US ends up hurting/killing those already victimized...

...by the Taliban

[doc03]

55. Why don't we just surrender to the Taliban

and thank them for destroying the WTC? If people like you were around in WWII Hitler's grandson would be our Fuhrer today. If Russia launched an unprovoked attack on us and killed 90% of our population I swear there would be people that would blame it on us somehow. The right wingers are right about one thing this country sure does have its loony left.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. The Taliban didn't destroy the WTC

As a woman, I have no use for them, but it is our stupid foreign policy that created them and even encouraged them. Yes, in the 1990s, the CIA was pro-Taliban, because they thought the Taliban were the only force that could bring "stability" to Afghanistan.

Learn some history before you spout corporate media talking points. Assume that everything you hear on CNN or Fox News or any other corporate media outlet is wrong unless substantiated by people who actually know something.

[doc03]

68. I don't care if God created the Taliban, what are we supposed

do just say here we are, kill us. I have to agree with O'Riely and the others about the loony left. I suppose it was our fault Hitler killed 6 million Jews. Of course the Japanese we perfectly justified in making a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The Civil War wasn't justified the southern slave owners were just providing people with employment.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. Your arguments make no sense, and your quoting

of O'Reilly makes me suspicious.

[roughsatori]

117. "I have to agree with O'Riely (sic) and the others about the loony left.."

No wonder your posts display suck a lack of logic.

[doc03]

137. Even O'Riely is right sometimes

the loony left is well represented here on DU. Is there a site for sensible Democrats that don't blame America for all the world's problems? I noticed this last summer during the primary, DU shifted to the loony left, you either support Obama or you're a racist attitude. Hillary Clinton or any other candidates supporters with the exception of Kucinich were treated like dirt. He is doing exactly as he said he would in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where the hell were you during the campaign? How could a President just pull out of Iraq with our tail between our legs? Now anytime Obama doesn't tow the extremist left line he has betrayed you. Get use to it he is going to escalate the war in Afghanistan and isn't going to pull out of Iraq anytime soon. He is going to raise your taxes and double our already catastrophic debt. Big deal he cut the withholding on 95% of Americans, then raises tobacco taxes and who knows what else is in this budget. Give with one hand take back with the other.

[mike_c]

67. oh for pete's sake....

That's not even a reasoned argument. Nazis at the door! Nazis at the door!

This time, it's America that's on the wrong side of the Nuremberg principles, I'm afraid. Folks just can't seem to wrap their heads around that.

[doc03]

69. Nuts n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. As my sig line states

One of my least favorite things about America is the typical American's assumption that we're always the good guys.

[Echo In Light]

76. Easy to see why you side with the Right

[fascisthunter]

96. wait... the Taliban is now Responsible for 9-11?

Before you start calling the left looney you better brush up on your history, because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Talk about being deluded and nuts... "nazis at the door".

[Mari333]

62. then enlist or send your own kids over there. nt

[LiveLiberally]

31. Precipitous withdrawal of western aid and military support after the Soviet Withdrawal in 1989...

are what allowed the Taliban to gain control of Afghanistan in the first place. I didn't vote for this President to repeat our failures, but to replace them with measured policies that will multilaterally increase international security. Isolationism was always an illusion; in today's world it would be a disaster.

[doc03]

34. Exactly, I agree and I think the same would happen to Iraq

if we pulled out tomorrow Iran would move in right behind us.

[eridani]

89. Bullshit. Iran already controls the country through Iraqi elected government

--at least politically. Maliki is a member of the most pro-Iran party that there is in Iraq.

[WI_DEM]

35. Obama has said all along he planned to bring troops home from Iraq, a war that had nothing

to do with 9/11, and increase troops to Afghanistan. This isn't anything new and he never hid it. Do I agree with it? Maybe if it were a few years ago it would make more sense than today. But I'm not sure. I've always believed seeking Bin-Laden and his network was the right thing to do, but Bush side tracked us into Iraq. But now that all these years have passed it may not make sense.

[redqueen]

37. How many other people are sick of this pointless ego-stroking mindlessness?

Explain why something is "forgivable"? What kind of question is that? Seriously!

But people line up to vomit out the well-worn BS.

I supported Kucinich in both elections. I love peace as much as anyone else. I wish we hadn't gone in there to begin with. It should have been an international police action, IMO... but this is bullshit. We didn't elect Kucinich, we elected Obama. And whether or not I find the fact that he had a plan I would rather have not had to support... well those are the facts, and life goes right the hell on.

You want to stop war? Go out there and join a group and start promoting peace. Start telling people how we never should have gone in there... how we should be doing things differently...



But coming here, where we worked SO fucking hard to get this guy elected... and then trying to pin this shit on DEMS?!


It's sad that so many people here don't seem to notice how this shit is being tied to THIS administration.

WE inherited this mess... WE knew the plan to fix it beforehand.


You know what. Forget it. I'm done.

[mike_c]

42. sorry redqueen-- it's Obama's war now....

He has embraced it. He is apparently pursuing the neocon agenda in the region. I don't care what letter he has after his name. He is a war criminal as far as I'm concerned.

U.S. out of its wars of imperialism!

[redqueen]

46. Enjoy pushing the anti-dem spin. I'm going to leave it to you and try to get more Dems elected.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Unfortunately, getting more Dems elected will be useless if

they're Dems who love to talk about how they're "pro-business" and "want a strong defense."

[redqueen]

70. Useless? There's no other good that can be done, or worked for, unless we get it all?

*sigh*

I know, Lydia. I'm anti-DLC. I supported Kucinich before all others in both of the last two elections. I'd rather we not have to deal with the way things are, but we do.

If I could flip a switch and make the Dems everywhere start supporting primary challengers that were more progressive, I would... but I can't do that. I can only work on what I can... and I do.

I guess I just don't see the point in this demonization of the only option we have right now.

Yeah, both parties are sickeningly corporate-sponsored... but with this one, at least we have a chance.


And please don't get me wrong... I'm all for pushing the administration HARD in the direction we want to go. But to me, in this context, that means active demonstrations or campaigns to stop the escalation / change focus / pull out entirely / whatever. I don't see it as being able to make much difference so I'm focusing mostly on single-payer... but if this is someone's bigggest issue then by all means make some noise to change things.

But this?

This seems to me to be nothing more than an effort to spin a horrific, preventable situation onto the Democratic party's shoulders... especially when this isn't news at all - we saw them enable and support the war... and considering the fact that they're the only decent & viable option... well that makes me a bit suspicious and upset.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. I'm lucky in that I have a pretty good Congressional rep, Keith Ellison, but

these days, I'm more about issues than about party labels.

A (D) who votes with the (R)'s most of the time is useless except for determining committee chairs.

[redqueen]

79. That's an alien situation for me.

Down here the Ds act like Rs more often... so I hope we have some moderate republicans down here with your outlook re: party labels.

I hope we get proportional representation sometime relatively soon... and campaign finance reform. I guess those are my next two pet issues next to single-payer care.

Good luck to you, and peace.

[readmoreoften]

121. If it's not Obama's war. Then whose fucking war is it? Do you people believe in accountability?

Apparently not.

[azul]

41. It's not. Period. All resources and energies are needed to build a sustainable

human population structure and un poison the planet.

We don't have time or resources for stupid wars. The future is swinging in swiftly and we're unprepared because we hate each other to death?


(My answer to the question, on first thought, was: 1984, eat your Soma and pipe down.)

[newtothegame]

43. Good post :) n/t

[earth mom]

48. It's NOT acceptable and don't let anyone tell you it is. Killing people for a LIE is genocide.

Obama should know this, and if he doesn't he should talk to Elie Wiesel the holocaust survivor, who Obama's best buddy Oprah interviewed and devoted an entire show to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. The same reason that, to some, the war in Vietnam was forgivable because LBJ was in charge.

For many, party loyalty trumps principles and human decency.

[redqueen]

52. No... reality. What was the alternative to Obama?

What was the alternative to LBJ?

Do people really think that if we'd have nominated Kucinich, he'd have won?


And no, it's not "forgivable"... it's just the world we live in. But thankfully it's changing... very slowly.


Anyway, peace...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. The "not as bad" argument to defend war is mighty thin.

Perhaps, you see escalation of the war in Afghanistan as "change", but to the victims it's the same results as perpetrated by Bush.

The "alternative" to LBJ isn't the question. Just as the alternative to Obama isn't the question. Is the escalation of a lost war forgivable?

Personally, I think that Obama is seeking an exit strategy that will be similar to Nixon's "secret plan". Do everything possible to salvage the situation, and when that inevitably fails, be able to say that "we did what we could" and leave without the appearance of "cut and run".

In the meantime, more needless death and destruction with very dangerous prospects for more war in Pakistan.

[redqueen]

57. For something so thin, it is vitally important. No, this plan isn't ideal. The alternative? McCain.

Until we get reformed election laws, there is no point bemoaning the fact... use the energy instead to work for reformed election laws.

As horrible as all the doom and gloomers in this thread thing the situation is... I see it as improving. Not as much or as fast as we'd like, but I do see it improving slowly. I didn't expect Obama to take on Cheney's moles at the Pentagon in his first 90 days. I do expect that things will not be as bad as they are now in 8 years.

[supernova]

71. That's a good way to put it

"I do expect that things will not be as bad as they are now in 8 years."

I do marvel at the people who thought there would be a 180 degree turn around on every subject overnight.

Not realistic, that.

[redqueen]

73. Not a bit.

I really and truly do not see the point in this... I just don't.

Is this constructive criticism, and I'm just missing it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. Do you think that escalating a lost war is the right path?

Whether he is not as bad as McCain is irrelevant to the discussion.

Whether Bush started it is also irrelevant.

Is he doing the right thing?

[ieoeja]

106. While to some the war in Vietnam was forgivable because they wanted us there.

South Vietnam was fighting an invasion from the North before we got there. Our mistake was taking over the war instead of just assisting South Vietnam.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. we took over the war from the French colonialists and denied the results of an election.

We had no business being in Vietnam for any reason.

[ieoeja]

134. No, South Vietnam was already at war with North Vietnam before we sent combat troops in.

The war between Communist and non-Communist Vietnamese began in 1945, was temporarily halted to fight the French together, then resumed as soon as the French left. The United States would not send in combat troops to assist South Vietnam until several years later.


Beginning in 1069 the Dai Viet invaded Champa (roughly corresponding to what we now know as South Vietnam). In 1471 they conquered the primary Champa kingdom.

Civil War broke out in 1528. By 1627 the kingdom was split with the Trinh ruling most of what would become North Vietnam, and the Nguyen most of South Vietnam. In 1760 the Nguyen conquered the last of the Champa and Khmer kingdoms creating the boundaries of South Vietnam.

In 1802 with French assistance, the Nguyen finally defeated the Trinh putting all of Vietnam under South Vietnamese control. In time the South Vietnamese would begin persecuting the French in their midst prompting France to invade in 1858 finally conquering the country in 1887.

In 1940 Japan conquered the country. When Japan surrendered to the allies in 1945, the Japanese largely stood by and watched as various Vietnamese factions fought for control of the country. Britain moved in to disarm the Japanese and restore order for a few months before letting the French retake control.

By 1947 the Stalinist Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh -- a South Vietnamese Ngyuen ironically -- had consolidated the independent Vietnamese forces under their control and begun fighting the French. After the Communists won in China, the Chinese began assisting the Vietnamese who finally defeated the French in 1954.

Vietnam was once again divided into two Vietnamese states: the north under Viet Minh control and the south under control of the non-Communist rebels. France and the Viet Minh agreed that the two would be unified following supervised elections.

The non-Communist Vietnamese never agreed to any such thing. So no unification election was ever held.

By 1960 the South and North were at war with the United States supplying the South; and the Soviet Union, the North. Eventually the United States would become directly involved and bear the brunt of the fight against North Vietnam until 1973.

Following the departure of US combat troops in 1973, the North again attacked South Vietnam. The war would last two more years before the South was conquered. Because, contrary to a lot of leftwing propaganda, most of the South Vietnamese wanted their own independant country. In fact, between 1954 and 1960 over two million North Vietnamese immigrated to the South to escape Communism.

[Cid_B]

56. Losing is not an acceptable option... nt

[Mari333]

58. there was nothing to win. nt

[spoony]

104. Losing what? More lives? I agree, then.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. No, it's not OK, no matter who does it

The only honorable way to deal with Afghanistan would be

1. Buy the poppy crop, sell some of it to pharmaceutical companies and Third World countries for necessary medical uses

2. Pay reparations to every Afghan family, especially those headed by widows or by older siblings raising younger siblings

3. Invite NGOs from moderate Islamic countries (Tunisia, Bangladesh, Malaysia) to come in and work with the people

4. Get the troops the hell out of there.

5. Send a proposed Constitutional amendment to Congress, one saying that no American troops may be sent overseas without the express permission of Congress and that if such permission is granted, the age-appropriate first- and second-degree relatives of Congresscritters will be subject to a military draft. (That ought to stop the "let's send some working class kids to die" mentality that prevails now.)

All of this would cost far less than fighting the current war and would do much to reestablish America's reputation in the world.

[supernova]

64. Because Afghanistan and Pakistan are in danger

of slipping into lawlessness.

Afghanistan barely functions as a country.

Pakistan could very well slide down the black hole if they can't keep their very weak gov't insititutions functions, making both places even more susceptible to the groups like the Taliban.

Don't forget, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Do you want the Taliban to have nuclear weapons?

Let me rephrase that.

Do you want the Taliban or other fundie groups having nuclear weapons so close to India?

[Mari333]

72. let India take care of it

we were the idiots that funded and armed the fucking Taliban in the first place. Now we are suddenly against them.
what utter horseshit.
its not our job to police the world. right now its our job to APOLOGIZE to the whole fucking world for being such asshole warmongering bastards.(and yes, we have nuclear weapons..maybe when we dump those we can ask other people to dump theirs)

[supernova]

80. It's more complicated than that

Yes, we stupidly armed the mujahadeen in the first place (x-ref "Charlie Wilson's War") . Wish we hadn't, but that has already past. I didn't like it then, and don't now. But we are where we are.

This area has the potential to become the world's first HOT nuclear war.

If you don't like conventional warfare, missiles, and drone air raids, hold on to your bomb shelter.

India will take care of it. But they and Pakistan will use nuclear weapons to do it. Yes, it's very possible. They have almost come to blows before (over Kashmir), as recently as 2007, iirc I could be off by a year.

And before you say, that's OK, let 'em. Remember that radioactive dust clouds will carry for hundreds of miles, harming many more people than just in the conflict area for decades to come.

We cannot let this area slide into chaos. Perhaps it will anyway, but we must try. And we have to do it in a way that is supportive of the people in the area, not as imperialists. That is the direction I hope the president takes.

It would be great, fantastic to live in a world without war, I'd love to live there too. But we humans aren't there yet.

[jillan]

84. Excellent post.

But I have a feeling that some people won't understand.

[spoony]

107. By that logic shouldn't we have invaded Iran, too?

It also sounds frighteningly similar to the "evidence will be a mushroom cloud" rhetoric against Iraq. By what process do we decide which of the dozens of "lawless" countries/regimes we'll expend military lives battling?

[supernova]

65. Dupe

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. Because the President was elected while promising to do so

[bamacrat]

81. The only reason I can think of is...

Pres. Obama is a smart capable leader and maybe he will manage these wars well, ending the campaign in Iraq and setting and attaining a small goal. I think he should set a goal to strive for something definitely attainable, not democracy, but maybe a new sense of security and decreased al qieda influence. THEN LEAVE. But theres money to be made so even if Obama wanted to end both of them and bring all the troops we have stationed around the worl, he couldnt.

[Fire1]

82. Philosophically, war is never an acceptable answer to conflict.

As far as I'm concerned, theoretically and realistically, in THIS case, it is acceptable. Not because our President 'says' it is but because we are dealing with extremists and zealots of the worst kind, who've been allowed to move freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan. "Pakistan is a gov't with no country and Afghanistan is a country with no gov't.," John Kerry, 1/13/09, Senate Confirmation hearing of SOS Hillary Clinton. Essentially, you cannot deal with one without dealing with the other. Unchecked, we are likely to have a repeat of 9/11 and I, for one, am not willing to take that chance. Apparently, some are comfortable with that possibility, but I am not.

[the other one]

86. Al Queda!!!

Why do you hate america?

[Odin2005]

88. Because the Taliban must be provented from taking over Pakistan at all costs.

Taliban with nukes = Bye Bye Delhi.

[the other one]

90. Sounds like India's problem, or

this is a job for USA: World Police!!!

[EFerrari]

126. The group in Pakistan is a different group with a different command

structure and different objectives. What you're suggesting is like sending the police to Safeway to prevent a robbery at the 7/11.

[rosesaylavee]

95. Walking away when we have destroyed their infrastructure

is neither good policy or humane.

[smoogatz]

97. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do in Afghanistan.

Did you miss that part of the campaign, or what?

[spoony]

110. Apparently you don't understand the pertinent question

of why it is an acceptable escalating war under Obama if it wasn't under Bush. This isn't about that tired old hag of an argument you just trotted out. I'd be careful if I were you, because that paper-thin rationale won't hold up much longer.

[smoogatz]

111. Again, you appear not to have been paying attention.

Obama's rationale all along has been that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjustified (no WMD, remember?). But the prospect of Afghanistan falling back into Taliban control is obviously problematic, given the results the last time that happened. And I'd be careful if I were you about issuing implied threats or warnings to DUers who express ideas you dislike. That's a good way to get your ass tombstoned.

[spoony]

115. Lol, you've got to be kidding.

"Implied threats"? That tells me you really overvalue your worth. I was saying your stupid "he campaigned on it so it's ok" rhetoric was dissolving so you'd better make proper use of the few more times you'll be able to trot it out. Lol. ("I'd be careful if I were you, because that paper-thin rationale won't hold up much longer." Did you read the whole sentence?)

And it is a stupid argument. We're talking about why it's acceptable. You respond by saying he said he'd do it. So? Why does that make escalating an already failed war acceptable? How does saying you'll continue an old mistake make it okay that you're doing so? We didn't sign a fucking contract with him by voting for him saying we supported everything he said, and one of the main problems of his campaign was his bone-throwing to the war-lovers. We all hoped it was politics, turns out it wasn't.

[smoogatz]

118. If you disagreed so vehemently with one of the central tenets of his

foreign policy platform, I'm surprised you voted for him. Talk about stupid. But whatever--you and I have a fundamental disagreement here--I actually think that preventing the re-constitution of the Taliban as a significant miltary and political force in Afghanistan is a good idea, and that the fundamental mistake Bush made there was not in driving out al Qaeda and the Taliban but in pulling out too early in his idiot rush to invade Iraq.

[spoony]

119. Actually the central tenet of his foreign policy was diplomacy

Which he's doing a pretty good job with.

And now I'm "stupid" for voting for him if I didn't want more war? What was I supposed to do? Vote for McCain? Yeah that'd be a better shot for peace right? What you don't seem to get is that people can vote for the better candidate AND disagree with them AND want them to change the policies they disagree with. Would you call his gay supporters "stupid" for voting for him even though he is for civil unions versus marriage equality?

[EFerrari]

125. The Taliban has been regrouped for years now so there is no question

of "prevention" here.

And there is no way to "drive out" the Taliban. Have you ever seen a map of Afghanistan?

[Orsino]

99. I'm not sure that it is.

If the escalation can somehow result in fewer deaths and less overall misery, that would be a point in its favor. I'm not optimistic on this point.

[alarimer]

102. Because he is OUR warmonger now.

It was bad, you know, when THEIR warmonger was doing it, but now it's a-ok.

Well there are plenty of Democratic hawks around. They are not any more right than the other guys just because they have a D after their name. It is the primary reason why I am not a Democrat anymore.

[malaise]

105. It is not n/t

[Tim01]

109. Before he was elected he said he would do more in Afghanistan.

He is doing exactly what he said he would from the very start.

Pakistan is his new war,though.

[Marie26]

116. It was promised?

I don't remember Obama ever promising to get out of Afganistan, instead he was more about how we have to get out of Iraq so that we can put *more* troops in Afganistan.

[MellowDem]

127. Because Afghanistan is the just, legal war

and the one we did not enter on false premise.

[EFerrari]

131. We bombed civilians in Afghanistan to punish them for an agreement

between the Taliban and bin Laden -- or, more probably, between the Taliban and the ISI. How is that just?

[MellowDem]

135. No we didn't....

we bombed civilians on accident, not as punishment. That situation is not just, but war always has innocent victims. You might as well call nature unjust.

[EFerrari]

139. Right. All those dead civilians are just an accident!

And, fyi, war is not = Nature

[MellowDem]

140. Right. All those dead civilians are intentional!

And, fyi, war is very natural.

[dem629]

130. Sorry. I could do it in Spanish, but not plain English.

[LooseWilly]

143. Simple: that's how we got out of the Great Depression

Maybe it's Obama's Plan B, in case the stimulus isn't enough... he'll fix the economy the old fashioned way. With a big ass military.

:sarcasm:

Just a theory...

[OneBlueSky]

145. it's about preserving the status quo . . .

the corporate/government oligarchy likes things the way they are now, thank you very much . . . they're all rich as Rockafellers and have a direct spigot from the U.S. Treasury to their own pockets . . . change any of that and you impact their bottom lines -- and under no circumstances will they allow that to happen . . . wouldn't be American! don'tcha know . . .

in all political discussion, never forget that . . .

- "defense" contractors are making hundreds of billions of dollars for helping to wage not one, but two wars . . . (isn't Sen. Feinstein's hubby a "defense" contractor?) . . .

- health insurance companies are siphoning a third or more of every one of our healthcare dollars into their pockets and providing nothing of value in return . . . NOTHING! . . .

- agribusiness is busy ensuring that only patented food crops will be grown for sale -- with them as the patent-holders . . . (in places like Iraq and India, the move to prohibit seed saving has led to untold numbers of farmer suicides) . . .

- banks and credit card companies can charge whatever they wish for interest, impose monetary penalties for the slightest infractions, and generally not have to tell the government anything about what they're doing or how they're doing it . . .

- retail giants are quite comfortable importing every single item they sell from China, thus negating the need for American manufacturers AND putting their smaller competition out of business . . .

- regardless of the industry, American oligarchs know that they will be taken care of by Congress -- including being allowed to write the very legislation that, theoretically, is supposed to protect us by regulating what they do and how they do it . . .

- and on, and on, and on . . .

collectively, this and much more is what is known as the status quo . . . any attempt to mess with said staus quo will be met with fierce resistance -- armed if necessary . . .