"America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan" Obama.

[cali]

Nonsense, Mr. President. Please drop the bushian language. Damn straight the U.S. chose to fight a war in Afghanistan. And is continuing to choose war there.

[babylonsister]

1. As trite as Bush made even mentioning 9/11, it did happen.

And I'm sure Obama wants a war just for the hell of it, because there's not enough on his plate.

[cali]

3. uh, where did I say or insinuate that Obama wants a war for the hell of it?

don't get too tangled up with that strawman. Look, I don't agree with Obama on everything, but you know damn well I support him and would not attribute ill motives to him without a lot of evidence. I think Obama is wrong about Afghanistan and I think he's flat wrong to say it wasn't a war of choice. I hope that his Afghanistan policy does succeed- more for the Afghanis than for any other reason, but I just don't see that happening.

[BlooInBloo]

4. "Nonsense, Mr. President. Please drop the bushian language."...

This has been another episode of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.

[cali]

10. uh, try 'jumping to unwarranted conclusions for $50, Alex'

[babylonsister]

12. Please stop comparing him to Bush, because that's flat out

wrong. Makes me crazy, too.

I want out of Afghanistan yesterday, too, but I imagine Obama does also.

He listens to people I don't even know about, so I won't second guess him nor claim what he's doing is 'nonsense'. He's doing what he thinks he has to do, and his instincts are pretty spot on, or have been.

This is a war of choice? Again, I think he's making these motions because he knows more than I do about the threats. Me, I'm reserving my criticism.

[Clio the Leo]

18. "He listens to people I dont even know about..."

Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Captain Hilts]

29. It's a stupid, inaccurate generalization. nt

[Clio the Leo]

5. Trying to boost his sagging poll numbers no doubt. And yes this is.....

...... :sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

7. (snarfle)

[Chulanowa]

60. Yes, 9/11 happened? What's your point?

Rather than go after the organization responsible, or even the nation that funded the project, Bush CHOSE (there's the important word) to invade Afghanistan, who's only crime was not wanting to hand Osama directly to the United States (they wanted to hand him to a third party - Jordan, if I recall.)

America - or rather its president - Damn sure DID choose to go to war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan did squat to the United States, except for choose not to immediately comply with our demands in the exact way we demanded.

I suppose eight years of intentional blacking-out of Afghanistan news stories paired with propaganda is a decent excuse for even people as smart as yourself to have forgotten this, Babylonsister. Obama is just wrong on this, simple as pie. Afghanistan was a choice, a choice strongly influenced by the possibility of a lucrative natural gas pipeline, and for Obama to say it wasn't a choice talks down to all of us, as well as gives a free pass to those who made that choice.

[spoony]

64. Thank you for making sense

Every bullet fired and bomb dropped by our military currently is because of wars of CHOICE. I'm a bit flabbergasted that people here are now making excuses for the war, just because our guy is in the lead tank.

[peoli]

2. I think you know what he means.

We didnt wake up one and decide to randomly go to Afghanastan.

[Autumn]

11. That was what Bush did with Iraq, Afghanistan

was an entirely different matter. But I think we need to end both.

[Captain Hilts]

15. Hence why there were no major anti-war protests over Afghanistan. nt

[Autumn]

17. You got it right there.And there should have been,

both are wrong and both have failed.

[Clio the Leo]

19. So let's say we pull completely out of Afghanistan this afternoon...

... does Al Qaeda say, "thanks! We wont bother you any more." How would you see that playing out? That's a serious question.

I'm as much for diplomacy as the next person, but we're way past that now. Unfortunately we're paying for the sins our fathers committed over the past 20 years. Dont you honestly think that if Barack Obama thought we'd be ok without doing this, he wouldn't do it?

[Autumn]

25. I think both wars were by choice. Al Queda

is a fact of life that we have to live with.They will bother us no matter what we do. And you are absolutely right we are paying for our fathers sins, and will continue to do so, but neither war has worked out well, we can not continue to police the world.

[Clio the Leo]

34. And we cannot live in isolationism.

If they will bother us no matter what we do, are we to just sit back and take it? Again, a serious question.

[ieoeja]

55. Actually, the Muslim Brotherhood and then Al Qaeda only attacked us after start of Iraqi occupation.

Most of 20th century - France occupies portions of Middle East and North Africa, and is #1 target of Islamic terrorists outside the Middle East.

Late 20th century - France pulls out of Middle East/North Africa and Islamic terrorist attacks in France come to a halt.

1991 - US liberates Kuwait then goes on to occupy portions of Iraq

1993 - First Islamic terrorist attack on US soil

2001 - Second Islamic terrorist attack on US soil


I see a pattern here.

[Autumn]

57. True n/t

[graywarrior]

6. I'd like to see if any of us has a security update and a plan

[Kolesar]

8. If President Gore had "fouled up" & 9/11 happened, would he have gone to war in Afghanistan?

I expect that he would have.

[Captain Hilts]

14. We most certainly would have, hence the fact that Special forces and SAS were in there...

so quickly after the attack. It's a scenario we'd been planning for.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. So quick? As i remember it, it took six weeks to get anybody

in there.

IMO, we should have dropped a battalion of special forces onto bin laden's camp within two weeks - one week would be preferable - and ended it all there. Instead, we cozied up to the warlords to overthrow the Taliban, and still didn't provide enough troops to make THAT happen.

[Captain Hilts]

46. We were there MUCH sooner. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. Who is 'we'?

The bombing campaign didn't start until 4 weeks after 9/11 - on Oct 7. The people doing the fighting were Afghani warlords - the so-called 'Northern Alliance'. There were maybe a couple hundred CIA and special ops troops helping target the bombings.

'We' consisted of us using B-52s to augment tribal rivalries. There were no significant numbers of US troops in Afghanistan until November - and as late as March the next year there were still under 10,000.

Going after Bin Laden was justified. The war against the Taliban was not. And we fucked up both.

[Captain Hilts]

52. Special forces and SAS. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. And thanks for not reading what I wrote. nt

[Captain Hilts]

63. I did. We were there long before November. nt

[truebrit71]

9. Er, yeah we kinda did...Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11...

..

[Captain Hilts]

13. The folks that attacked us on Sept. 11th were run out of Afghanistan...

we went there and found all sorts of stuff that confirmed this tie.

'Afghanistan' is not a functioning country outside of Kabul. So, we cannot treat it as such.

[Astrad]

20. Some of them received training there

Most were from Saudi Arabia. There never was any evidence that the Taliban government knew of the attacks. Some Taliban Mullahs may have but no evidence has been presented that anyone who was part of the official government did. There is plenty of evidence that the Taliban were willing to negotiate with the United States about handing over Bin Laden and others. Of course they were likely doing this out of fear rather than any sense of justice. But the *ush admin made the 'choice' to invade rather than pursue these negotiations. Gallons of ink have been spilled over why that decision was made, no need to go into here. But it was a choice.

[Kolesar]

23. They would have handed over Bin Laden?

That's news to me. Any citations?

[Astrad]

27. Link

"A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.
For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11

[Kolesar]

43. Good answer

"However, it is unclear whether the Taliban would have the ability to seize Bin Laden and hand him over. "

Lots to learn, but I am leaving for the weekend. good day

[Captain Hilts]

16. That said, President Obama needs to define what 'winning' in Afghanistan is. nt

[Clio the Leo]

24. lol, did you miss the part where he said...

Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan Security Forces, and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4896758.shtml

Now, just because he has benchmarks, doesn't mean he's going to share them with American people on day one. He has them and we either trust his judgement or vote him out of office next time.

Not to mention the fact he never said the word "win" in his remarks. I dont think he consider any situation a "win." That's not what this is about.

But then again, we're not Palin fans, we're not treating this as if it's a football game and we do not need a victory to cheer for.

We just need to for citizens of the world to be a bit safer.

[Captain Hilts]

28. No, I didn't. It's just not clear to me.

Sorry, I'm not an Obama groupie, even though I generally agree on what he's doing here. He needs to sell it better after having been the 'anti-war' candidate.

By the way, I'm not "treating this as if it's a football game and we do not need a victory to cheer for." I've done volunteer work at Bethesda Naval and Walter Reed and have seen the true cost of this war. What have you done for the troops committed to fight this war? Campaigning for Obama doesn't count.

[Clio the Leo]

32. He was NEVER the "anti-war" candidate...

... he was the "get out of Iraq in 16 months candidate." He has now revised that to 19 months.

As for Afghanistan, we were warned.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8295880&mesg_id=8295895

My remark about treating this like a football game was not directed at you personally, it was cautionary remider to all of us. ;)

[Captain Hilts]

45. True, he said he didn't know how he would have voted on the IWR. But a good

chunk of his support - a lot on this board - was generated by his not having voted for IWR as Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, etc. had. It was part of the clean slate, fresh start image. He did not discourage that image.

Again, I support what he's doing in Afghanistan.

[jenmito]

47. He campaigned on being against the IRAQ war and FOR the war in Afghanistan. n/t

[asphalt.jungle]

36. when did he say he was the anti-war candidate?

i know he was proud to be the anti-iraq war candidate, but never heard him talk about being anti-war. even in his frequently cited 2002 speech he said "i'm not against ALL wars, just dumb wars." and to him iraq was dumb, afghanistan wasn't.

[Captain Hilts]

44. That is a perception generated in the campaign. It's why some folks voted for him, whether or not...

it is an image he, personally, advocated.

So, the standard of explanation is higher for him that for dumbass GWB. That's where some of these irked posts come from - folks that don't differentiate between Afghanistan and Iraq.

[jenmito]

48. He always said he wants to get out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan. Whoever

thought he was anti-war wasn't listening.

[Clio the Leo]

53. And folks who just plain out didn't listen...

.... here is Joe Biden CLEARLY declaring candidate Barack as the "anti-war" candidate and helping push that meme. Barack is so pleased with Joe's effort that he applaudes him!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CojcfLdwhjc

Then, during his DNC acceptance speech, our nominee took time out to continue this notion that he was the anti-war candidate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpqvJgS9V5k

And yes, this is :sarcasm:

It doesn't matter WHAT the campaign staffers/volunteers were saying if the two guys on the top of the ticket were saying the exact opposite.

[redqueen]

21. That's not bushian language so much as conventional wisdom.

Yes, we chose a military response rather than an international police action... but the view that the military response was necessary was not only bush's... nor was it only republicans' view... most dems agree.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Canada, England, Denmark, France and Germany have participated in Afghanistan with us. nt

[redqueen]

26. War is good for business. (nt)

[Captain Hilts]

30. That's an insult to Canada, Denmark, France and Germany. nt

[redqueen]

33. I'm sure they'll get over my scathing rebuke. (nt)

[msongs]

31. Vietnamistan. have a nice war Mr. Obama nt

[960]

35. Wow, Cali. Guess when you're fair and balanced some of the more

ardent apologists will attack you. Be sure to keep your avatar, lest they really turn on you.

[Clio the Leo]

37. lol and if "bushian language" was a fair statement then on one would have said anythign.

And please read my use of "fair" as in "accurate" not as in "stop being mean to him!" ;)

[960]

38. It is a fair statement. The war in Afghanistan, though arguably justified, was certainly

a war of choice.

[Clio the Leo]

40. Well, "start" is kind of a relative term but....

... I'm not disagreeing with that part of her(?) post ... just the Bush part.

Yes, we're choosing to amp up our forces ... but I think that, like the President, I dont like the OTHER choice.

[Political Tiger]

67. Sort of like the war against Japan was "a war of choice?"

Sure, after Japan attacked us in 1941 we could have sat back and done nothing ... made the "choice" to not fight back ... or when the southern states succeeded from the union Lincoln could have made the "choice" to let them go and do nothing ... but in either case the world we live in now would be a whole lot different if Roosevelt or Lincoln had made those "choices"

[cali]

39. It is a fair statement.

Saying that we didn't choose to go to war in Afghanistan is very similar to the type of language bush used. And it's not true. We made a choice to go to war in Afghanistan. That is a fact.

[Clio the Leo]

42. Again, I disagree with your Bush comparison....

... as the President is not using the kind of scare tactics that Bush did. He is speaking to like we are adults and has promised to set benchmarks and evaluate our progress. More importantly, his goal is not to build a new democracy, but to give the people of Afghanistan an better, more peaceful alternative to what they have now. In so doing, we hope to make the world a bit safer.

I think when it comes down to it, we're just splitting hairs here though and, unfortunately, I have to go dry mine now. :)

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

49. "Bushian language"? Bush said we didn't chose to fight in IRAQ and we DID. He lied to us,

pretending Saddam was connected to the 9/11 attacks. It's not a lie to say AFGHANISTAN was where the 9/11 attacks CAME from.

[Sebastian Doyle]

58. It's not a lie, but it is somewhat a distortion

Does Al Qaeda have historical ties to Afghanistan? Of course. Poppy Bush's CIA created Al Qaeda and sent them specifically TO Afghanistan to keep the Russians busy back in the 80's.

But there were no Afghans on any of those planes on 9-11-01 (assuming you buy the "official" story floated by the Bush Crime Family). There's no real evidence that Bin Laden was anywhere near Afghanistan on or after 9-11-01.

The real problem with public perception of Afghanistan is that the Bush Crime Family propaganda machine was successful in confusing "Al Qaeda" with the "Taliban" to the point where many people think they are one and the same.

Al Qaeda are "terrorists" who were once on the CIA payroll, but supposedly not anymore.

The Taliban are fundamentalist wackjobs who refused to build UNOCAL's pipeline, and burned up all of the Bush Crime Family's poppy fields. And it's for THOSE reasons that the plans to invade Afghanistan were on the Chimp's desk in the Oval Office even before he took his summer vacation in 2001.

9-11-01 provided him with an excuse to invade Afghanistan, but in reality, it had nothing to do with the attacks.

Oddly enough, the opium poppies are now doing better than ever, but the UNOCAL pipeline remains unfinished, despite the fact that UNOCAL's own employee, Hamid Karzai, is the puppet "president" of Afghanistan.

Add to this the historical fact that NOBODY has successfully invaded/occupied Afghanistan, and in fact several otherwise successful military machines have been crushed there (as the Soviets were) and you have to ask the question...

What the FUCK are they thinking, staying in that shithole?

[jenmito]

61. The al Qaeda members who attacked us on 9/11 and those who planned that attack

were based in Afghanistan. They were Saudi CITIZENS but they were in Afghanistan or on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Bin Laden was supposedly cornered at Tora Bora and Rumsfeld refused to send the special ops needed to get him. That's the story I believe and Obama seems to believe it, too, which is why he thinks it's the right thing to do to concentrate in Afghanistan/Pakistan to get those who attacked us. I know the Taliban is separate from al Qaeda and Obama's team seems to know that, too...at least that only some of the Taliban has anything to do with al Qaeda. Obama wants to engage the Taliban to help us with al Qaeda.

[lunatica]

50. Although I will never sign a petition to support war I received this from VoteVets.org

Just to add one more dimension to this discussion, I support the vets and even understand that they believe in some warfare, but I will never support war.

http://ga3.org/campaign/afghanistan

Here is the petition in full:

We the undersigned support President Obama's multi-faceted approach to regaining the upper-hand in fighting al Qaeda in the real front against terrorism - in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The President sees Afghanistan as a war that must be fought on a number of levels. Yes, militarily, but also with heavy diplomacy and political negotiation, and humanitarian assistance. Each of those were lacking during the last administration, and the result was a situation that devolved largely into chaos. Most importantly, this President has given up the pipe dream of setting up a European-style democracy in Afghanistan, and instead has refocused our goals on a more urgent mission - protecting America and the world from terrorism.

President Obama is setting our efforts in Afghanistan on the right course, by appointing a special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to the region, and recognizing the importance of non-military means in stabilizing troubled spots. At the same time, he is sending desperately needed reinforcements that our troops on the ground need to responsibly and securely undertake their mission. This is a clear, balanced, and intelligently formulated plan.

The President knows that the war against terrorists requires much more than just throwing troops at the problem. We strongly support the President's approach to our efforts in the region, and believe they will result in a stronger and more secure America.
Signed by:

[Phx_Dem]

54. I guess you missed the entire election campaign.

You know, the one where Obama talked over and over again about the need for more troops in Afganistan. Memba that?

[spoony]

65. And? He was wrong, is wrong, and as long as we're there

we will CONTINUE to be in the wrong. Why do you guys constantly harp on campaign speeches? Especially since most of the time people here were apologising for them and saying he was just trying to win moderates and conservatives over? Right is right, these wars are wrong, and that doesn't change.

[Phx_Dem]

71. You absolutely entitled to our opinion, as is everyone, but for the

original poster to imply this was a surprise or "America didn't support this," is disingenuous and wrong. Obama talked about this at almost every campaign stop, and he was elected by a landslide so America did vote for this.

[leftofthedial]

59. C'mon Barack!

Throw cali a hunk of red meat why dotcha!

[empyreanisles]

62. Leave cali alone. She doesn't reflexivley hate Barack like some here. (n/t)

[leftofthedial]

69. Hey! I'm on her side.

Trying to get her a little red meat.

Who hates President Obama? Can you name someone here who fits that description?

[Runcible Spoon]

68. Why, BESTILL MY HEART!

Cali! What's this thread all about girlfriend? :gasp:

[HopeOverFear]

70. *smh*