Obama is full of it

Why are they on the decline? Is that because the Taliban is on the incline? People are scared for their lives. In a country where you die just for talking to us, I would suspect the numbers to be on the decline. They will come to your village, kill you, rape the women, and hurt the children.How can you guys support this kind of behavior?Nobody should have to fear for their lives just for talking to us. Couple that with their past history of aggression towards us, we have no choice but to be involved there.These situations will not go away, but intensify if we leave. It seems simple to me. I believe Obama is learning the truth, and that is why we are not out of Iraq yet, and that we need to send more into Afghanistan. His campaign promises were visions of grandeur. Welcome to the real world.Why is it that we have PETA to protect the fish from getting hurt, but we can't protect basic human rights?
Don't hurt the fish.....screw the Afghanistan women and children
Save a tree......kill a baby.There is no consistency in liberal minded thinkers, and no logic. All I see is hypocrites.

Only if you assume liberals are monolithic in their beliefs. I'm a liberal, and I think PETA is bat-shit crazy. I'm not hypocritical, nor am I inconsistent. There are views that could be considered liberal that don't mesh with other views that could be considered liberal, but that's true of all sides.On the conservative side, how can you be pro-life and pro-war? Except in a very few circumstances (and Iraq was not one of them) wars do more harm than good.

You're right. We should just drop a bomb on the whole area and get rid of the Taliban... and the women and children, too. That way, no one can hurt them again. Do you mean the same history that involves the US helping train Bin Laden and giving rise to the Taliban so they could fight the Russians? - Or should we ignore that part of their history? PETA is not a government organization, they're a private group of nut-jobs who use media hype to promote their particular brand of "animal rights." - (While I don't agree with their tactics, I do respect their efforts.) You don't seem to understand that the US involvement in Afghanistan has given the Taliban an equal position in the (soon to be) *new* government in Afghanistan.It's the US's fault (I should be specific and say, Bush's fault) that the Taliban has risen to political status in that country. They didn't have it before we invaded, now the people are willing to allow them a position in the *new* government. How does that sound to you, RR? Close minded people usually see things their way and their way only...- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

No, that's exactly backwards. The Taliban is on the rise BECAUSE the Afghani people want us out.Just like YOU would want a foreign military force tramping around YOUR country to get out!

I apologize for lumping a group of people together. I didn't mean to come across that way.

I never implied or suggested that.If someone ran me over with a car, should I sue the car manufacture? Please, if we train ppl to defend themselves, and then they use it for wrong purposes, the blame rest solely on them. Those kind of actions based have been going on for a long time over there. That same group of nuts are most likely tree huggers, and anti-war type people. They most likely would us out of the war, yet want basic human rights at the same time. That is just not true. The Taliban was in power, and were giving safe harbor to Al-Queda, and when the ISAF invaded it was 64,500 troops and 42 countries involved. Not "Bush". I will never forget.

quote:

---

There have been multiple accounts of human rights violations in Afghanistan. The fallout of the U.S. led invasion, including a resurgence in Taliban forces, record-high drug production, and re-armed warlords, has led to a threat to the well-being and rights of hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghan citizens, according to Human Rights Watch.

---

War in Afghanistan (2001—2021) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The war has been less successful in achieving the goal of restricting al-Qaeda's movement than anticipated. Since 2006, Afghanistan has seen threats to its stability from increased Taliban-led insurgent activity, record-high levels of illegal drug production, and a fragile government with limited control outside of Kabul.

---

Edited by riVeRraT, : Fix quotes

Um, I would want a foreign force invading if they could secure my rights as an individual, and secure my freedom. Not only that I would join with them in a heart beat. Why do you think America was started in the first place? What you are saying is just not true, and you need to back up your claims.

Hey Jazzns,Thanks for the reply. Again, there is no need to "misrepresent you", as we are generally in agreement, and it seems we are repeating ourselves . . . "Past CENTURY"? Oh dear. You don't seem to be reading my links I am providing. As my previous Iraq example has shown, if history is fully disregarded, then a successful strategy is doomed. I am NOT surprised or shocked by this fact. Obama and his supporters seem to be. Yes, yes, and yes. Again, I agree with you that Obama had campaign pledged that. Yes, he did follow through with his campaign promise by escalating the war in Afghanistan. I and his supporters are NOT surprised about THAT part. I AM surprised so many people fell for his supposed "different", "much better" and "analytically superier" strategy would be successful. In reality, it is no different than Bush Jr's. So many civilians are being killed by US attacks, the population has decided to accept the LESSER EVIL . . . the Taliban. Obama has effectively given the enemy victory by a continued muddled escalation strategy. I am NOT shocked or surprised about this part either. Perhaps you are not as surprised either because in your OPINION, you ALSO have wrote that it would be better for US to withdraw. The US military budget is equal to the rest of the world combined. When DEMS/REPUBS are conditioned to see a MILITARY solution to EVERY problem, there should be no surprise to the fiasco conclusions in Iraq and Afghanistan.Somewhat off-topic: Anyone see the movie "Osama"? Story of an Afghan girl who pretends to be a boy to fool the Taliban from destroying her family. Sad, horrible story. Based on true stories. Just how bad does the US have to suck for the Afghan people to choose the Taliban over the US troops?

Ermmm, he has neither signed it or has said he intends to sign it. At the very least, he doesn't see it as an urgency. Supposedly . . .
"The United States refuses to sign the treaty because it does not offer a "Korean exception". But, nearly the entire rest of the world sees how landmines murder women and children, and they prefer to outlaw landmines.Ottawa Treaty - WikipediaI've been to Cambodia. US landmines continue to maim and kill civilians. In the countryside, amputee children are everywhere begging. Unlike virtually every civilized country in the world, the US takes no responsibility for its casualties caused by its landmines. It's deplorable. What other conclusion can there be? Jazzns, Did you read any of my links? ANY? (I'll include them again, below). During the Israel invasion into Gaza, January 2009, Israel troops used US-made phosphorus weapons on women and children CIVILIANS. Not only was that an illegal war act, but the entire assault was illegal: collective punishment IS a war crime. Yet there was no condemnation from Obama. SOS Clinton only shameful words were that the Israelites had a "right to defend themselves" (by murdering women and children). Obama/US continues to sell weapons to Israel. I ask again, what other conclusion besides "Obama, at least TACITLY, approves the murder of civilians" can there be?I think I am HARDLY using hyperbole. I understand you disagree.Human Rights Watch: Israel Used White Phosphorus Against People of Gaza.
The U.S government is complicit in any war crimes committed by Israel in its use of white phosphorus.
.../5473-human-rights-watch-israel-used-white-phosphorus-against-people-of-gazaIsrael Used White Phosphorus —Made in USA—on Gazans
http://allisonkilkenny.wordp.../israel-used-white-phosphorusIn the view of Human Rights Watch the use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas in Gaza contravenes international humanitarian law.
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=15350Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes
The United States government, which supplied Israel with its white phosphorus munitions, should also conduct an investigation to determine whether Israel used it in violation of the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said.
http://www.internationalnetworkforpeace.org/spip.php?arti...white phosphorus israel photos (WARNING, very graphic)
white p - Google Search...Both the United States and Israel routinely use illegal weapons against civilian populations in the Middle East, including firing depleted uranium shells into city structures (roads, buildings, bridges, etc.), thereby contaminating the region with latent radiation for the next few thousand years.
.../doctor-decries-israels-use-of-illegal-weapons-in-assault-on-gaza.htmlDetailed evidence has emerged of Israel's extensive use of US-made weaponry during its war in Gaza last month, including white phosphorus artillery shells, 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles.
Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups. It called on the Obama administration to suspend military aid to Israel.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/23Israel faces heat over white phosphorus
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

Yes you are in fact still misrepresenting me becuase my point was that nobody made the promise to solve all of Afganistan's problems. Past, centry, all of history, whatever. America's interest in Afganistan IS IN FACT a counter terrorism interest regardless if we stay or go. I happen to believe that we should be spending > 90% of the effort we are putting in now on economic development but I am not going to throw Obama under the bus for every single thing I disagree with him about.(As an aside, I have not heard anybody suggest what I think would be a good idea which is to legalize the poppy farms for legitimate purposes. I think that would be a really good place start.) That is STILL not what I was talking about. I was criticizing that many people are complaining that it "isn't fixed yet!" Even if I don't agree with the current plan or even its prospects for success, I don't think it is honest to proclaim that Obama has not followed through with what he claimed he would do. Thats all. Period.You and I will apparrently continue to argumentativly agree with each other about our opinion that something different SHOULD be done. IMO, Obama is in the same position as LBJ. He is a decent man with the right ideas for America bogged down in a war that I don't believe he inherantly wants to be fighting. I can't give you more than my opinion on that. I have in fact met the man for what that is worth which I realize might not be much so don't berate me on it. No disagreements here. I would only like to add that WE condition them to do that. There is a very good reason that Kusinich and Nader did not win, even enough to make the claim that there is support for an agressive peace canidate. The only person who came close was Ron Paul and his basis for de-escalation was on primitive isolationist grounds. As much as we can prove that American's are in fact pro-peace, they demonstrably will not vote for a pro-peace canidate. It is a flaw in Obama that I will readily admit but I don't have the illusion that the progressive canidates that I support have to be perfect, nor does the rest of the progressive movement or else we would be talking about President John McCains failures in Afganistan instead.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Very much so for the same reason I don't believe that Rosevelt or Eisenhower approved of it despite the fact that it was explicitly part of our war strategy in WWII.A little bit out of order in my reply... Is basically an admission that you are using hyperbole. It is your projection and therefore your opinion. When you can produce a statment or policy position of Obama's declaring his opposition to the land mine treaty then I will retract and stand right next to you in your outrage.But I STILL would not proclaim that a man agrees with killing innocents. I don't believe that Bush agreed with killing innocents. It is a slanderous charge that only serves to diminish the very legitimate arguments you have for why US war policy needs to change.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Hmm.Jazzns, thanks for the on-going and interesting discussion. Yes, I also sense that we are in "argumentative agreement". Obama's campaign pledge was to end the Afghan war (through military escalation). Can we at least agree to this? IMO, by not considering ALL other problems (such as full history of Afghanistan), Obama will not solve ANY problem. The problems are very deep, and interwoven (see below). Without a very complex analysis of ALL the problemS, Obama's sole military solution will not work. I criticised his muddled military "solution" one second into his presidency, and I will criticise his muddled military "solution" eight years into the future. Yeah, that seems to be an American passion throughout the world (no matter how democratic the nation). However, particularly in Afghanistan, counter insurgency was always of LOW importance to the US. Why would the US continue to murder wedding parties in an attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people? Doesn't make sense, this would always create more terrorists (I keep asking, who besides riVeRraT doesn't understand this?). America's MOST IMPORTANT interest in Afghanistan has always been about energy resources. Bush Jr. Administration invited Taliban into US to make energy deals. When the Taliban couldn't produce a stable enough environment for corporations/legal contracts to hold, the US knew it needed a convenient excuse to get inside Afghanistan. The Bush Jr, administration PRAYED for a "Pearl Harbor" event that would allow the public to accept military intervention into Iraq/Afghanistan/middle east. Viola, 9/11, prayer granted. I read an excellent article detailing this several months back, I'll try to find an equivilant article for you if interested. As in Iraq, oil/gas/energy resources are the BIGGEST reason for ANY US intervention in Afghanistan. There is no difference between Bush Jr. and Obama here. They are both fighting for the "nation's interest" (corporate elite's profits/military industrial complex). The US will never care about the plight/human right violations of Iraqis, Afghanis, Sudenese, Somalians, Rwandans, East Timorese, Armenians, etc. Again, we are in agreement. Obama did escalate military involvement into Afghanistan like he said he would. Still no argument here.Obama's campaign pledge was to end the Afghan war (through military escalation). However, bringing peace to Afghanistan requires efforts/solutions/understandings into:
1. Disburse/eliminate Taliban and Al Queda
2. Make poppy seed less financial rewarding (see below)
3. End extreme poverty which attracts terrorist mentality
4. Share profits of gas pipelines and energy resources to indigenous peoples, EQUALLY
5. Stop slaughtering innocent civilians
6. tribal loyalties/history
7. ?
8. ?
9. ?I haven't seen/heard of any earnest actions into these problems sponsored by Obama. This is probably a bad idea, as it is in South America when hyper-subsidizing legal crops in other areas, to the point of profitlessness for peasant farmers, then farmers are forced to grow illegal crops for subsistence. Or when the market "forces" corn growers to grow crops for fuel uses, while people starve. However, if it would reduce the US military from murdering wedding parties, I would at least consider it. Do you have a link that fully details this strategy?

Fair enough. I'll temporarily retract my "Obama pro-landmine" assertion.But not my "Obama pro-Palestinean women and children slaughter" assertion. Please re-read over the phosphorus weapons links I provided.

I'll get to some more replies tomorrow but I am curious as to your thoughts about the pro-peace canidacy argument that I made.Don't think for a minute that I am trying to excuse anyone Obama or otherwise, but I wonder if there is any nuance whatsoever to your opinion taking into account what I said there. This is regarding both Afganistan policy and the war enterprise/treaty discussion.Obama is not the end-all-be-all, but I believe he is a step in the right direction. We have a lot of things to fix and democracy is an inherantly flawed process in which to do it. It just happens to be the best process that we have.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

No. I think also made it pretty clear that the solution to Afganistan is more than a military one. There is a security issue which he is taking the conventional approach to which is what I think is wrong, but I think he knows that you can't solve the crisis in Afganistan without at the very least solving the economic depression that they are in. What was the last figure, they are now the 3rd poorest country in the world or something? If all that he does is implement a military solution then I agree it will fail. But I think that if he also gets together an infastructure and economic program in tandem he can probably have some level of "success". The problem I see is that if he does what is practical which is negotiate with the Taliban to bring them back partially into government and to leverage them against al-quaida, he won't survive politically to see that much better solution through. The right solution is a non-starter unless you consider it better that he loose in 2012 against another right-winger who you KNOW will take the wrong approach for sure. Which is fine, I never got into this thread to say that there are not valid criticisms of Obama. I just don't think we can call him a failure after not even 1/4 of his term, even on Afganistan. Bush was such a disaster for the world I don't think there exists a person would could serve as president right now who would be able to fix all things in even 2 terms of office. Lets do the best we can with what we got. Stay on his tail, keep up the pressure, and take some steps forward instead of the alternative which would be sure fire steps backward.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson