What is Obama waiting for? LET'S GET OUT!

[Anarchist420]

The problem is that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was never even for national security as if such a thing existed. Bush wanted America to suffer a huge attack. Pretending he didn't, he would've broken long standing tradition (i.e., it would've been the first time the American state went to war to defend the subjects of America since the Revolutionary War). I mean, if you look at how much the U.S. government waged war against them before the tragic 9/11/01 attacks, then it becomes obvious that it had been planned for a long time.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well you can bash Obama all you want about getting out, when and how.
But if any of the republicans running get in, we will all be up to our crappers in war and new war.
U can take that to the bank!

Thing about the past decade is, the wars are not what killed our men.

Speaking of Iraq in particular we had ~300 casualties two months after invading. The mission was accomplished, we should have gone home that day Bush was on that aircraft carrier. Instead it is nation building, parking our soldiers in the streets of foreign countries, that has cost us over 36,000 casualties AFTER the war was won.

The lesson is that you do not leave your troops there to be killed. You pull them out ASAP after the killing of enemy military / government forces is complete.

You give them ruins and tell them to rebuild and start over with their own blood and coin. Not ours.

 

[ky54]

Interesting. The farther we get from 9/11 the more Bush invaded Afghanistan for no apparent reason. It didn't take long to rewrite history.

 

[Jhhnn]

The lesson is that you do not leave your troops there to be killed. You pull them out ASAP after the killing of enemy military / government forces is complete.

You give them ruins and tell them to rebuild and start over with their own blood and coin. Not ours.

Yeh, that worked out peachy in the wake of WW1.

We know all too well how to wage war. What we lack, particularly what the Neocons lack, is the ability to wage peace by co-opting existing socio-political elements to fill the power vacuum left in the wake of war, and to use them to shape the attitudes of the population to serve the purposes of peace.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Interesting. The farther we get from 9/11 the more Bush invaded Afghanistan for no apparent reason. It didn't take long to rewrite history.

It was invaded because it provided aid and shelter to those who attacked us. We invaded because of support of terrorists who did real damage. Afterwords Bush developed amnesia and all but abandoned that mission in favor of Saddam thereby dooming the original mission. We've been there ever since, throwing lives away for a futile effort. That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting. The farther we get from 9/11 the more Bush invaded Afghanistan for no apparent reason. It didn't take long to rewrite history.

Oh, please. Bush invaded Afghanistan as a political springboard for the invasion of Iraq. The demand that the Taliban govt deliver up Bin Laden & Al Qaeda was absurd, impossible for them to fulfill. The fact that we then stationed fewer than 40K troops there for years after the invasion tells use that pacification was a joke, and that the stated purpose of invasion was a lie.

 

[ky54]

So I'm correct. 9/11 never happened.

 

[bearxor]

I am not sure I would classify him as a Neocon but I was bummed out that he embraced many of GWB's policies.

This is what happens after an election when you're not the incumbent. You talk a real good game during the campaign, you get elected, you get in to office and then you get briefed. Then you say "oh shit, I had no idea!"

Then you get yelled at for embracing too many of the former president's policies.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is what happens after an election when you're not the incumbent. You talk a real good game during the campaign, you get elected, you get in to office and then you get briefed. Then you say "oh shit, I had no idea!"

Then you get yelled at for embracing too many of the former president's policies.

I missed the part about why we need to still be there.

 

[cybrsage]

If Obama were to pull out the troops after the election, I'd forgive him for everything he's done

Even after refusing to shut down Gitmo, and refusing to put laws up to be seen for a few days before he signs them, and renewing the Patriot Act?

You are very easy to please, considering Obama is Bush-lite.

 

[Jhhnn]

Even after refusing to shut down Gitmo, and refusing to put laws up to be seen for a few days before he signs them, and renewing the Patriot Act?

You are very easy to please, considering Obama is Bush-lite.

And you'd prefer what, exactly? You political outlook is clearly even further Right than Obama's...

Maybe that's why Righties hate him so desperately, because he's too much like them, because, like Clinton, he "stole their issues!"

Repubs would scream bloody murder at shutting down Gitmo, and htey're the ones who insisted that renewal of the Patriot Act be an all or nothing deal, remember?

Put up laws for ridicule a few days before signing them? Why? Congress passed 'em, and he's already made up his mind, but do whine on...

Whatever Obama does is wrong, because he's doing it, right?

 

[dank69]

I missed the part about why we need to still be there.

That information is on a need to know basis.

 

[ky54]

And you'd prefer what, exactly? You political outlook is clearly even further Right than Obama's...

Maybe that's why Righties hate him so desperately, because he's too much like them, because, like Clinton, he "stole their issues!"

Repubs would scream bloody murder at shutting down Gitmo, and htey're the ones who insisted that renewal of the Patriot Act be an all or nothing deal, remember?

Put up laws for ridicule a few days before signing them? Why? Congress passed 'em, and he's already made up his mind, but do whine on...

Whatever Obama does is wrong, because he's doing it, right?

Why does politics today have to be a zero-sum game? If you agree/disagree with a president you must immediately labeled a neoconlibtardstaistwingnut? I don't mean this a criticism of you personally but I think you can understand my point. I agree with Obama that we should leave Afghanistan posthaste so I must be a liberal etcetcetc. I disagree with Obama on his inroads into our privacy so now I'm a neocon etcetcetc. No one should agree with anyone 100% of the time. If we did the divorce rate would be 0%. Agree?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That information is on a need to know basis.

And it's near Tikrit, right?

 

[piasabird]

Now Hillary wants to get us into another war in Syria. Wasnt supplying humanitarian aid the same reason we got involved in Somalia? You see how much good we did in that country?

 

[ky54]

Now Hillary wants to get us into another war in Syria. Wasnt supplying humanitarian aid the same reason we got involved in Somalia? You see how much good we did in that country?

The stakes are high in Syria maybe even higher than Iran. Geography, the long ago lost art of reading a simple map (GPS it kids), plays a very key to role in how things have gone down there. People have wondered why China and, more importantly, Russia vetoed a measure to put more stringent sanctions on Assad and his henchmen? The answer is simple once you look at a map - the Russians only Med Sea base is in Syria and they aren't about to let anyone chase them out. Hillary, et al, can pout all they want but Assad is free to butcher as many protesters, journalists, etc as he wants because he is untouchable in much the same way a mafia kingpin was. Sure, you can kill him but there will be hell to pay and that's a price neither the US or any other country is willing to pay.

 

[Nebor]

The lesson is that you do not leave your troops there to be killed. You pull them out ASAP after the killing of enemy military / government forces is complete.

You give them ruins and tell them to rebuild and start over with their own blood and coin. Not ours.

Exactly. "Start over. If you do it wrong again, we'll come knock it down again."

Instead we've basically rewarded the nation of Afghanistan for 9/11, flooding their country with cash and presents. And presented tens of thousands of easy targets for them to attack every day.

 

[ky54]

Yep, just like we did in Japan and Germany.

 

[Nebor]

Yep, just like we did in Japan and Germany.

I wouldn't go so far as advocating the use of nuclear bombs on Afghanistan, but you've got the right idea.

 

[Jhhnn]

Exactly. "Start over. If you do it wrong again, we'll come knock it down again."

Instead we've basically rewarded the nation of Afghanistan for 9/11, flooding their country with cash and presents. And presented tens of thousands of easy targets for them to attack every day.

Gawd I hope that's sarcasm. The cash gets sucked right out of the country by Karzai & cronies, not to mention that bombs, rockets, artillery shells & bullets aren't really very nice presents. Afghanistan is a nation of widows & hungry children, thanks to our "help".

Afghanistan isn't really a "nation" in a sense we can understand. Yeh, sure, it looks like one on a map, but outside of the major cities it's pure tribalism, their version of "States' Rights" & it always has been. Whatever we do at the level of national govt doesn't get to the hinterlands, because the govt we set up is utterly corrupt, & because the Tribes don't respect them, anyway.

It's not that Afghanistan couldn't have been pacified, but rather that the Bushistas never really tried, never put the required effort into it, never really went out into the countryside with clinics, courts, police, roads, irrigation, engineering help to rebuild, tractors for villagers, never found out what the tribes need & want, at all. Never really went to the village elders to build their trust & cooperation. By the time Obama showed up, it was like trying to male an abortion into a live birth, or a steer into a bull...

You know it better than I do.

 

[Nebor]

Gawd I hope that's sarcasm. The cash gets sucked right out of the country by Karzai & cronies, not to mention that bombs, rockets, artillery shells & bullets aren't really very nice presents. Afghanistan is a nation of widows & hungry children, thanks to our "help".

Afghanistan isn't really a "nation" in a sense we can understand. Yeh, sure, it looks like one on a map, but outside of the major cities it's pure tribalism, their version of "States' Rights" & it always has been. Whatever we do at the level of national govt doesn't get to the hinterlands, because the govt we set up is utterly corrupt, & because the Tribes don't respect them, anyway.

It's not that Afghanistan couldn't have been pacified, but rather that the Bushistas never really tried, never put the required effort into it, never really went out into the countryside with clinics, courts, police, roads, irrigation, engineering help to rebuild, tractors for villagers, never found out what the tribes need & want, at all. Never really went to the village elders to build their trust & cooperation. By the time Obama showed up, it was like trying to male an abortion into a live birth, or a steer into a bull...

You know it better than I do.

We could have killed the bad guys and left. Or we could have built them up like Germany or Japan. But instead we half-assed everything, and now it's just a waste of money and lives.

FWIW the military has been doing all of those things with villages and cities for a long time, but as soon as you build something nice, it gets blown up or used for nefarious purposes. Roads and irrigation are used to hide bombs, clinics and schools are used as fortresses by AAF...

If we had started off with the type of focus that kicked in around 2008, we might have succeeded (maybe.) But by then the Afghans had pretty much written us off. They're just counting down the days until we leave.

 

[werepossum]

Thing about the past decade is, the wars are not what killed our men.

Speaking of Iraq in particular we had ~300 casualties two months after invading. The mission was accomplished, we should have gone home that day Bush was on that aircraft carrier. Instead it is nation building, parking our soldiers in the streets of foreign countries, that has cost us over 36,000 casualties AFTER the war was won.

The lesson is that you do not leave your troops there to be killed. You pull them out ASAP after the killing of enemy military / government forces is complete.

You give them ruins and tell them to rebuild and start over with their own blood and coin. Not ours.

Exactly right. Better to take one big hit to our reputation that to take over a decade of continuous hits while spending a ton of money we don't have and having killed thousands of our finest Americans. Destroy the infrastructure they use to train and deploy the terrorists. Hell, they're happiest in the seventh century anyway. What's electricity and clean water but a Western attack on Islam?

 

[cybrsage]

And you'd prefer what, exactly?

I would prefer him to either do what he promised, or come out and say he made promises without understanding the complete picture, and now he sees he cannot keep these promises.

I would love to see his explaination as to why he cannot wait a few days until signing laws, like he promised (and immediately violated wrt the Obamacare law). That would be some creating dancing.

I would also like to hear his explaination as to why the commander-in-chief cannot order the military to move military prisoners to a new location and close a military prison.

Is it too much to ask that a president do what he promised to do? Apparently, you are fine with being lied to about easily done things, I am not.

 

[cybrsage]

The stakes are high in Syria maybe even higher than Iran. Geography, the long ago lost art of reading a simple map (GPS it kids), plays a very key to role in how things have gone down there. People have wondered why China and, more importantly, Russia vetoed a measure to put more stringent sanctions on Assad and his henchmen? The answer is simple once you look at a map - the Russians only Med Sea base is in Syria and they aren't about to let anyone chase them out. Hillary, et al, can pout all they want but Assad is free to butcher as many protesters, journalists, etc as he wants because he is untouchable in much the same way a mafia kingpin was. Sure, you can kill him but there will be hell to pay and that's a price neither the US or any other country is willing to pay.

You know, Obama could pull a big win if he simply said this to the public. He could say:

"We want to go in and help the people of Syria, but Russia has a large naval base in Syria and if we go in, we will end up fighting Russia and a lot of good people could die. We call upon Russia to aid in stopping this mass slaughter of civilians, as is the duty of all civilized nations."

Throw it in their lap. It would both shame Russia (good to get hard core conservatives on your side) and will get Obama off the hook.

EDIT: Of course, Obama may have to grovel to Putin later, but he is good at that.

 

[ky54]

And don't even start on what Obama said he would do about the Patriot Act:

Revise the PATRIOT Act. Barack Obama believes that we must provide law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate, disrupt, and capture terrorists, but he also believes we need real oversight to avoid jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans. There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the current administration has abused the powers given to it by the PATRIOT Act. A March 2007 Justice Department audit found the FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information about American citizens. As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.

The .pdf is linked on this site:

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php...-the-patriot-act-with-effects-that-linger-on/

The article then goes on to talk about that Obama sided with Republicans to further weaken civil liberties in 2009 and in 2010 signs into law the same Patriot Act unchanged. It was so bad that the NY Times wrote a scathing editorial about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/opinion/08thu1.html