We need to call the Iraq and Afghan wars what they are: IMPERIALISM

[Ken Burch]

Our candidate was elected to be against an imperial U.S.

This election was not a vote for the status quo on those wars.

The Beltway wants those wars to go on because it wants the U.S. to dominate the Middle East.

History shows that those nations that seek domination anywhere lose their values and their humanity.

And the presidents who do so end up broken men, like Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson.

We can't let this happen to our country again. We can't let this happen to OUR president.

Let's follow the true American voices, like Frederick Douglass(who spoke out against the Mexican War) Mark Twain, Martin Luther King,
and all others who know that the way of Empire is what this country was founded to AVOID.

[Oregone]

1. But we need to fight them over there...

So we don't starve the military industrial complex here

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. .

[ShortnFiery]

8. +1

Well put! ;)

[invictus]

3. K&R

[DrToast]

4. No "we" don't

Obama is doing everything he said he would. If you don't like it, go vote for Ron Paul.

[Ken Burch]

11. Why on earth would you defend staying in Afganistan?

There's nothing positive that can ever happen there, and nothing that can ever be achieved by outside force.

The British learned that. The Soviets learned that. Why don't YOU get it?

[dionysus]

72. one could have argued doing the afghanistan mission properly... back in 2002.

we were attacked by guys the taliban harbored, and if bush had sent a few hundred thousand troops, it would have been done very quickly and al-quaida and the taliban would be a footnote in history.

it's much harder to argue the case in 2009, because we've been messing aroundf or 8 years with nothing to show for it but a weak puppet regime.

that said, obama is in a lose lose situation on this. you've either got to send a shitload of troops, and wrap it up quickly, or get out. i lean more towards getting out.

unfortunately, the first option will piss the lefter dems off, the second move will not only piss the right off, but older type dems like my parents who think we owe it to the afghans to somehow fix things. he'll take a pile of shit either way he decides, i assure you of that.

[Oregone]

12. So what if he said he would muck it all up?

That makes mucking it all up permissible? Fuck that. What an ass-backward political philosophy.

Perhaps people would of voted for Ron Paul if they agree with his other views more (they didn't, because he is a libertarian whackjob). So they had to choose the "lesser of the evils". That doesn't mean you accept "evils" and refuse to try and change them. Absurd.

[Ken Burch]

15. Why do so many people here sound like they'd have been Humphrey delegates in 1968?

n/t.

[IndianaGreen]

129. Humphrey referred to Vietnam as our country's greatest adventure

I still remember HHH as a war cheerleader.

[IndianaGreen]

130. self-delete

[SIMPLYB1980]

5. Call it whatever the fuck you want.

Doesn't make it so and the majority of Americans know that.

[Ken Burch]

7. Those wars were started by reactionaries. That means they can only have

reactionary and imperial consequences.

Why defend the status quo when you know it's futile to be in both places, and especially in Afghanistan?

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. Yawn.

:boring:

Edited to add: You know what even the great DK voted for war in Afghanistan.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

[Ken Burch]

13. You don't care that we're killing for nothing in Afghanistan

You don't care that the war is pointless. Why not?

[SIMPLYB1980]

14. No I don't give a fuck what you think.

Isn't that obvious.

[Ken Burch]

18. Actually no.

If you didn't care what I thought, you wouldn't be posting in this thread.

Do you actually have a case for staying in an unwinnable and pointless war?

Do you actually have a case for staying in a war that has to end up destroying Obama like Vietnam destroyed LBJ?

Do you actually have a case for refusing to learn from history?

[SIMPLYB1980]

23. I respond to people who's opinions mean

nothing to me all the time. You're rants on how terrible our government is rank right up their with the teabaggers. Also why would I waste my time trying to talk sense into someone who has none and doesn't want none.

[Ken Burch]

26. It's the wars that are terrible, not the government

I oppose the wars because they doom this administration to failure if they go on.

You know perfectly well the U.S. can't do anything positive in Afganistan and that staying there has to do to Obama what Vietnam did to LBJ. Why not admit it?

Besides, nothing you post here has rebutted anything I've said.

[SIMPLYB1980]

31. No you assume that the US can't do anything positive in Afghanistan.

And that is only the tip of where you are wrong.

[Ken Burch]

37. If our troops haven't managed anything positive so far

that in itself proves that nothing positive can be done. If a war hasn't been after this length of time, it's unwinnable.

Would you have said we should still be in Vietnam in 1971? That's about where Afghanistan is now. Nobody there backs Karzai(other than the imaginary voters that his fraudsters created).

There's no reason we should care which warlord wins. All warlords are equally evil. There can't be a warlord who turns into a progressive democrat.

Why do you want President Obama to end up like LBJ?

[SIMPLYB1980]

38. Why do you want him to fail?

:nopity:

[Ken Burch]

41. Staying in the war would be failure. Getting out and letting us solve our OWN problems

is the only way to succeed.

It's sickening that you don't care about all those who are dying for nothing. You know we can't tell the parents of our dead servicemen that their loved one's deaths had any meaning. It's evil that we're just adding to the killing for the sake of projecting "toughness".

LBJ proved there CAN'T be guns and butter. This war can't be good for the Obama administration or anyone else.

We aren't fighting FOR anyone. This is a Republican war that can't be good for anything Democrats stand for. World War II was the last progressive war. Ever.

The only wars we should ever get into again should be for our own territorial defense. No others can ever be worthy of this country again.

[SIMPLYB1980]

48. It's sickening that you would make such an argument.

But I knew you would.

[Ken Burch]

93. It's sickening that I'd make an argument for a humane approach to the world?

And again, if you don't give a damn about my posts, you don't have to post in this thread. Why don't you go do something else? It's probably a nice day out and nobody's forcing you to post here. Nothing you've said has repudiated any of my arguments OR vindicated this unwinnable war.

[SIMPLYB1980]

119. What's the matter don't like having your ideas challenged?

You're "humane" approach could lead to more death and destruction than would be the case otherwise. You do realize this don't you?

[Ken Burch]

126. I'm fine with having my ideas challenged.

But that involves actual argument, actual ideas, making an actual CASE against my position. You've not done any of that, because for some reason you've had the apparent attitude that you were above having to actually debate me. You've simply heckled. Abuse is not debate.

[SIMPLYB1980]

127. Couldn't answer my question could you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6719838#6720710

[Ken Burch]

131. Nothing is ever worse than a continuing shooting war

There is never hope while a war is going on. There can't be anything progressive or anything to live for while a war is going on. The people of Afghanistan have gotten nothing but death from the United States, and no killing from us now can lead to anything good later, especially since it's impossible to defeat the Taliban militarily.

It's always better when the shooting stops.

War is only worth fighting when you're specifically fighting for a progressive democratic faction. It can't be worthy fighting for one warlord against another. There can't BE a reformable warlord, and Karzai is just a warlord with good pr. No one should die for small differences.

That's my answer.

You can't point to anything being improved by our continuing to kill. No U.S. killing has improved anything anywhere since 1945. Not in Korea, Not in Vietnam, not in Central America, not anywhere else.

[SIMPLYB1980]

133. Not good enough.

Though I do respect your idealism.

[Ken Burch]

135. You asked for a response, I gave you a good one.

Why defend the notion that it matters WHICH warlord wins?

Karzai isn't a progressive or a democrat and he has no values other than his own self-interest. He's just Marshal Ky with a cooler outfit.

[SIMPLYB1980]

139. And I gave you another.

Care to continue?

[Oregone]

16. Of course not. Obama makes it sound pretty

My heart even sort of flutters when he talks about it. Yeah, it sounded dumb when Bush was in charge, but, eh, you just gotta have Hope (tm) now.

[Ken Burch]

28. By your refusal to make any case for staying in Afghanistan, you've admitted

that we're wrong to be there.

If you can't defend the war, you acknowledge that it is indefensible.

[SIMPLYB1980]

36. More bullshit.

All the reasons I would give would be shot down by you or ignored offhand because you are antiwar for the sake of being antiwar. But just to humor you what about stopping the Tali ban from murdering hundreds of thousands of people we are currently protecting?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6168940.ece

[Ken Burch]

44. People are dying anyway

It's just the same when we kill as when the Taliban kills.

You'd have backed Scoop Jackson in '72.

[SIMPLYB1980]

53. So you don't care if they die?

That's mighty "progressive" of you.

[Ken Burch]

65. It can't be "progressive" to pretend that we can stop the misery

We can't win. You know this. And our nation can't retain any humane and progressive values if we stay in Afganistan and keep killing. If the British and the Soviets couldn't beat the Afghans, that proves nobody can.

[SIMPLYB1980]

77. You keep telling me that I believe we can't win.

I don't believe that. I do believe that you believe we can't win, and that makes you a fail pusher. I'm glad I was never afraid of being called a liberal. Liberals win wars.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Fight-Liberals-Liberals-Can-America/dp/0060841613

[Ken Burch]

85. This is not a liberal war and there hasn't been a liberal war since 1945

Nothing liberal could have ever come of any war we've been in since, and nothing liberal can come of any future war. Wars of interest are right-wing.

And I didn't say you BELIEVED we can't win. I said that you had the proof in front of you that we can't. It's clear that "victory" isn't a meaningful concept in the wars of today.

We should only fight against attacks on our territory. Our territory isn't under attack, and the last attempt to attack it was foiled with no military involvement whatsoever. That should be our approach-not getting in and LOOKING for a chance to "project toughness". "Toughness" can't lead to anything progressive in this world.

[SIMPLYB1980]

90. So says the great Ken Burch.

Liberals voted for this war even the "progressive" DK voted for this just war.

[Ken Burch]

95. That was in the post 9/11 paranoia days.

And historically, Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. That doesn't mean that THAT war was liberal OR winnable.

[SIMPLYB1980]

153. So DK caved to political pressure?

Acording to his followers he never does that.

[harkadog]

123. How many decades are you going to use that excuse?

Sure most people voted for the Afgan war in 2001. So what. It is now 2009. Things change. If you don't think so let's have a re-vote on the war now and see who votes for it.

[WonderGrunion]

6. I was ready to add stars to the American flag for Iraq and Afghanistan

But your shocking expose of the Imperialistic nature of the Obama administration has put that on hold.

I guess we owe you a debt of gratitude. :sarcasm:

Or not.

Iraq is ending and we are leaving. He never promised to leave Afghanistan, if you didn't know that before the election, you were either obtuse or willfully ignorant.

[Ken Burch]

9. Afganistan is an unwinnable and immoral conflict

why defend it?

You know we can do no good there.

[WonderGrunion]

17. What's immoral about capturing Bin Laden?

Until we can be sure he's no longer there, we still have a mission. Stabilizing the Afghan government may help determine our mission, but it in and of itself is not the mission.

[Ken Burch]

20. We'll never capture the guy, and you know it(assuming he's alive)

And we all know that caputuring him wouldn't actually stop anything, since somebody else would just take over.

Why are you being "All The Way With LBJ" about this?

We don't have to carry on Bush's futility.

[WonderGrunion]

27. Bush didn't carry on Bush's futility.

He just left it hanging there because he needed Bin Laden as a boogeyman in 2004. Bin Laden must be brought to justice for the Murder of over 3000 Americans on 9/11. We need to determine if he's still in Afghanistan, moved to Pakistan or elsewhere.

Bush could have done this quickly after 9/11 by dropping a low yield nuclear device on Kabul then no one would have hidden him from us.

[Ken Burch]

30. And the only people who would have died in a low yield nuclear attack

would have been innocent Afghan civilians, people who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Do you have any idea how insane and bloodthirsty that last line in your post sounded?

[WonderGrunion]

35. A citizenry is as rsponsible for its' government

as a government is for its' citizenry. The Afghan government gave aid and comfort to our enemies, they and their citizenry are subject to our retribution. I don't care if innocent Afghans are killed if it helps to capture Bin Laden.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[WonderGrunion]

45. I'm not a right winger, I'm just not pro life

I feel there are times when War, the Death Penalty, Assisted Suicide and Abortion are justified. My disregard for life in some circumstances may horrify you, but it doesn't make me right wing.

[Oregone]

49. "My disregard for life in some circumstances may horrify you, but it doesn't make me right wing"

If it walks like a duck...

[WonderGrunion]

57. Do you support abortion rights?

I do. Some Americans call that a disregard for human life. Your accusation is baseless and a huge strawman. I'm a lifelong democrat. I first caucused for Jesse Jackson in '88. I believe in fair pay for fair work. I grew up in a strong union family. I, however, believe that some wars are justified. I don't claim to be a perfect progressive, never have. The fact that I support this war and accept the negative things that go along with it is not some indication that I'm some closet freeper.

[Oregone]

61. Associating abortion with bombing children suggests....

That you believe abortion ends lives. That is a fundamental right wing belief and talking point.

The cat is out of the bag here.

[WonderGrunion]

64. I don't believe life begins at conception

Read my post before deciding you're right.

I also don't believe life is sacred either.

[Oregone]

70. "I also don't believe life is sacred either. "

I can tell.



CLEARLY, associating abortion to bombing children was a HUGE tell you gave away.

[WonderGrunion]

79. That doesn't make me right wing

I'm a devout atheist. I feel this war was just. I accept the negative that comes along with this war. You can show me hundreds of dead babies and that still doesn't change my mind. It has nothing to do with skin color, If Canada or England was providing sanctuary to Bin Laden I'd be just as indifferent to their dead babies too.

[Oregone]

82. If you pulled this shit on Canada

Your White House would be in ashes....again.

Fortunately, you picked on a nation of goat herders and primitive warlords for an ego boost

[WonderGrunion]

87. Please, Canada can't even stop the Quebecois Resistance

A boy scout jamboree from the US could take you down.

[Oregone]

91. Not sure if thats a joke or a right-wing expression of superiority

Anything is possible at this point.

[WonderGrunion]

96. It was a joke

"The White House would be burned down flat... again" is a jingoistic expression of superiority.

[Ken Burch]

101. Actually, Canada DID stop the armed wing of Quebec separatism in 1970

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

You can't seriously be comparing the Parti Quebecois, the nonviolent and legitimate Quebec separatist political party that emerged after that, to the Taliban.

[WonderGrunion]

106. The Taliban didn't attack us, Bin Laden did

The Taliban was only the political body that gave them cover. If Sinn Fein attacked the US, i would hold the IRA and Gerry Addams responsible.

[Ken Burch]

107. Would you bomb Northern Ireland?

n/t.

[WonderGrunion]

110. If they were behind 9/11 or a similar act of terrorism

Absolutely.

[Ken Burch]

113. You've given all of us a very chilling look at your internal pathology

If you ran for president I think THIS would be your campaign poster:

[WonderGrunion]

115. With one small addendum

"Attack us and...

I think I would win too.

[Ken Burch]

98. So the 9/11 dead matter and no other deaths in history matter?

ONLY the 9/11 dead are worthy of mourning?

ONLY the 9/11 dead left grieving families?

ONLY the 9/11 dead had value as human beings?

[WonderGrunion]

102. Not at all

But 9/11 was an attack on our homeland by an outside force. That is as clear cut a justification for war as anything.

[Ken Burch]

109. So we had the war. We attacked them. Enough already

We can't achieve anymore and we can't ever capture Bin Laden(especially since he's almost certainly dead). And capturing Bin Laden couldn't stop any terrorist acts.

[WonderGrunion]

111. Capturing or killing Bin Laden would stop billions in funding though

n/m

[Ken Burch]

137. Bin Laden's OWN funds were frozen years ago.

Nothing is ever going to stop the SAUDIS from funding AQ, and the U.S. will never invade Saudi Arabia or allow its people to have democracy.

[bvar22]

144. We were attacked by a handful of criminals funded by Saudi Arabia...

...who were paying rent to a tribal warlord to hide out in some godforsaken desert in Afghanistan.
NO Afghanis were involved in the planning or execution of the attack on New York.

If we were really serious about fighting AlQaeda, we would have used an international Police Effort to block their funding. Then this handful of Saudi criminals would have starved in the desert.

Invading and Occupying Afghanistan was exactly the WRONG thing to do.

I noticed you haven't called for the nuclear bombing of Saudi Arabia.
Why not?


Do you really believe that dropping a nuke on a Muslim City would cause PEACE?

[Ken Burch]

46. You can't hold the Afghan people responsible for what the TALIBAN did

Citizens are only responsible for their country's actions in democratic countries. Not in dictatorial regimes that were put in power with U.S. guns(as the Taliban was).

We should never have opposed the PREVIOUS Afghan government. There's nothing it could have done that could possible have been worse than the Taliban, and our enabling of the Taliban morally disqualifies us from having any right to fight against them now.

[Oregone]

52. Yes you can. This man here NEVER picked up a rifle against the Taliban

[WonderGrunion]

59. More to the point, his parents never fought the Taliban control.

Children always pay for the sins of their fathers. They are still their fathers' sins though.

[Oregone]

68. So kill the children! Their parents suck!

Do you have any fucking inkling of how the Taliban came into power and under what circumstances?

They were welcomed with flowers in the street. Not because the people loved them. It was because they were the lesser of the evils that had plagued the war torn nation (which was used as a chess piece in a proxy conflict between two large super-powers who never cared about the people). Chaos ensued at the end of the conflict, as both competing powers turned their backs, and factions fought for control...many of which were more bloodthirsty than the Taliban was at that time.

Blaming the father's of dead children for the Taliban, and justifying their deaths, shows a complete fundamental lack of understanding about the situation, as well as heartlessness. If you want to go back and blame children's death on the governmental situation in Afghanistan, why don't you go back as far as examining the first domino ("Operation Cyclone")

[WonderGrunion]

75. And if the Taliban had simply let us have Bin Laden

None of this would ever have happened. War should only be a last resort, but we were given no other options in this circumstance. And yeah, they came to power because Ronnie Raygun thought he could bankrupt the Ruskies in Afghanistan. And he did. Doesn't make him right though. It doesn't make you right either.

[Oregone]

81. It makes no difference. The Taliban exists, because of the people, so children deserve to die

That's what Im getting from you. You already stated you don't care about civilian deaths because their father's didn't overthrow the Taliban. So, essentially, that is the justification. Even if the Taliban let Bush fuck Osama in the ass, the Taliban still exists, so your civilian deaths are still justified. Don't back track here.

According to your logic, civilian deaths there under any circumstances are permissible because the civilians failed to overthrow the government. I guess this should work globally too.

[WonderGrunion]

84. I never said they deserve to die

That's your strawman. I said I don't care that they have died.

[Oregone]

92. I don't care that you live

So, whatever, deal with it

[WonderGrunion]

97. And you have now become me.

Congratulations. You are now indifferent to a human life.

[Oregone]

100. Except Im not cheering on actions that produce massive civilian casualties perpetually

I just don't give a shit about whether you are personally wasting air or not.

[WonderGrunion]

108. And I'm not "Cheering on" civillian casualties

I simply accept them as an unavoidable consequence of war. You seem to think if everyone knew about all the dead babies, they would change their mind. You are wrong.

Think of the children. :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

73. The lives of those 3,000 people are not more important

Than the lives of everyone else on the planet. A life is equal to a life. You can't hold the entire population of Afghanistan responsible for 9/11.

And you have no freaking way of KNOWING that this child's parents never fought the Taliban control. A lot of Afghans tried to oppose them, but you can't overthrow a regime that whips people in the street. Your position is like arguing that the White Rose, the anti-Nazi underground and the antifascist German exiles like Bertolt Brecht were as responsible for Hitler as any willing Brownshirt.

[WonderGrunion]

83. We probably killed thousands of French Resistance fighters

during the bombing runs after the Battle of Normandy. Should we have just let Hitler go? (Yes, I know this is Godwin's Law, but you said WWII was justified) Innocents always die during war. It's a tragedy but it's part of war.

[Ken Burch]

88. World War II was the last justifiable war.

The conditions that made it justifiable aren't going to repeat themselves. And no one in the Taliban or even Bin Laden(assuming he isn't dead, which is a ludicrous assumption)has any potential to be Hitler.

World War II was a battle for the survival of freedom. Afghanistan is just a war for regional dominance.

[WonderGrunion]

94. Really, our freedom was never on the line.

Hell, we denied freedom to thousands of interned Japanese Americans. Every war has atrocities. We were attacked on our homeland by Bin Laden. his elimination is justified at that point.

[Oregone]

103. The death of one man is an Ends that justifies the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians?

Wow.

[WonderGrunion]

112. Hitler was one man, how many did we kill to stop him?

Wow back at you.

[Ken Burch]

114. Bin Laden isn't anywhere near comparable to Hitler.

n/t.

[WonderGrunion]

116. You pulled the Hitler card first

By Godwin's Law, that means I won several posts ago.

[Oregone]

118. There was more than one lunatic running that operation

The country was a war machine, mind you. There was very real debate about assassinating him and if something worse would of took his place. WWII wasn't about eliminating Hitler. It was about stopping the fascist war machine.

[WonderGrunion]

120. The country was a war machine, mind you.

So a citizenry IS responsible for the acts of its' government. You just admitted that here. You have become me even more.

[Oregone]

122. You have become a douche bag

WWII was not about stopping a single man. It was about stopping the Axis powers. During the course of this war, there were opportunities to minimize civilian casualties that were passed up, and atrocities were committed on both sides. Though, it becomes difficult to manage targets when the civilian population becomes integrated into production with a war economy. That said, by no means are any deaths justified, but it is far easier to avoid casualties when you are supposedly targeting a single man, rather than 3 complete countries you are at war with.

This sub-thread of lunacy started when you suggested that one man's elimination was an Ends worth killing thousands. Then you related that to Hitler. But WWII was NEVER about killing just Hitler. Thats the reality.

As for your parallels, and straw mans, and your bullshit. EPIC FAIL

[WonderGrunion]

124. Ken brought up Hitler, not me.

Axis powers is spin as much as Axis of Evil. Italy was never a threat to anyone.

Please you've shown as many dead babies in this thread as the abortion protesters do outside the clinics and it simply doesn't change my mind.

[WonderGrunion]

125. This sub-thread started when I challenged Ken's claim of Imperialism

You brought the dead babies into it. I then mocked you both.

[Ken Burch]

105. Punishing ALL Afghans for Bin Laden isn't though.

And since capturing Bin Laden(were it not impossible)would only make him a martyr in the Muslim world, why would you think it would actually HELP anything?

[ipaint]

142. I believe bin laden said the same about us in one of his many tapes. n/t

[Oregone]

25. True. The Ends ALWAYS justify the Means

Even if we are unsure the Ends are attainable.

[WonderGrunion]

33. I'm going to offend you horribly now

I don't care that they are dead. Their government gave care and comfort to a man and organization that killed 3000 Americans in cold blood. A citizenry is as responsible for their government as the government is for its' citizenry. War always has innocent victims, but these are victims that did nothing to defy their own government or free themselves from the shackles of their own tyranny.

[Oregone]

40. "I don't care that they are dead"

Your opinion now means as much to me as an ugly fucking cockroach I just stepped on.


"Their government gave care and comfort..."

Children and women don't always get to choose their government. Their crime is being born there.


"A citizenry is as responsible..."

A child is a child. You disgust me.


"but these are victims that did nothing to defy their own government..."

Yes, fuck babies who we dropped bombs on. Worthless enablers.

[WonderGrunion]

43. And your "No war is good war" opinion

means even less to me. I don't care how disgusted you are. They are dead due to the actions of their government. It's a shame, but not one I will ever lose sleep over.

[Oregone]

47. You just created a straw man as a cherry on top of the asinine filth milkshake you spewed

[WonderGrunion]

51. Strawman? What circumstances do you support war?

I'm dying to hear this.

Edited for typo.

[Oregone]

54. When people like you control the government, destroying life and robbing the people's wealth

Ain't it clear, eh?

Cept in that case, its sorta a domestic conflict. Not imperialistic

[Ken Burch]

60. +1

n/t.

[WonderGrunion]

62. So you only support war against people you know

Not strangers that supported a murderer that killed over 3000 Americans. Good to know.

[Ken Burch]

66. Only the Taliban supported Bin Laden. NOT THE AFGHAN PEOPLE

Nobody living under a dictatorship can be held responsible for that dictatorship's actions.

You can't impose collective punishment on the entire population of Afghanistan.

[WonderGrunion]

69. And the Taliban refused to let us strike at Bin Laden in Afghanistan

Where does that leave us then? No justice for over 3000 dead Americans? What was your politically responsible response to 9/11?

[Ken Burch]

76. We've struck back already. We've probably killed more innocent Afghans

than there were dead on 9/11.

You can't use 9/11 as a justification for permanent war on the victims of a police state.

[WonderGrunion]

89. Dead Afghans are not the goal, they are a by product

Capturing or Killing Bin Laden is the goal. If innocent Afghans get killed standing in our way, I don't care.

[Ken Burch]

99. It's impossible to capture Bin Laden. And you can't sacrifice a whole country

in the name of capturing ONE man(a man who is probably dead, anyway).

Your obsession with this is really repulsive.

The 9/11 dead were not the only innocent victims in all of human history.

Will there ever come ANY point where you say "enough"?

[SIMPLYB1980]

128. We sacrificed several to get Hitler.

Then we rebuilt them and nation built, and for the most part it worked well.

[Ken Burch]

136. That's different. Afganistan is beyond being rebuilt

Countries can't be rebuilt after wars anymore. Postwar Europe is the last time they were. And in this era, crushing a people in a war simply creates the conditions that later zealots can use to start the NEXT war. Victory isn't worth it anymore, since it only leads to later misery.

[SIMPLYB1980]

138. No it's not different.

Just a question of resolve.

[Ken Burch]

140. It IS different.

Nations can no longer kill on the World War II level of killing and still call themselves civilized.

And it would have to involve that kind of killing to get anything you'd call "Victory".

And from that kind of killing Afghanistan could never recover.

It's time to have it stop.

Negotiate with the Taliban, work out some sort of compromise.

That's the best that's possible anymore.

"Victory" just means a retaliatory war started by the losers of this one a few years down the line. Nothing is worth that.

[SIMPLYB1980]

141. Let me know when we carpet bomb or Nuke Afghanistan.

We really could do that if we chose but it would have large implications. We could do the Taliban like we did the Japanes and fight up to their caves and burn them out with flamethrowers. I'm glad we are trying to keep civilian casualties to a minimal with our current strategies that need improvements.

[Ken Burch]

150. If we escalate, that will inevitably lead to things like carpet bombing

Escalation can only lead to Vietnam.

[SIMPLYB1980]

152. Did we carpet bomb Iraq when we escalated their?

Answer no, but we used more smart bombs. A lot fewer civilian casualties that way.

[Oregone]

71. Pretty much.

[WonderGrunion]

121. With friends like you...

:hide:

[Ken Burch]

56. When our territory is under attack

(which it hasn't been since 9/11.)

Or if there was a situation where we were fighting for a progressive government against a reactionary military challenge(the Spanish Civil War, which the U.S. refused to fight in, even though we could have stopped Hitler and Mussolini if we'd done so, or the European Theatre of World War II, the part of the war that wasn't just a trade war).

Not Korea. Not Vietnam. Not the proxy wars in Central America in the Eighties. Not Iraq or Afghanistan.

Not "wars of interest", because the "interests" in those wars(like World War I, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican War)are never the interests of anyone but the rich.

[WonderGrunion]

67. But we were attacked on 9/11

And those attackers got their orders from Bin Laden in Afghanistan. And the Taliban refused to turn him over because Bin Laden's billions were paying them off. Afghanistan is not a proxy war.

[Oregone]

74. Rudy Giuliani called. He wants his bit back

[Ken Burch]

78. All I can say to that is...

[WonderGrunion]

117. Listen, you pulled the dead baby card like the Pro-lifers do

It didn't work on me anymore than the dead fetus pictures do from the picketers at the abortion clinic.

[bvar22]

145. Oh MAN. That HURTS!

:patriot:

[Ken Burch]

50. You'd have backed Humphrey against Teddy's brother.

n/t.

[Sebastian Doyle]

86. Well, for one thing, he's dead.

And has been since late 2001 or early 2002.

[WonderGrunion]

19. And what we are doing is hardly Imperialism either.

Bad meme

[Ken Burch]

22. If the war started for dominaince in the Middle East, it can only be for dominance

It's about controlling the region. There's no reason anyone to the left of Cheney should want the U.S. to dominate the world anyway. No good can come of dominance. Dominance can never be progressive or humane.

[WonderGrunion]

29. So we should let Bin Laden walk just because Bush & Cheney

are war criminals? Both are bad and both need to rot in a dark prison somewhere. But don't become an apologist for the Taliban, Al Qaeda or Bin Laden just because you hate everything Bush did to our country so much.

[Ken Burch]

34. I'm not an apologist for the Taliban

I'm an apologist for reality.

Here's reality

1)It's impossible to catch Bin-Laden if he hasn't been caught by now(besides which, he's almost certainly dead).

2)What happened with the British and the Soviets PROVED forever that outsiders can't win in Afganistan.

And why would you even WANT us to stay in Afghanistan when you know it has to end like Vietnam?

[SpartanDem]

32. That may apply to Iraq, but it doesn't apply to Afghanistan

Afghanistan is a legitimate, legal war that has nothing to do with trying dominate the middle east.

[Ken Burch]

39. The Afghan people don't want us there and we can't bring anything good to the place

All we're doing is killing for killing's sake now. There's nothing we're fighting for. It can't matter WHICH warlords win.

[SpartanDem]

55. So you think best idea is

to let it slowly return to it's pre 9/11 state? I think that is a very real possibility, so what do you think will happen if we do leave? Given the free reign that the Taliban let AQ have in the past I don't think counterintelligence alone in this case is enough. I think we far better to good there than the Taliban does.

[Ken Burch]

58. There's nothing WE can achieve

The British and Soviet examples proved that Afghans can't be defeated in battle. We aren't defending anything positive in Afghanistan, and the government we're supposedly fighting for can never be popular or progressive. It's about corporate interests, no principles or ideals are involved.

[Oregone]

21. "He never promised to leave Afghanistan"

So, yeah, its not "wrong" to stay. Its only "wrong" to oppose what he clearly promised, being that he is virtually infallible.

Odd how the justification for war and occupation is relevant to campaign promises.

[WonderGrunion]

24. It's not wrong to oppose the Afghan war

It's wrong and intellectually dishonest to state that Obama campaigned against it. He clearly did not.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. Our candidate was elected after promising to INCREASE the number of troops in Afghanistan

[Ken Burch]

80. You're still "ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ"...

:eyes:

News flash...the boys WON'T be home by Christmas(other than the ones coming home in boxes) and that coonskin never did get nailed to the wall.

[stevenleser]

104. I think the person to whom you are responding was addressing an inaccuracy of yours

You claimed that Obama was elected to bring both wars to a close. He wasn't. He campaigned on escalating in Afghanistan. That person made no judgments as to whether that was right or wrong. He is simply correcting an inaccurate thing you wrote.

[IndianaGreen]

134. He also promised to repeal DADT, push for universal health care,

The situation in Afghanistan today has significantly deteriorated since the campaign. The facts on the ground are different. To pursue the war under the current circumstances is reckless and inappropriate.

[IndianaGreen]

132. Those DUers that support continuing the war in Afghanistan, should trade places with our soldiers

Let our soldiers return home to their loved ones, and be welcomed as the heroes they all are.

Let those that support the war go off to fight it, and let them hump up and down the Afghan mountains, go for weeks without a bath, and risk getting shot just by running to the bathroom. They should not be allowed to come home until they decide they have had enough of war!

Dulce bellum expertis

[bvar22]

146. Good plan, IG.

It was wrong when Bush did it.
It is still wrong.

[LittleBlue]

143. Completely agreed. We need to end this shit, now.

Like soon. Not in 11-22 months.

[Hippo_Tron]

147. I can tell you that the President wasn't elected to reduce US power in the world

He was elected because he argued that he could increase America's power by limiting the conflict to Afghanistan and not Iraq. Imperialism is just a word and it's not a word exclusively used by the left anymore but if you want to call a spade a spade then that's fine. Obama was elected on the promise that he would practice smarter imperialism than Bush, not to end US imperialism.

[jeanpalmer]

148. Fighting the war in Afghanistan

will not increase America's power, by any way of thinking. It increases hate and disrespect for the US and continues the weakening of it from within. China, Russia and many other countries are not disappointed to see the US get bogged down in Afghanistan, because they know it weakens the US. And when the day arrives, and you can see it coming, when the US is forced to retrench or face financial catastrophe, those countries are all going to dance on our grave. Right now, they're all working behind the scenes to build up the critical mass to bring it about. Obama has a chance here to short circuit that scenario and get us back on track. Will he do it? Or will he do the politically expedient thing to please the general?

[Hippo_Tron]

149. Explain that to the voters...

Because I think he's calculated quite correctly that if Afghanistan and more importantly Pakistan falls to an extremist anti-American regime, they're going to suddenly start thinking a lot harder about voting Republican in 2012. If somebody could get Americans to understand that the costs of staying will in all likelihood be higher than the costs of leaving then we probably would be out of Afghanistan now.

[jeanpalmer]

151. Well that's his job

to explain to the American people that the war is a misguided effort and not worth it. If he is basing his calculations on election politics, then he is miscalculatiing and doing the country a disservice. There are many ways to explain retrenchment to the American people that they would accept. But ultimately do what's right, not what's politically expedient.

The continuation of this war is probably the single biggest factor destabalizing Pakistan. The bombing of Pakistanis with drones is toally insane. If you want to radicalize a country, just bomb it. Make the people homeless, blow off their arms and legs or kill them. No country is going to put up with that bullshit. Not Pakistan, not Iraq, not the US. This isn't hard to figure out.