Afghanistan Now Is Obama’s War - Helen Thomas

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Apparently, Helen Thomas is not a "real Democrat", a "leftist looney", an "Obama hater", a "Taliban sympathizer", and all of the other aspersions cast at anyone who opposes the unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/20065333/detail.html

I had an historical flashback recently when I read a Washington Post news story about how the U.S. commander in Afghanistan thinks he may need many thousands more troops to win the war. Shades of Vietnam. Do we ever learn?

It brought back memories of the late Gen. William C. Westmoreland, the U.S. commander in Southeast Asia, who kept escalating the troop numbers after the 1967 Tet offensive in Vietnam. His strategy produced a debacle for us.

Fast forward to Afghanistan, 2009.

Now seven years into the war there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is in the middle of a 60-day assessment of the war, due next month. But the Washington Post article says he has been giving Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates weekly updates about the need to bolster the size of the Afghan army and police force and the likely deployment of thousands more U.S. trainers and advisers. The present Pentagon plan calls for about 68,000 U.S. troops to be in Afghanistan by late this year.

Afghanistan, which once harbored Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida training camps, has been on Obama’s agenda since his presidential campaign. Now it’s his war -- big time -- even as it takes on the appearance of another quagmire for U.S. forces in their effort to quell the Taliban and al Qaida fighters.

[Cant trust em]

1. Whoever drastically changes the policy becomes the owner of said policy.

Whatever happens in this conflict, Obama will be the one responsible.

[BlooInBloo]

2. "Afghanistan Now Is Obama’s War" - Tell us something we don't know.

[tekisui]

4. How about the expansion of indefinite detentions of 'enemy combatants'?

Being held without charge or access to lawyers. Many claiming abuse.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/tekisui/386

Over 600 detained now, plans to expand to hold over 1000.


Also, this isn't a 'surge'. A surge is temporary. The Afghanistan War is open-ended.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/tekisui/388

You may know all this. But, it doesn't make any of it right.

[sandnsea]

69. People voted for Afghaninstan to be Obama's war

instead of left to return to what it was. I don't know what ears some people listen with.

[Winterblues]

3. I wonder do all the Right Wing Obama haters now become anti war protesters.

How do they live with themselves supporting something Obama supports? What a dilemma they find themselves in..The Party of NO but also the Party of WAR..Their heads must be spinning..

[Echo In Light]

66. Many are too indoctrinated/ignorant to see that it's the SAME agenda at work

It's never been a matter of assigning these invasions/occupations, etc to any one person - - that's rather silly and simple propaganda favored by those who've been fully duped by what our govt actually is and represents, and simply enjoy playing the this side/that side sports aspect of politics. The corporate/state nexus doesn't "go to war" (hegemony) based on the personal whims of any one individual, especially the puppet politicians that all of our "presidents" ultimately are.

[mzmolly]

5. It's a shame he was left with this monumental mess

isn't it?

[timeforpeace]

6. The shame is he's doubling down and making it worse. History will not be kind on this warmongering.

[mzmolly]

7. It's a shame people didn't listen to his plans on Afghanistan

before they voted for him. It's a further shame that people claim he's making matters worse without defining what "worse" is.

[frylock]

8. it's a shame that we were left with the choice of obama or mccain..

and here's your definition of worse:

Mounting Casualties in Afghanistan Spur Concern

Death Tolls Compare to Iraq as Number of U.S. and NATO Forces Surge; Criticism of War in U.K. Heats Up

A series of attacks in Afghanistan has left two U.S. Marines and eight British soldiers dead in recent days, stoking concern among U.S. and allied forces over a surge in battlefield deaths, as thousands of troops pour into the country.

The mounting deaths have contributed to harsh criticism of the war in a handful of NATO countries that have lost soldiers in recent months, including Canada, Germany and France. It has been an especially divisive issue in Britain, which has lost 15 soldiers in the past 11 days, including the eight killed Friday. Those deaths have brought Britain's total losses to 184, a tally that now exceeds the 179 British military personnel killed in Iraq.

So far this year, 192 foreign soldiers have been killed, including 103 Americans -- a 40% jump from the same period last year, and a 75% increase from 2007, say U.S. military officials. That figure doesn't include the latest U.S. casualties.

<more>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124741046100128361.html

[mzmolly]

12. Which is why Obama said he was going to send more troops

to Afghanistan while he was running for office. He's following through on that promise.

[frylock]

19. the record's stuck..

the record's stuck. the record's stuck. the record's stuck. the record's stuck...

[mzmolly]

20. Apparently so.

[superduperfarleft]

Nice picture.

I prefer this one:

Or how about this one:

I guess they're just in mourning because they didn't get their pony.

[mzmolly]

23. And your point is what

exactly? That war kills people?

[superduperfarleft]

24. That people aren't simply whiners looking for a pony

when they oppose the wanton killing of civilians by our military and the unjust occupation of a people that don't want us there.

Sure war kills people. Unfortunately, it usually kills brown people on the other side of the world, so Americans don't give much of a shit. I'm sure if it was your lily white wedding party that the Canadians bombed, you'd be a bit less dismissive.

[mzmolly]

26. I oppose the killing of civilians as does the President,

which explains why we are sending more troops vs. using the bomb them to hell "shock and awe" strategy. Clinton did not lose a soldier in combat to any mission he began. He opted for bombs vs. soldiers, which took a greater civilian toll.

And screw you and your suggestion that I'm dismissive and callous because those who are dying are "brown". I resent being called a racist and I think it's a cheap shot that indicates desperation on your part. Again, I marched in opposition to the war. But, I understand that we're there now and we have to stabilize the area somewhat before we can leave. I also knew what I was voting for in November because I paid attention.

[superduperfarleft]

27. Your dismissiveness of those who oppose this war is the very definition of callous.

And you're better off being called a racist on the internet than picking your children out of the rubble that was once your home. You know, the house that got a big piece of "stability" dropped on it.

Likewise, I knew what I was getting in November, and I resent the constant accusation that you Obama fanboys and girls constantly throw out that those who are opposed to this war didn't pay attention. What I got was was better than McCain and that's about it. I don't really expect anything more from a country full of people who are completely incapable of empathy and have trouble realizing that all their chest-thumping and chickenhawk war-mongering has real consequences for people who live on the other side of the world, whose lives matter just as much as ours. It also has consequences when that little kid whose parents we just killed as "collateral damage" grow up to fly planes into buildings.

[mzmolly]

28. Drama

much? When you stop asserting that I'm a racist who likes killing children, perhaps we'll have something to discuss. Again, I marched against the war. There's a difference between understanding the need to stabilize the mess that we've been left with and cheering for the mess in the first place.

[superduperfarleft]

36. Those pictures were taken last month.

Those were casualties of Obama's war, which you seem to support.

Like I said, if it was your wedding party, you'd probably think differently.

[mzmolly]

41. It's Bush's war

Obama was left with it. Given you voted for Obama, by your own standards you support the war not me. I can separate those who started the war, from those who will end it in a careful manner.

[superduperfarleft]

57. You're probably right, since my state went blue anyway.

I guess I should've voted for Nader or McKinney. I'm glad we agree on the fact that I should've voted for one of them instead of Obama? Right? That is what you're suggesting, isn't it?

And yes, all of us support it. You, me, every single american, whether directly or indirectly. I never said any differently. The blowback won't be inflicted upon the politicians who send kids to kill other people's kids, it'll be inflicted upon us.

But back to the OP, no, this is Obama's war now. He escalated it, so he owns it. Like you said, he was claiming it before he was even elected.

[mzmolly]

73. I'm suggesting that you voted for the plan Obama is implementing

now yes. Also, I'm not sure what "it's Obama's war" means specifically, other than the fact that it's a meaningless talking point. Technically speaking, IT was Obama's mess the moment he took the oath of office.

[superduperfarleft]

78. Okay, so now it's not Bush's war, as you previously stated, it's Obama's.

And I should've voted for Nader or Mckinney. I'm glad we agree. I think the same thing everyday.

[mzmolly]

82. I'm glad you have revealed

that you're a Nader supporter.

[superduperfarleft]

88. :facepalm:

It's too nice a day outside to spend my time talking to someone this dense.

[alarimer]

60. Fucking bullshit excuse.

It was wrong under Bush; it is wrong NOW. The only right thing to do is leave, completely.

[mzmolly]

72. What fabulous and unique

insight. :sarcasm:

[bvar22]

62. Did you oppose the War when Mr Bush was running it?

I did.
I STILL oppose it.

No Military Objective + No Exit Strategy = Quagmire

It makes no difference to the brown people if they are killed by a rifle bullet, a bomb, on an "unmanned Predator".

[mzmolly]

71. There is a distinction to be made between supporting a war and realizing

who started it. It is also worth noting that Obama said he would send more troops and attempt to stabilize Afghanistan when he ran for President. He said it repeatedly.

Also, who said it made a difference how people are killed? What I said is civilian casualty counts differ depending upon strategy. Obama has worked to reduce the amount of civilian casualties.

Regarding an exit strategy, again the President is working toward this goal.

"All of us want to see an effective exit strategy where increasingly the Afghan army, Afghan police, Afghan courts, Afghan government are taking more responsibility for their own security," ~ President Barack Obama

...

"If we can get through a successful election in September and we continue to apply the training approach to the Afghan security forces and we combine that with a much more effective approach to economic development inside Afghanistan, then my hope is that we will be able to begin transitioning into a different phase in Afghanistan,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN14272958

[superduperfarleft]

79. Oh, he's working to "reduce" civilian casualties.

Did it ever occur to you that these people deserve to not have us occupying and bombing their country into oblivion in the first place?

I refer back to my wedding party analogy to which you took umbrage. Evidently these brown people being killed are just numbers that need to be "reduced."

Oh, but you're not a racist. :sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

83. I'm ignoring you going forward. However, it has occurred to ME that no innocent person should die

anytime/anywhere. I have said that I appreciate the fact that we now have a President who is concerned with reducing civilian casualties and you twist that into an excuse to call me a racist? :eyes: You go ahead and pretend that the first Black President and those who support him want to "kill brown people," and I'll limit my conversations to those who are less absurd.

[superduperfarleft]

90. And you go ahead and pretend that the next wave of civilians killed

will appreciate the fact that we intend to "reduce" casualties as opposed to getting the fuck out of their country (emphasis on THEIR country, not ours). After all, why is it your call and Obama's call and not the call of the people who actually have to live there and suffer under our occupation? Do they not matter? And if not, why?

Dismiss me if you want, but maybe you should put yourself in the shoes of an Afghan civilian for once instead of twisting yourself into knots to defend each and every little thing Obama does. You know, that little thing called empathy?

[mzmolly]

94. Afghanistan does NOT belong to the Taliban,

As for putting myself into the position of an Aghan civilian, would that be a male or a female civilian? A girl or a boy?
One who is not allowed to work and support their children or not? One who is allowed an education, or not? One who has to wear full body gear and hide her face, in desert living conditions or not? One who can be legally murdered for pissing off the husband she was forced to marry, or not? One who can be legally raped and starved to death, or not?

http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk-Crime-Examiner~y2009m7d11-Afghanistan-legalizes-rape-starvation-of-women

"Afghanistan legalizes rape, starvation of women"

http://www.equalitynow.org/english/actions/action_2106_en.html

"Women in public life are being increasingly targeted for defending human rights and taking a public role in society in Afghanistan, such as Commander Malalai Kakar, Afghanistan’s most senior policewoman, who was shot dead outside her home on 28 September 2008. Commander Kakar was head of Kandahar city's department on crimes against women and her adherence to the rule of law in combating violence against women resulted in daily threats and a number of attempts on her life before she was fatally gunned down. On 25 September 2006 Safia Ama Jan, the southern provincial head of Afghanistan's Ministry of Women's Affairs, was murdered outside the front gate of her Kandahar home. Like Malalai Joya, fellow woman MP Shukria Barakzai has also been targeted with death threats. Her office has been attacked a number of times and it has been reported that her name is included on a list which also included the name of Commander Kakar as a target for assassination. In June 2007 two women journalists were murdered with many others receiving death threats.

Malali KakarIncreasingly schools for girls have been forced to close after being attacked. In November 2008 suspected Taliban militants used water pistols to spray acid on teachers and girls walking to school in Kandahar. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) states that, as of mid-November 2008, there have been 256 violent school incidents resulting in some 58 deaths and 46 injuries.

Since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, women have been calling for equal rights and highlighting the need for human security. Yet those who assert these rights, such as Malalai Joya, continue to be threatened, abused and even killed."

As I've told you, I'd like to see ZERO civilian casualties. I'd also love to end the war and have a positive outcome for the people in the country. However as a person who cares about human rights, including the rights of women I want to see the Taliban dismantled completely. Allowing the Taliban to take over again would not only be foolish from the perspective of national security, but it would be inhumane.

If you're still not convinced that there is a humanitarian reason for not allowing the Taliban to regain complete control, watch the following movie, then tell me we should leave without regard to who takes over the region. http://www.osamamovie.com/ Here it is on Youtube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqhfm-sLCxY&feature=PlayList&p=3CAF4BC6AF647C5C&index=0

Further, I don't need to take lessons on empathy from you. I've educated myself a great deal on Afghanistan, which is partly why I want to see the Taliban a thing of the past. Lastly, I trust THIS President and his administration to handle the matter with the utmost care and compassion, which was of course lacking among the former so called leadership.

[superduperfarleft]

97. Wait, I thought you marched against this war?

Now you supported it based on humanitarian reasons?

And I assume you're opposed to our partnership with the Northern Alliance then, who are just as bad as the Taliban, since you've done so much research.

[mzmolly]

101. I did march against Bush's wars. However, I trust that THIS President

wants to undo the damage Bush has done in the region which actually strengthened this vile group.

[readmoreoften]

75. They're ALL civilians in Afghanistan. It's not exactly like we're fighting the Afghan army.

There is 100% unemployment in most of Afghanistan. Fighting with the Taliban is the only job in town. When we first invaded, almost the entire country of Afghanistan--including most of those who are now with the Taliban--had hopes that the US would bring jobs and reconstruction. But we have brought NO JOBS. Iran and China have brought some jobs to the region.

If we wanted to stop the war in Afghanistan we could employ Afghani men to rebuild their country. But instead we use US tax dollars to fund contractors billions who then pay subcontractors a few billion who then pay another subcontractor a few billion and so on until a project that costs $1 million reaches the project in Afghanistan, almost all of which is sent back home to the US hires US workers. It's a circle of cash flow from US taxpayers to US corporations (and a few high paid mercenary workers).

If we wanted to stop the war, we could put 1/1000th of the cash we're paying for war into projects built by the Afghani people and they'd actually like us.

[superduperfarleft]

77. B-b-b-b-but Obama said....!!!!!111

MY President would never kill civilians!!111

[mzmolly]

85. B-b-b-b-b- "superduper" said President Barack Hussein Obama

is a racist who wants to kill brown people, so it must be true!!1111

[superduperfarleft]

89. Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

You fanboys and fangirls become less coherent as these conversations go on, it seems.

[mzmolly]

84. I don't consider the Taliban

militants, civilians.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/18/pakistan-taliban-army-must-minimize-harm-civilians

If we wanted to stop the war, we could put 1/1000th of the cash we're paying for war into projects built by the Afghani people and they'd actually like us.

However, I fully agree here. As many have said, this should have been the strategy from the beginning. But we do need a sense of stability first. We need to know that the Taliban militia will not come back into power in that country if we pull out. This is President Obama's position, and I respect it.

[frylock]

29. yes. how absolutely pony-poutrageous of me to oppose this bullshit war..

and you have yet to address the article I posted clearly stating that things have gotten worse in the 'stan.

[mzmolly]

30. I addressed your article in post 12,

when I said that mounting violence is the rationale for sending more troops.

[frylock]

34. yep. just keep throwing gas onto that fire..

i think history will show that my view, and the opinion of others who are against this war, are correct.

[mzmolly]

42. Did

you march in the streets prior to the invasion as I did?

History will show that we should not have gone into the region after 911. That is my position. However, we are there now and it's not a matter of snapping our fingers and leaving.

[frylock]

51. yes, i did..

we can leave in a year, or we can leave in 10 years. the outcome will be the same.

[mzmolly]

54. I can't predict the future.

As for me, I vote for leaving in a year vs ten.

[tekisui]

38. Mounting violence is the reason for more violence?

You think the troops are going over there to run sewing circles?

The violence has just begun, in Afghan time. The escalation will cause more death, more destruction and recruit more extremists against us. It will continue until a Commander in Chief has the sense to get the hell out.

[mzmolly]

40. The goal is to have less

violence. Remember the surge in Iraq? According to the stated plan, Obama wishes to stabilize so we can get out.

“If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged,” Obama said, “that country will again be a base for terrorists.”

...

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai welcomed the additional help to train his country’s army and police force, saying in a statement that Obama’s strategy “will bring Afghanistan and the international community closer to success.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29898698/page/2/

[tekisui]

44. You are a fan of the surge in Iraq?

I wasn't and am not.

What is happening in Afghanistan is not a surge, btw. It is a troop increase. A surge is temporary. This is open-ended, and not thought of as temporary. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/tekisui/388

[mzmolly]

45. No.

However, most feel it was a success, thus it's difficult to argue that we follow a "less is more" approach in Afghanistan. I'd like to leave both countries tomorrow, but I understand the problem is complex.

As to what's happening in Afghanistan, I don't believe that we're being told when we plan to leave. But that doesn't mean it's actually open ended.

[tekisui]

46. The surge was sold as a success.

I think it was the Sunni uprising that led to a decrease in violence and an increase in security. The surge was just happening at the same time.

[mzmolly]

49. Who knows?

I certainly don't. ;) Though, I'm guessing it was a combination of factors.

[Flaneur]

70. Plus, the ethnic cleansing was finished by surge time.

[superduperfarleft]

9. I listened, and I voted for him despite that (and despite a lot of other things).

That talking point you people keep throwing out there didn't work the first time either.

So you're saying that because we voted for him, we aren't allowed to criticize? So what if I voted for Nader or McKinney instead, you'd be okay with that too, right? Or is this more about blind allegiance to whatever Obama does?

[mzmolly]

10. What I'm saying is that you should not criticize someone for doing

what they said they were going to do (when you, yourself have voted for the plan in question.) And, if you do so, you'll be called on it. Of course, if you've been critical of the plan for Afghanistan all along > carry on.

[superduperfarleft]

13. Wow. You really twisted yourself up on that one.

I'm just going to let your post speak for itself. Hopefully someone else can come along and enjoy its absurdity as much as I did.

[mzmolly]

17. Ah, no I

didn't.

[superduperfarleft]

21. So if i voted for him despite his crappy plan, I'm not allowed to criticize him?

I could say, "So when are you enlisting?" but I won't go there. ;)

Oh, and nice edit.

[mzmolly]

25. Thanks. Nice edit yourself. While I felt my post was clear,

apparently some needed me to spell out specifics. I'm not enlisting, I marched against the war and supported Edwards in the Primary. Not to mention I'm too damn old. ;) However I knew that Obama was going to send more troops to Afghanistan when he was elected as he made that abundantly clear, so I won't feign shock and outrage now.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

53. If you voted for Obama then you're an accomplice too.

I voted for him knowing full well his plan for Afghanistan, as you should have known as well. It's not like he didn't say it about 100 times. If his policy on Afghanistan was this hard to swallow then you should have not voted for him. If you did vote for him you're a hypocrite, since it was so easy for you to look the the other way. It's especially lame when done in a poutragous manner.

[mzmolly]

55. Agreed.

And, it's especially hypocritical to criticize others for not stomping our feet and giving the President some time to deal with the quagmire in question.

[superduperfarleft]

58. "You should've known as well..."

How many times do people who oppose this war have to say that yes, we knew it, and we voted for him despite that? Jesus fucking christ.... I also voted for him despite his opposition to gay marriage, his opposition to single-payer, etc. etc. etc.

I've never seen so many DUers trying to convince me that I should've voted for Nader or McKinney. Where were all of you in the run-up to the election last year? Oh, that's right, you were heaping all sorts of verbal abuse on people who were leaning Green or Independent or whining about "single-issue voters." As usual, the fanboys are having trouble keeping the narrative straight.

[bvar22]

63. "Hopefully someone else can come along ...

...and enjoy its absurdity as much as I did."

Here.
:patriot:

[mzmolly]

74. Not quite as absurd as suggesting "UN IN US OUT!" When the UN said

they wouldn't go in, like your guy said over and over again...

[bvar22]

76. What "guy" is that?

I don't need anyone to tell me that a White, Christian, Western nation attempting to occupy a Middle Eastern Muslim nation is a stupid idea.

History and a sense of decency tells me that.

How is that new multi Billion Dollar crusader Castle coming along?

[mzmolly]

86. And I don't need anyone to tell me that Obama = Bush & King George

because history and common sense tells me that's bullshit.

[noamnety]

14. That's ridiculous

just because he followed through on a crappy plan doesn't make the plan any less crappy, or any less subject to criticism.

[mzmolly]

18. LOL. Some people amuse

me. Thanks. :hi:

[noamnety]

22. your edit makes more sense

and as someone who criticized it prior to election, I will, as you recommend, "carry on."

:hi:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. I kind of thought that we all agreed that Afghanistan was where

Bush SHOULD have been concentrating our resources instead of doing a U-Turn and taking us knee deep into Iraq.

I've been actually kind of amazed at the ferocity of the attacks on Obama for trying to set things straight in Afghanistan, particularly when he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do during the campaign. If people are so incensed by what he is doing now- and I'm sure he's doing it about the best anybody can- it makes me wonder whether they either thought he was just saying what he was saying to look and act "tough" during the campaign or they glossed over it and went ahead and voted for him anyway.

Now, suddenly, some people are in hysterics over him committing more troops to Afghanistan and making all kinds of comparisons to Vietnam and the Soviet's experience that I haven't really seen manifest (yet, anyway). I'm personally a little skeptical about what we can hope to accomplish now that Bushco has basically starved Afghanistan of troops and resources for 5+ years while the bulk of our forces have been in Iraq but the fact that the Taliban are now causing trouble in nearby Pakistan, a nuclear state mind you, and there are still elements of AQ operating in and around there, I'm at least a bit concerned about just pulling out all of our troops and calling it a day there.

As much as I'm for diplomacy, I don't know exactly know what kind of diplomatic efforts might be able to be made with the Taliban. Maybe Hillary and her subordinates can get the Taliban to agree to stop fighting against Pakistan's government and to promise never again to provide AQ sanctuary (and provide us with the whereabouts of OBL- if he is still alive- and the rest of his remaining leadership and personnel)? :shrug: I'd probably be satisfied with THAT outcome, although it would seem to be me to be a rather unlikely one (but hey, I'll eat crow if I'm proven wrong).

[mzmolly]

16. Fully agree.

:crazy:

[superduperfarleft]

35. So wait, did you protest the war, or did you support it? n/t

[mzmolly]

43. Again, I protested it. How about you, when you voted for Obama and

his plan? Or, are the standards for you somehow different because I'm not acting surprised and angry about what was clearly the plan going into the election?

Obama opposed the war in Iraq, he's now stuck with finding a reasonable way out of the middle east. And shame on the hypocrites here, like yourself, who suggest Obama is akin to GW because he's got this colossal !#@ mess to deal with.

[superduperfarleft]

59. Shame on me. Right....

Shame on you for putting words in my mouth. If you want to argue with yourself and a strawman, let me know, and I can go do something else.

[mzmolly]

87. This from the party who suggests that Obama has a racist strategy

in Iraq? :nopity:

[superduperfarleft]

92. Please to show me where I said Obama has a racist strategy in Iraq.

KTHX.

[mzmolly]

95. When you call me a racist for supporting the Obama strategy in Afghanistan

you are calling Obama racist as well.

[superduperfarleft]

98. Fine, I'm calling Obama a racist.

:eyes:

[bvar22]

64. No. We ALL did NOT agree....

...that a full scale Military Invasion and Occupation was the correct way to deal with a handful of criminal Saudis who were camping out in the desert of Afghanistan.

MANY of us believed that a limited Law Enforcement Method was the best way to deal with a small group of criminals.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

65. I stand corrected

Although I agree with you that we should treat most terrorist acts as a law enforcement matter, given the scale of 9/11, as well as the fact that we had been hit by AQ at least three other times prior to 9/11, I felt that we needed to go into Afghanistan militarily after 9/11 and roll up the AQ training camps and capture or kill AQ members- so as to deprive them of a sanctuary from where they could continue to train new recruits and organize and launch more attacks against us and our allies. I would welcome more exploration of Saudi involvement but because Bush enabled anybody whom might have had some more information about the attacks to skip out of the country right after 9/11 without being properly questioned, we may never really be able to find out anything.

[frylock]

68. absolutely!!

[bobbolink]

15. Isn't it cool that we're repeating Russia's folly?

Aren't you glad we're so much smarter than Russia?

:grr:

[frylock]

33. it sure is

[Hippo_Tron]

31. It's only going to be a quagmire if we actually plan to try and conquer Afghanistan

And I would like to think that Obama isn't stupid or arrogant enough to believe we can actually do that (although I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong). This is about Afghanistan's next door neighbor with the nuclear arsenal. If that falls to the Taliban it's President (insert Republican here) in 2012. That's at least my theory.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Falling domones.....again?

[tekisui]

39. The question is whether our actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan

are in actuality helping or hurting that cause. Drone bombing in Pakistan, some reportedly being on funerals serve as a recruitment for extremists.

[bobbolink]

47. And the beat goes on......

Meet the new boss... in some ways, same as the old boss.

:cry:

[tekisui]

48. Too true.

I don't like to compare Obama to bush. But, in matters of the Afghanistan War, I can't help but be profoundly disappointed.

[G_j]

32. & now It's OUR war too!

those of us who voted for him.

[scheming daemons]

50. Obama to Helen Thomas: "Fine. Give it to me."

[tekisui]

52. Yup, pretty much. Helen Thomas to Obama:

"Get back to me in 10 years and tell me how it has worked out for you."

[ShamelessHussy]

56. I hear ya Helen, and I posted about it here just the other day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3971060&mesg_id=3971068

[bvar22]

61. K&R

Now at +19

[Echo In Light]

67. "War?" I thought those required TWO armies?..oh that's right, we never attack/invade THOSE countries

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. Long past her sell-by date. Helen's a big fat, lazy ass hypocrite.

I'm still waiting for her column condemning her preferred candidate for promising to "obliterate Iran". But, alas, not a peep.

[superduperfarleft]

91. Please to show me where Helen announced McCain as her preferred candidate.

KTHX.

[Tarheel_Dem]

93. Please to show me where I mentioned McCain?

KTHX. :eyes: If you didn't know where the quote came from, you shoulda just kept your mouth shut.

[superduperfarleft]

96. Oh, I got it, you're calling her a PUMA.

Sorry, it's hard to keep track of reasons to throw formerly respected people under the bus.

[foginthemorn]

99. That

poster has a big chip and his/her shoulder related to Hillary Clinton-our SOS who President Obama trusts.

[Tarheel_Dem]

100. That depends on who respected them in the first place.

:shrug:

[Vidar]

81. Helen's right--and it's at least as unwinnable as Vietnam.