Can you lend a Hand?

[FrenchieCat]

I need some assistance.

I ate too much, and now I can't sleep.

So I just attempted to find Anti-Afghanistan War threads on DU (via the Search function) from prior Obama being elected....

I went back as far as 2005, But I really couldn't find any.

Perhaps I am not searching correctly. :shrug:

If folks can locate some of those threads (say.....pre 2009), could you please provide the links?
I'd like to read what we thought about that war before Pres. Obama was elected.

Thanks! :hi:

[Clio the Leo]

1. I searched for some last night....

.... most of the threads concerned 1. how "presidential" he appeared when he visited the troops in Afghanistan in 8/08 and the darned press saying he had snubbed them and 2. John McCain having no Afghanistan strategy until he "stole Obamas" and not attening Defense Dept. hearings on the matter.

Sometimes I cant tell if you're being facetious, if you REALLY want to see them, I can get you some links.

But you better believe there were a few people starting threads about it. ;)

Not anything like now of course, but I suspect that's your point.

[FrenchieCat]

4. I actually did searches.....with the word Afghanistan.......both from '06 to '08

and then I went back to '03 to '05, and didn't find anything of note.

I know the media has been driving hard at how awful that war is,
but I don't remember DU being very opinionated about that particular war,
other than it had been neglected.

So yeah...if you have found some threads in where folks here at DU are discussing
what a terrible war it is, and how it needs to be over (then), and these threads
pre-dates Obama's election, I'd like to see them.

[Clio the Leo]

17. Here's one....

(and again, I agree with your overall premise, the small number of threads I DID find are just a teeny drop compared to the flood we have now)

This one sounds like it was written today though. lol

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6516950

And it's pretty funny that that particular thread was locked.

[FrenchieCat]

25. I'm ignoring the author of that thread! Whomever it is! LOL!

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Clio the Leo]

18. another...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6531101

[FrenchieCat]

26. Damn girl, those must have been Obama Haters before there was an Obama,

cause that poster is on my ignore list too.
Is it the same poster as the one on that other thread
that I also cannot read because I'm ignoring the author?

[Clio the Leo]

29. yeah ..... two of those threads were by the same poster ^ ^ NT

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Clio the Leo]

19. This one got pretty heated......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6516239

[FrenchieCat]

30. That one is consistent with those who have always despised this President.....

even before he was the President.....and have shitted on him since before he placed his hand on that Lincoln Bible. But they were a very small minority then....real small.

[Clio the Leo]

32. Well, they had babies. :-) NT

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Hekate]

57. No, that's the same poster on two of the other threads Clio linked to...

... you'd better believe that's a lot of consistency over time.

Hekate

[FrenchieCat]

67. !

:rofl:

[rwheeler31]

2. Count republican sheep, Lie down , and let your body work.

[FrenchieCat]

5. I'm serious. Can you help me with this?

You have a star.

Perhaps I'm doing something wrong.

Afghanistan is how I'm spelling it....

[HughMoran]

3. I spent a half hour looking for all the polls where the majority of DUers thought Afghanistan was

a legitimate conflict. In general, DUers approved of Afghanistan and disapproved of Iraq almost in the inverse to their approval of Afghanistan. The only reason that I can tell that people have changed their weighting is the lack of "bad" happening in Iraq. Essentially, Afghanistan has become the "war we can't win". I think it's an interesting study in human behavior.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Kind of a Bait and Switch situation?

That since Iraq is not longer a point of contention, we've moved on to the war
that few discussed before now? :shrug:

So when a war is neglected and we are just floundering there, dying but not accomplishing anything, that's ok...
but if the guy that said he'd change that,
does what he'd say he'd do,
then we have find that as something to be up in arms about?

In fact, I don't recall any of the viable candidates on the Democratic side
in either '04 or '08 saying that they would end the Afghanistani war.

In a way, I'm a bit perplexed to read the rabbid interest we suddenly have
developed in regard to this war.

I will say the media did a artful job on this one....
if you have seen the reports on Afghanistan for the last 6 months or so......
you know what I'm talking about.
That has been interesting too.

[LynzM]

9. Yeah, I think you nailed it.

It was a non-discussion-point, prior to his election, and it was ALL IRAQ ALL THE TIME (!!!) when we did discuss war (or more accurately, when the media did).

[FrenchieCat]

12. We also did a lot on the possible upcoming war in Iran.......

I don't even remember not one politician with getting out of Afghanistan
as part of their platform, except perhaps Dennis Kucinich.

I'm gonna do a search on that now.

I just want to understand why after Barack Obama ran specifically on a platform to
do what he is now doing, no one seem to care then at all.....
and now, it's like the end of the world.

I'm trying to figure out where the intensity on the issue of this particular war
came from.

[Clio the Leo]

22. It's a puzzlement, huh? NT

[HughMoran]

14. Since war is always bad, but Iraq has lost it's appeal, using Afghanistan as a cudgel is the perfect

weapon for those who wish to beat Obama about the head and neck - whatever their actual motivation.

Who can argue for war? The only thing those who can't comprehend the sudden rage over Afghanistan have on their side are Obama's actual words and the fact that Afghanistan was a very minor issue here until Obama was elected. In fact, Obama's promise to "get the job done" and "to win" were likely the driving force behind much of the anger towards him. Granted, I'm never for expansion of any conflict that seems to have little benefit and a lot of sacrifice; if people would simply be honest about their motivations and stop using damaging arguments, I'd be glad to discuss this conflict and why we probably can't win there.

[LWolf]

93. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5265496

[Cha]

6. Good point..

I don't remember there being all this rage against it but as we know..it's different now..President Obama is in charge.

[FrenchieCat]

8. But it's the same war.

It's just that now we have a new President who is doing what he said all along he'd do
in reference to it.

Did we just do a giant Flip-Flop?

[Cha]

11. It's mind boggling..someone

today posted that it didn't matter what he said during the primary.

[Clio the Leo]

23. lol, well how convenient. NT

[IndianaGreen]

10. Back in late 2001 I posted my opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan

my argument then was, and it remains today, that the best response to 9-11 was to do what Israel did on the aftermath of the Munich Massacre. Rather than killing a lot of innocent civilians with bombings and military invasions, Israel send small teams to hunt down the people responsible for the massacre. Sure, there were problems, and some innocents did die, but nothing on the scale of what the US has already done wiping out entire villages in Afghanistan.

Israel did make one controversial decision, it didn't go after the man that ordered the Munich Massacre: Yasser Arafat!

[FrenchieCat]

13. I believe you......as I do think that you, more than anyone would be consistent on this....

But do you have the link? I'd like to read the response from other DUers on your argument.

[IndianaGreen]

16. No, such posts would be in the older DU archives

It was pretty nasty in here then! There was a strong current of revenge, people wanting to strike at anyone, anywhere!

BTW, here is an April 2009 background article on Afghanistan that I posted in DU:

http://morph.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=277x480

Afghanistan and the Lessons of Soviet Intervention

By Norman Markowitz

The Obama administration, as it seeks to withdraw from Iraq, finds itself in a far more difficult and complicated situation in Afghanistan. In February, the National Security Archive, a Washington-based institute that uncovers classified documents from the Cold War era, released a collection of fascinating documents from Soviet sources in the Gorbachev era. These primary source documents concern the Gorbachev leadership’s attempts to extricate the USSR from its years-long military intervention in Afghanistan. From these documents, we might glean some important historical lessons about military intervention in Central Asia and look for alternatives to the Obama administration's plan to increase troop numbers there.

While I do not share the sympathetic portrayal of the “reformers” in the Gorbachev leadership of the USSR put forward by the analysts at the National Security Archive, particularly Gorbachev’s naïve, or worse, effort to cooperate with the Reagan administration and the Pakistani dictatorship, the documents could be a valuable source of information on the region for the Obama administration, as it seeks to learn from the past in order not to repeat the errors of the past.

Background

First, let us look from the US bloc side at how we arrived at the present situation 30 years after Zbigniew Brzezinski successfully convinced Jimmy Carter to throw US support to the right-wing Muslim guerrillas fighting a Communist-led government in Afghanistan. Brzezinski correctly argued that US intervention there could provoke the Soviets to fall into what he called “the Afghan trap,” a political military quagmire that could be “their Vietnam.”

Out of that policy, greatly expanded by the Reagan administration, came the victory of corrupt regional warlords and ultra-right religionists who formed the so-called mujahideen, the latter favored especially by the Pakistani regime. In 1988, under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, who had previously led the Saudi Arabian contingent of the tens of thousands of foreign Muslim “holy warriors," Al Qaeda, or “the base," was founded and joined the mujahideen.

Backed and funded by the US, this ultra-right group strove to fight to “purify” the Muslim world of all secular forces and regimes, drive out all “foreign” influences and establish an idealized multinational theocratic state founded on a distorted view of early Islam and governed by a fundamentalist interpretation of religious law.

Al Qaeda, along with the other US-backed groups and warlords that formed the mujahideen, literally drowned the Afghan revolution in blood at the beginning of the 1990s. Afghanistan's Communists, who had struggled since the late 1970s to achieve a social revolution based on land reform, secular government, education and gender equality, faced relentless terror and murder. Unfortunately, their seizure of power by force, subsequent internecine violence, and a general failure by the Communists to build popular support for a broad democratic and social justice program hurt their cause.

With the support of Pakistan, the Taliban, those sections of the guerrilla movement led by fundamentalist religious students, won out over the warlords and established a regime based on clerical dictatorship, which even the Iranian clerical regime would call "medieval."

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8326/

[FrenchieCat]

24. Well, here's from the Atlantic in reference to our '04 candidate,

and nearly the winner, and what he would have done in Afghanistan:

“If President Bush had unleashed the American military to do the job at Tora Bora four years ago and killed Osama bin Laden, he wouldn’t have to quote this barbarian’s words today. Because President Bush lost focus on the killers who attacked us and instead launched a disastrous war in Iraq, today Osama bin Laden and his henchmen still find sanctuary in the no-man’s land between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they still plot attacks against America."
http://www.johnkerry.com/blog/entry/afghanistan_al_qaeda_and_the_war_on_terror/

Nothing has changed since, expect for we are getting out of Iraq.

[Clio the Leo]

27. Serious question......

.... how many members did Black September/Fatah (and I'll even throw in the PLO) at the time of the Munich massacre and how many members did the Taliban/Al Qaeda have at the time of the 9/11 attacks?

And how did the fact al Qaeda had the protection of a seated government affect the situation compared to the fact that the Black September/Fattah did not?

How does the geography (the small land mass that the PLO calls home vs the amount of territory the Taliban has) dictate our approach?

[boppers]

50. Interesting enough, McChrystal seems to agree with you.

The body count wasn't helping, and since he's SOCOM, he's advocating minimal, precise, targeted, action.

That strategy has been drowned out by noise that adding those action teams and support is "escalation" in the eyes of some.

[sandnsea]

15. Here's some

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2ADFA_enUS354&q=+site:democraticunderground.com+democraticunderground.com+2008+afghanistan+ball&ei=s2IPS9VMiP6xA5yI4OYB&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=more-results&ved=0CAsQ2AQ

Opinions varied.

There is no question that the opposition to Iraq gained traction when "Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan" took hold. It was a good justification to oppose the Iraq war that resonated with people so the left ran with it.

It's not surprising to me that those same people now oppose the Afghanistan war, and sadly not surprised that they don't see their duplicity either.

Of course, there are those who always opposed both wars because they oppose all war. And a few who believe 9/11 was an inside job so clearly they'll oppose the war. It'd be easier to respond if we knew which people thought what.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Thanks! that's what I thought......

Many new "converts" on being against Afghanistan these days here at DU.

Wonder what would have happened if John Kerry would have won the 2004 election?

I know that he said that the OBL tape that was "found" right before the '04 general election
vote hurt him. :shrug:


Because Afghanistan was the Bush Administration's first order of business following the 9/11 attacks, the results of this policy have advanced the furthest there. And because Kerry is on record as saying he would increase the number of U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan, it's probably the clearest measure of how a Kerry Administration would differ from Bush's. Afghanistan is a subject that Kerry's advisers and other senior Democrats turn to again and again. When I interviewed Joseph Biden in late March, he recounted a conversation he'd had with Condoleezza Rice in the spring of 2002 about the growing instability that had taken hold after the Taliban was defeated, in late 2001. Biden told Rice he believed that the United States was on the verge of squandering its military victory by allowing the country to slip back into the corruption, tyranny, and chaos that had originally paved the way for Taliban rule. Rice was uncomprehending. "What do you mean?" he remembers her asking. Biden pointed to the re-emergence in western Afghanistan of Ismail Khan, the pre-Taliban warlord in Herat who quickly reclaimed power after the American victory. He told me: "She said, 'Look, al-Qaeda's not there. The Taliban's not there. There's security there.' I said, 'You mean turning it over to the warlords?' She said, 'Yeah, it's always been that way.'"

Biden was seeking to illustrate the blind spot that Democratic foreign-policy types see in Bush officials like Rice, who believe that if a rogue state has been rid of its hostile government (in this case the Taliban), its threat has therefore been neutralized. Democrats see Afghanistan as an affirmation of their own view of modern terrorism. As Fareed Zakaria noted recently in Newsweek, the Taliban regime was not so much a state sponsoring and directing a terrorist organization (the Republican view) as a terrorist organization sponsoring, guiding, and even hijacking a state (the Democratic view). Overthrowing regimes like that is at best only the first step in denying safe haven to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Equally important is creating the institutional bases of stability and liberalization that will prevent another descent into lawlessness and terror—in a word, nation-building.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200407/marshall

[avaistheone1]

36. I have always been against the Afghanistan war.

$100 contribution to DU if anyone can find a post of me ever supporting the war in Afghanistan (after the attack on Tora Bora in 2001).

[FrenchieCat]

42. You also never supported Barack Obama......

and I would assume the same would be true of John Kerry, or Hillary clinton, or John Edwards, or Joe Biden or any viable Democratic candidate....since they all had basically the same policy on Afghanistan.

Barbara Lee is my Representative, and she's the only one who voted against going into Afghanistan.

How did the Kuch vote on that? I'm just curious.

[avaistheone1]

47. I voted for Barack Obama.

But when he got my vote he did not get a blank check to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I stated that clearly and on more than one occasion prior to the election.

If instead I had voted for John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards, or Joe Biden et al – not a single one of them would have received a blank check for Afghanistan from me either.

I have been consistent in my position. There are many of us that have been saying this before the election so it should be a surprise now that we are fervently opposed to the Afghan escalation.

This is not some kind of anti-Obama vendetta.

[FrenchieCat]

60. So you aren't fucking surprised of this President's position on this....

Unlike so many "disappointed" folks here,
who seem to believe that Obama somehow deceived them.
The fact is that he didn't....
and you voting for him wasn't going to change
what his platform was when he ran.

Looks like that's how it works.....
you voted for someone who clearly told you his position,
over and over again,
and you don't like it.

The folks am reading about here
are taking their ball and going home....
and I'm trying to figure out why they ever
had a ball to begin with.
None of this is new.

So you can go ahead and be against this war,
and I'll be as I was; ambivalent about this war.
I see reasons for it, and I see that it may have been lost for too long.

I will support this President in him trying to see if he can
make something tragic into something less than tragic.
I'll give him that; the time to tactically do something positive
at this point, to rectify a fucked up mess left by the last administration.

I know that if I met up with an Al Qeada, if I said I was American,
it wouldn't matter what else I was.

[treestar]

31. Not on DU at the time but I remember being against the war

But I was part of 20% or less in the country.

At this point I think Bush and Co. created a situation Obama has to deal with. We can't just pull out, just like we couldn't just pull out of Iraq.

[avaistheone1]

38. Why the hell not?

[FrenchieCat]

43. Because we ain't playing patty cake?

I know it may seem easy to you.....
from the comfort of your chair at home.

[avaistheone1]

48. It won't be easy for those soldiers to die in Afghanistan.

Much easier for Obama to sit in his big chair in the Oval Office and say kind words about them while they make the sacrifices and do the dying. Meanwhile you can post Obama's angst and the fucking glory of it all from the comfort of your cushy chair.

This isn't about patty cakes. Others will pay the real price, not Obama, not you, or I.

[ShortnFiery]

51. Exactly. We are PLAYERS in their civil war. We're taking the thug, Karzai's side.

There's nothing good that can come out of increasing combat troop strength in this unstable nation embroiled in civil war.

It will be bloody NO MATTER WHAT, but the least damage to both AMERICANS and innocent CIVILIANS would be for us to pull our troops out immediately.

But we won't and as such we will be IN MORE DANGER at home and abroad not to mention the poor women, children, old men and goats that get in the middle of all the killing and dying.

[avaistheone1]

52. For sure. If we pull out next month, in 7 years, or 30 years the same chain of events is going to

happen. Indeed it will be bloody. The country will revert immediately back to where it wants to be and where it has been for centuries. We can not control that, and we are better off not pretending that we can.

The supposedly elected government is corrupt. Yet the people want us there even less than they want that government. The Afghans have killed American and British soldiers who were training them to defend themselves. You think we would get the message: give Afghanistan back to Afghanistan.

[treestar]

79. Once Bush started it, it got going

And leaving it in the middle could cause even more people to pay the price. This process has been going on for seven years or more.

I don't like that it started, but don't want it ended irresponsibly without cleaning up the mess we made first. No one can snap their fingers and put us back to Oct. 2001 overnight.

[avaistheone1]

82. I see we make a bigger mess that keeps us there for at least 7 years

that will kill thousands of Afghans and Americans in order to clean up the initial mess.

Don't think so.



:crazy:

[knightinwhitesatin]

81. it must be easy

from the comfort of your chair at home to order people like me to our possible deaths. Yes I am an active duty soldier, yes I have been to Iraq 3 times and yes I am most likely in one of the Army Brigades that President Obama will order to Afghanistan as part of his surge announcement next week. I was going to remain a lurker on this site (have been since 2004) but all the support for escalation in Afghanistan has made my stomach turn and I can't be quiet anymore. It must be so incredibly easy for all of you that support the President's escalation of forces in Afghanistan. you have no skin in the game. Forgive me if I am less than thrilled about going to war for a fourth time. Oh I'll do it because my oath of enlistment requires it, but if I am sent I will resent President Obama as much as I resent Chimpy. Forgive me if I am not thrilled about watching more of my friends die. You see I have watched people die from these mistakes our leaders call the War on Terror. In August of 07 I was in Baghdad and I watched my best friend, my fucking best friend in the world die in an IED. All because Chimpy wanted to save his so called legacy. I escorted his body back home, I saw his mom and dad weep over his casket which was closed because he was so mangled, and I saw his wife clueless and not knowing what to do with her life now. I watched them lower the coffin in the ground and then I had to go back to Iraq and finish my tour. So many of you supporting this escalation are OH so fucking brave supporting the President while we are the ones doing the fighting and the dying. Oh what fucking heroes you all are.

I first came to DU in 2004 during my first Iraq tour because a friend of mine told me about the site. He told me that here liberal democrats and progressives were united in their distaste for the war. I was happy to come and read all the messages expressing support for us soldiers and trashing the republicans and Bush for their sending us to such a shit hole. I never made an account because I am not a political person and don't like arguing. For the last 5 years I have lurked on and off on this site taking strength from all the people who knew this war was crap. And now???? I am so disillusioned it is sad. So many people cheerleading on more death and destruction. And why? Because candidate Obama said he would do it, so it must be good. What utter shit, how disgusting, how pathetic. President Obama is ordering 30,000+ more men and women into a meat grinder and some of you celebrate? Some of you say it must be necessary, and what is worst of all is how you treat people that disagree. How is it necessary to kill more innocent Afghan women and children, because more will die. How is it necessary to kill more young American soldiers and marines, because I know first hand more will die. And how is it necessary to strain an already strained military past its breaking point. I have been a soldier for 7 years now, I joined after 9/11 because I believed. I learned it was all a lie and I stayed because I love my friends in the military and I thought Obama would be different so I stayed and reenlisted. Well aren't I a dumbass? And for those who sad he is doing what he said he would do, I say to you........so fucking what. I thought after a year of worsening conditions, President Obama would come to his senses and realize what a tragic waste Afghanistan is. I thought that one of the smartest men alive would see the truth behind the lies of this war. I was wrong and now I am more than likely going to Afghanistan. Aren't I a fool......

So I am here now to publicly state my displeasure for this surge into Afghanistan. Yes, yes, yes I know some of you will thank me for my concern. Some of you will tell me to shut up and do my job, and some of you will take offense to this post and have outright hostility towards me. I don't care, I am the one that will be on the roads in Afghanistan, not you sitting at home with your pom poms. I will be the one possibly watching my friends die or be horribly maimed for life, not you sitting on the couch watching TV. I will be the one risking my life for a lie that this war is necessary, not you who are so rabidly cheering on this surge. And when I am done and I come home and I get out of the Army, I will spend the rest of my life working to elect Democrats who reject the notion that the War on Terror is necessary. I am a good Democrat, I have been one since I was 18, and yet I watch so many so called Democratic representatives and Senators and so many so called Democrats on DU actively cheer on an escalation of war, actively cheer on more death and more suffering, and actively cheer on a President who in the same year that the won a Nobel Peace Prize ordered 55,000 more troops into a war zone. I don't hate President Obama, but he is not the change that I and my friends in the Army were hoping for, I am very disillusioned.

[jonnyblitz]

83. good post. nt

[QC]

85. This should be an OP. n/t

[JohnnyLib2]

88. Yes, for sure. Valuable perspective.

[jonnyblitz]

90. I agree. nt

[noamnety]

100. One more vote for making this an OP. (nt)

[ShortnFiery]

86. Awesome post kiws.

Thanks for your insight. :hi:

[freddie mertz]

95. You have my best wishes for your safety

And for the safety of your friends.

This war-mongering we are seeing on DU is pretty disgraceful.

[Starry Messenger]

97. I hope you will make this into an OP KIWS.

One of my cousin's sons just got back from Iraq. The war isn't any less stressful and deadly depending on who the CIC is. :hug:

[ProSense]

98. Here is what I don't understand:

I first came to DU in 2004 during my first Iraq tour because a friend of mine told me about the site. He told me that here liberal democrats and progressives were united in their distaste for the war. I was happy to come and read all the messages expressing support for us soldiers and trashing the republicans and Bush for their sending us to such a shit hole. I never made an account because I am not a political person and don't like arguing. For the last 5 years I have lurked on and off on this site taking strength from all the people who knew this war was crap. And now???? I am so disillusioned it is sad. So many people cheerleading on more death and destruction. And why? Because candidate Obama said he would do it, so it must be good. What utter shit, how disgusting, how pathetic. President Obama is ordering 30,000+ more men and women into a meat grinder and some of you celebrate? Some of you say it must be necessary, and what is worst of all is how you treat people that disagree. How is it necessary to kill more innocent Afghan women and children, because more will die. How is it necessary to kill more young American soldiers and marines, because I know first hand more will die. And how is it necessary to strain an already strained military past its breaking point. I have been a soldier for 7 years now, I joined after 9/11 because I believed. I learned it was all a lie and I stayed because I love my friends in the military and I thought Obama would be different so I stayed and reenlisted. Well aren't I a dumbass? And for those who sad he is doing what he said he would do, I say to you........so fucking what. I thought after a year of worsening conditions, President Obama would come to his senses and realize what a tragic waste Afghanistan is. I thought that one of the smartest men alive would see the truth behind the lies of this war. I was wrong and now I am more than likely going to Afghanistan. Aren't I a fool......

Why didn't you speak up before? As for all the people who knew this war was crap, that wasn't really true of most of DU prior to the election. In fact, Democrats were running against ignoring Afghanistan as Bush did. Most people realized and accepted that as the Democratic position. You also are accusing the President of doing something when he hasn't announced his position yet.

[treestar]

77. Imagine everything that's been built up there over 7 years

If you start a system of any kind and add to it for that many years, you're going to have a lot of effect. Say you start a business and hire an office and people over the years. Books, papers, machines end up in the office over the years.

Then you have to close it. It'll take a long time to clear everything out and wrap everything up.

[ShortnFiery]

49. Why the hell not? We certainly CAN pull our combat troops out - and should. eom

[treestar]

78. Maybe somebody who is there can explain what has happened over the last 7

years. That's a lot of time for all kinds of things to be built, changed and added to.

There's tons of equipment, just for starters. Our actions over those years changed things there.

It could be like putting a plane up in the air and deciding part way through you're done and just leaving the controls.

[Cha]

33. Somebodies don't want

you getting out the research on the greatest..this OP had 5 Recs and now it's down to -0.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Well, one reason why I'm so hated by some is because

they know I'm not stupid.....
They only wish that it were so.

Folks might start thinking for themselves,
as opposed to going with the kool kids....

I'm still curious if John Kerry would have faced resistance 4 years ago,
if he had won....since he basically had the same position Obama has now.
In fact, I wonder if the News Media would have done their "share"
to make sure that folks turned against this war then,
since I would imagine that Kerry would have started too; to end the Iraq War.

Interesting too, about the media.
How they can cheerlead us into wars,
and then do a bait and switch whenever they feel like it.
If an attack occurred tomorrow, wonder how they'd treat this President?
They have a lot of power, that's for sure....
even though they shouldn't.

[akbacchus_BC]

39. You are loved more than you know, my dear Frenchie!

[Cha]

40. I think they would have done anything

to be against whatever Kerry was trying to do too. Any Dem Prez.

It's the freaking MediaWhores AKA NEO Base we're talking about.

Whatever the White House decides to do at anytime..I just know they're taking into account how they're going to have to deal with MW and how are they are going to play them.

[FrenchieCat]

44. In otherwords, John Kerry would have be a 1 termer,

and we'd be dealing with Pres. McCain today.

[akbacchus_BC]

37. Frenchie, you are right on the button, there are no links. The US fucking invaded Iraq and

Afghanistan. And to think it was only for oil and the US fucked up two countries. Frenchie, this is like the British Empire all over again. Am sick of these retards in office!

[FrenchieCat]

41. I wish the Afghans had oil......

Cause then they'd have something to substain their economy,
and it would be easier to leave them be.

I think that is why Al Qeada chose that part of the world
to hunker down in.

[ShortnFiery]

45. All you seemingly post about is information to BOOST President Obama's image.

I've never encountered a more fierce and loyal supporter of President Obama as you FC. However, like my anti-war stance, our reputations proceeds us. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

62. Why are my motives suspect......?

Am I supposed to post what you decide I should post?
What in the fuck is this?
Have I ever told you what to post?
Because I guess I could typify yours
just as arrogantly.
But why should I?
That's not my fucking job.
That's not why I come here...

[LibDemAlways]

80. If I didn't think Michelle Obama has more than enough to keep her busy,

I'd suspect she was spending a lot of time on DU.

Loyalty is admirable, but reflexive can-do-no-wrong-ism is no more becoming on d's than on r's.

[Garam_Masala]

46. man...you sure know how to touch a raw nerve

However in defense of lack of interest in Afghan war prior to election,
there was'nt just a lot of bad news coming out of Afghanistan war.
It was all Iraq war!

Quite the contrary, there was news about "elections" in Afghanistan and
Karzai getting elected, women attending schools and without requiring to
cover their entire body and faces, and what not.

[spoony]

53. You shouldn't spin so much on a full stomach.

If you really think that we all loved the war but have stopped because we hate Obama so much, you've stuffed yourself full of bullshit instead of turkey. It's the "rah rah war" crowd here that has sold out for the sake of politics.

[avaistheone1]

55. lol

Frenchie has some good points, but I think she is dead wrong on this issue.

I think this one of her :puffpiece:

You are right. It must not be easy to do on a full stomach either. :rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

58. So if someone doesn't agree with you exactly,

and isn't a total Pacifist per your description,
then they aren't a Liberal, and are a sell out, hey?

Look, go ahead and be a pacifist if you want to...
As it takes all kind of people to make the world go round.

the difference in me is I don't belittle those who have different
opinion from my own. I leave that to the fucked up teabagger crowd.
That's what they do; put labels on people, and dismiss them as being inferior.
Heck...sorta of like how you've just addressed me!

So who in the fuck are you to believe you make the rules for everyone else?
What are your qualifications that makes you think you are better than me?

As for your loving the war comment; I didn't like WWII either...
nor the Civil War, for that matter. Neither was pretty.
But when your buildings are knocked down right before your very eyes,
Spoony might think that he has all of the answers,
but sometimes, it ain't that easy.

[spoony]

59. I'm sorry, I can't read that

Why do you post in free form verse? What little I did read was that you "don't belittle those who have a different opinion from my own." That tells me that even if you were to write a response that didn't make my eyes blur, it would just be delusions. Everything you're doing in these OPs is clearly meant to undermine the sincerity of, and establish a basis for dismissing, anti-war posters, so I will NOT be falling for your feigned innocence and tolerance. Sell that bullshit to someone born closer to yesterday than I.

[FrenchieCat]

61. That's how I fucking write.....

Sorry you don't like it.
You don't really have to read it, though.

As for your accusations about me,
it appears that you only like to debate,
if everyone is in agreement with you,
or you can diss them at abandon,
to showcase your special perfect intellectual superiority skills.

Guess this was a contest.
I didn't know.

I have a different point of view,
that is read by more than just important people who feel exactly the same as you do.
As yet, there are others who agree with enough of what I have to say,
or at least are interested enough to read it and to agree and to disagree,
or simply just think about what is being said.

I'm not sure why you talk as if you are my superior....
because I don't see it that way.

[Prism]

63. It's a simple equation in politics

When you can't argue policy, smear your opponent's motives. That's what political operatives are paid to do. It's generally a fairly effective method in our system. However, I think people are too angry now to put up with it.

[FrenchieCat]

66. Yep....I'm smeared often.....called names, questioned for the way that I write,

automatically unrecced, told that I have ulterior motives not worthy
to be even addressed, that I am spinning, excusing, protecting, Koolaid drinking,
and so on and so on.


Glad that regardless of your strong political view,
you can at least see that.

[Prism]

68. I attemped to answer the question you're asking in this thread

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7090214

I think the dynamic described in it is why you didn't see a great uprising against Candidate Obama's words on Afghanistan in 2008. I think many anti-war Democrats who had little trouble pulling the lever for the President had an attitude of "We honestly didn't think he'd go through with it."

Hell, the Right certainly didn't think he was going to go through with it. That Candidate Obama was insincere about Afghanistan was the Right's greatest charge and the Left's most secret hope.

Since it's the holidays, I'll try to be kind and earnest in explaining why I think you get so much heat for your posts. While I can't and don't read everything anyone posts here, the posts of yours I have read seem overwhelmingly concerned with the President's media image and political well-being. When wondering why people oppose the President's policies, your first impulse seems to be that there is something wrong with the critic and the criticism without any analyzation of the policy. There are certainly plenty of policy and military arguments regarding the Afghanistan war, and engaging in them either way is no crime.

But when primary preoccupation centers on the smack people might talk about the President should he pull out, or why you didn't see certain kinds of posts back in 2008, then it's almost impossible not to draw a conclusion that your decision-making and opinions on the Afghan war pertain far more to political considerations than concrete military strategy.

When we're discussing putting American soldiers in harm's way, when we're justifying the inevitable further deaths of innocent civilians, I just don't think the President's image ranks anywhere near the top ten things anyone should be weighing when deciding whether or not to support escalation. It's a shallow and somewhat odd preoccupation. When doing moral calculations, PR vs. lives doesn't seem to be any kind of contest. And yet, you're kind of wading through that odd little pool. It's a little repulsive in that it seems you just don't seem to care about the deaths that will result at all. I'm not saying that's the truth of what's going on in your head. I'm simply saying that is the sentiment your posts are communicating. The focus is solely on the President and his political status.

I just don't think the President's PR image takes higher priority over the dead this policy will leave on the battlefield. The emphasis on that is why you're facing such vigorous push back. You want to protect the President. Some of us really don't care about the President's political fortunes when we're discussing the thousands of lives that will be lost because of the decision to widen this war.

[Cha]

89. It's a valid question and it touched a nerve obviously..

from your knee jerk insults.

[spoony]

96. None of these strawmen are made of anything deep enough

to reach a nerve. And maybe you shouldn't be hucking rocks in that glass house when it comes to insults. But I don't imagine you're any more able to recognise your own faults than you can Obama's. At least yours won't lead to more soldier and civilian deaths, though.

[Oregone]

54. Was it escalated before then to this degree?

It was the forgotten lost war, not the acceptable one.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Sounds profound.....

But perhaps it was a war with reasons as opposed to Iraq.

most called it a just war......not the wrong war.


There was only one politician to vote against
the Authorization to go into Afghanistan.
But Barbara Lee is a true Pacifist,
and not ashamed to say it.
Yet, all of the others, in both houses voted Aye.

That and the fact that every single Democratic politician to date
in Presidential politics who was viable had basically the exact
same policy, and had vowed to do what Barack Obama vowed to do.

The point is that this country supported the Afghanistan War
in much higher numbers than there ever was for the Iraq War.
That's just a fact.....
Those two wars haven't morphed into one,
and it would be ridiculous to believe that
this President who ran specifically to do what he is doing,
after Kerry ran on doing it as well,
is now going to do a OBambi,
and just let Al Qeada get comfy.

[zalinda]

64. Some called it a just war, but

mainly it was a forgotten war. Afghanistan was pushed so far in the background that I don't think some people even remembered that we had soldiers there, so the focus was put on the Iraq war.

And, as I remember, during the primaries, the Obama supporters ardently argued with the Clinton supporters that Obama was the better candidate BECAUSE he was anti war, and Clinton voted for the war. The fact that he supported the war in Afghanistan was mentioned rarely. It was also argued that he voiced his solution in Afghanistan to keep the Blue Dogs on board, but that after he was elected, he would turn left and stop aggression in both places. Many of these threads ended up locked.

zalinda

[FrenchieCat]

65. Again, I'm not going to morph the wars.......

and bringing up Hillary doesn't really help....
after all, she had the same plans for Afghanistan.

I don't think that anyone thought that Obama was Anti that War....
as he clearly stated that he was against Dumb wars...
and he made it known by what he said that Afghanistan was not a dumb war.
So I don't think anyone was that stupid to not know wars Obama supported,
and which he didn't.

And his Afghanistan stance was discussed, but since it was the same as every Democrat running,
what would be the point of having that discussion,
when you are looking at the policy differences of candidates?

For you to then throw in that "It was also argued".....
reminds me of Politico....and their sources.

[bvar22]

69. There is a group of us here at DU....

...that consistently and strongly OPPOSED a military invasion of Afghanistan since 2001.
We agreed that International Law Enforcement was the appropriate response to the activities of a small group of international criminals, or a small, highly targeted "Black Op" to surgically target the handful of Saudi criminals who perpetrated 9-11.
We also advocated for an international approach to cut off funding for AlQaeda, especially their bankers in Saudi Arabia and the "offshore" banks.

We maintained then that a military occupation of Afghanistan was unwinable due to the lack of a central government, tribalism, artificial boundaries, and terrain.
We predicted an expensive quagmire, unnecessary civilian casualties, and radicalization of neighboring countries due to the invasion/occupation of a Muslim Country by a Western/Christian superpower.

We were correct then.
We ARE correct NOW.

You are correct that in the early days, there was a majority on DU that wanted revenge, and did support the unnecessary killing of Afghani civilians as long as they weren't "targeted" (whatever THAT means), but there was also a strong minority voice.


I don't find it odd that as more attention is being paid to Afghanistan, more people are questioning the escalation of that WAR that we are losing after 9 years.
More people are arriving at the obvious conclusion.

I had to laugh upthread.
Someone pointed out a thread opposing Afghanistan from 2005.
Your reply was "Hey...an Obama hater before there wan an Obama."

You missed the obvious conclusion.
The opposition to Obama's planned escalation is about POLICY, and has nothing to do with Obama.

If you are trying to discount the opposition to the escalation of the WAR by branding it "Obama hating", you have failed.

[Moochy]

71. "We were correct then. We ARE correct NOW."

K&R this post about Policy and not Personality.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. I don't think it works to view opposition to the Afghan war now as an anti-Obama flare up

I think am increase in vocal opposition to the war in Afghanistan here at DU has very little if anything to do with Obama being President. It has something to do with a Democrat being President, since most members of DU have different expectations for a Democratic vs Republican President, but I don't think that explains most of it either.

I think increasingly people, not just here at DU, are skeptical that a prolonged military effort in Afghanistan will be any more productive in the long run than a prolonged military effort in South Viet Nam was. War weariness at a deep level is more than just being tired of a war continuing, it is a loss of faith in a belief that the ultimate outcome will justify the multi-dimensional costs of continuing the conflict.

[Cha]

72. That's nice because that was one of Pres Obama's campaign

points.

<snip>

"In what is being billed as a major policy speech, Obama declared this morning that if elected president, he would redirect attention and US forces to Afghanistan.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," he said. "Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia."

<more>
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/obama_afghanist.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. Yes Obama was clear how he felt about Afghanistan when he ran for President

Over a year has passed since Obama made those campaign pledges. 17,000 more troops were already sent to Afghanistan early in Obama's presidency. A national election for President has taken place in Afghanistan since then. Some of those whe earlier were hopeful that the situation in Afghanixtan could be stabalized and improved through an increased military committmemt there, are less hopeful about it now.

Sure some people are upset with Obama now over his Afghanistan war policy but my point was that they are not upset with the Afghanistan war because Obama became President - those who oppose it oppose it on its merrits or lack of same, not as a knee jerk anti-Obama reaction.

[Cha]

74. Yes, I know what your point was..

And, I know the history of some of these posters who are using primary hate in a new form.

I'm not saying all..nothing is black and white here.

[Aramchek]

75. the problem is you should have been looking for Anti-Obama threads

there you would have found many of the same folks who are up in arms about Afghanistan.

[ipaint]

84. Rec'd only for post #81. Don't miss reading it.

Sending additional troops is stupid and unforgivable.
Neo-liberal is the new neo-con.


Grayson said it best-


"I think that the aid program is a fig leaf trying to make Congress and the American people feel better about the war and about killing. I think that diplomacy in the areas of fig leaf to try to make the American people think that there is some constructive alternative to the war when the war itself is destructive and not constructive.


I think that the basic premise that we can alter afghan society is greatly flawed. Afghanistan is simply the part of Asia that was never occupied by the Russians or the English in the Great Game. It's not a country; it's not even a place. It's just an empty place on the map. It's terra incognita. People who live there are a welter of different tribes, different language groups, different religious beliefs.

All over the country you find different people who have nothing to do with each other except for the fact that we call them Afghans, and they don't even call themselves Afghans. They're Tajiks or they're Pashtuns, or they're Hazzaras or someone else. The things that hold them together are simply the things that we try to create artificially.

And the idea that we could transform that society or any other society through aid I think is entirely questionable. I've never seen it happen; probably never will happen. If you go to the Stan countries north of Afghanistan, and I've been to all of them; what you find is that the way that the Russians altered that society was by crushing it. Stalin killed half a million Muslims in Kazakhstan, in Turkmenistan, in Kyrgyzstan, in Uzbekistan.

He simply sliced off the head of that society in order to remake it in the image that he wanted. And I think that we would have to do no less if we wanted to remake Afghanistan in our image. We'd have to destroy it in order to save it, and I don't think the American people are ever going to do that to anybody. So I think that the underlining premise is simply wrong.

I've been to 175 countries all around the world including Afghanistan, including every country in that region, and what I've seen everywhere I go is that there are some commonalities everywhere you go. Everywhere you go people want to fall in love. It's an interesting thing. Everywhere you go, people love children. Everywhere, they love children. Everywhere you go, there's a taboo against violence. Every single place you go. And everywhere you go, people want to be left alone. And that's the best foreign policy of all. Just to leave people alone."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/alan-grayson-on-afghanist_b_315087.html

[Dinger]

87. Same Here (nt)

[ipaint]

91. kick nt.

[LWolf]

92. Wasn't hard to find.

Took a few minutes. The time-consuming part is to separate Afghanistan from the other wars DU was talking about: Iran, Iraq, Somalia. Necessary, because Obama separates them.

If you were here before we went to war, and in the early years, you'll remember plenty of posts protesting the war.

So, for the purposes of your question, people who are against all war are against the war in Afghanistan. People who are against the "war on terror" are against the war in Afghanistan. People who are specifically against the war in Iraq might, or might not, support the war in Afghanistan.


I tried to pick out a few threads for you that were either about war in general, the "war on terror," or specifically included Afghanistan:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2751694

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3017542

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5265496

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2904919

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1819613

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1689974

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1572655

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2700480

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2442109

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2846031

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4233950

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4130836

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5505034

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2890674

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2853797

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2989589

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2929325

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4598260

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3552283

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3170789

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3163587

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3161887

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3105003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3032195



Your welcome! :hi:










http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4190328

[FrenchieCat]

94. Interesting.....

Your first link is a poll on Iraq for those who opposed both wars....

The talk diverts specifically to Afghanistan.

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-18-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. I disagree. I don't think one's opinion of Afghanistan is a "perfect test" of anything.
Obviously, it is impossible to know what could have been. But I think it is fair to suggest that Afghanistan might have turned out differently than it did, provided that we weren't trying to also fight the war in Iraq. The United States would not have been distracted by Iraq. The United States would not have experienced nearly the same loss of international support without the Iraq war. And the effort in Afghanistan would not have faced a competition for resources with the Iraq war. The bottom line is that Afganistan would not have been forgotten or shunted to second-place status.

As I said... There is no way of knowing what would have been. It is possible that Afghanistan would have turned out the same way regardless. But regardless, it is not particularly convincing to argue that the outcome in Afghanistan was inevitable or somehow pre-determined. It could very well have been different.

and he goes on with another post....

My impression is that most of the people here on DU who opposed the war in Afghanistan did not do so because they have superior "strategic judgment." They did so because they are generally anti-war, and are predisposed to oppose all or virtually all wars. If the war in Afghanistan had gone well, I think it is fair to think that you would not now be suggesting that your "strategic judgment" was the problem. Instead, opponents of the war in Afghanistan would likely be arguing that the outcome is irrelevant, and that the war in Afghanistan was still morally wrong regardless of the outcome.

Indeed, that is how I feel about the Iraq war. I opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning. If the War in Iraq had been successful, I would not believe that my original opinion was flawed. Because my opposition to the war in Iraq was not based primarily on a strategic judgment of our ability to win. To be clear: I thought failure was a likely outcome, but I did not think it inevitable and that was not the reason why I opposed the Iraq war. My opposition was based on my belief that it was illegal and immoral, and that preemption is an extremely bad precedent. A different outcome of the war (probably) would not have changed that belief.

----

Taxloss (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-18-06 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. I don't know about DU, but I know what my personal feelings were.
I wasn't a member of DU in 2001/2002; I think I had started reading the site but hardly a close relationship with it. I also "supported" the war in Afghanistan. I had opposed the Taliban since trying to raise awareness about them in the late 1990s, when my father worked for a European government in Afghanistan, attempting to aid the Afghans after the major agencies pulled out. I felt that "something had to be done" about them, not only because of the peculiar brutality of the regime, but also because of their stated intent of destabilising their neighbours, particularly nuclear Pakistan.

After 11 September, it was reassuring to see that world opinion was no longer going to tolerate the Taliban's harbouring of international terrorists, and I supported military action against the regime, but feared they would withstand it. I hoped that the occupation and "reconstruction" that followed would not repeat the pattern of failures the West has perpetrated since 1990. That hope has been utterly betrayed. I am intensely shocked and angry about how badly things have been handled there since the fall of Kabul, incredibly upset. I was prepared to entertain thoughts of how things might go wrong, as Afghanistan is the sort of place in which things do go wrong and good intentions lead to hell, but the disaster there has exceeded my worst fears.

In short, it was right to get rid of the Taliban, everything else "we" have done in Afghanistan has been wrong, wrong, wrong.

----------------

Christian30 (341 posts) Sat Nov-18-06 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
26. I don't think this is a fair question
I was for military intervention in Afghanistan to rout the Taliban. How it was handled is a disgrace to this country. However, it's not fair to conflate the two wars. I think regardless of who had been president during 9/11, we would have gone into Afghanistan. That the White House played on the the people's sense of fear and outrage to push for intervention in Iraq is despicable and, I think, impeachable. But I agree with a previous poster that this poll seeks to either a) rewrite history or b) allow members who are all anti-war, all the time to feel big about themselves.

---------------

Greyhound (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-18-06 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
32. Other, you've conflated two totally separate issues.
The Afghanistan invasion was justified and supported by, not only most the world, but by the Afghanis themselves.

The rape of Iraq was a calculated fraud perpetrated by criminal scum that we are too stupid and embarrassed to drag out of the White House and hang from the nearest cherry tree.

----------------

hfojvt (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-18-06 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. yeah I was not totally opposed to Afghanistan
although that seems to be a mess too now, but I was at a rally opposing the Iraq invasion.

-----------------

dpbrown (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-18-06 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
38. Your poll is flawed, many people supported Afghanistan but not Iraq

Even Kucinich supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

That being said, we should pull out of Iraq immediately.

----------------

pansypoo53219 (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-18-06 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
40. maybe the answer is to
move the troops back to afganistan, root out the taliban there, make that country stable, set up the democracy THERE and get the hell out.

UNITED WE STAND divided we will re-elect the chimp

---------------------

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-18-06 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
84. Ummmm...invading Afghanistan was the RIGHT thing to do.
Bush just did it wrong.

----------------

Donald Ian Rankin (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-18-06 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
89. I had mixed feelings about Afghanistan

I thought - and still think - that if it had been done in the right way, and with the right priorities "remove the Taliban, and replace them with a broadly democratic regime presiding over a functioning nation with decent infrastructure, the rule of law, etc" then *an* invasion of Afghanistan would have been a good thing, in that it would have made life significantly better for many of the people of Afghanistan, and not cost more in lives, money, political capital etc than that was worth.

On the other hand, it was clear that those weren't Bush's priorities - he wasn't interested in "nation building", he just wanted someone to fight to show that he was taking 9/11 seriously - and as such even beforehand I was sceptical although not totally dismissive of the chances of it being a good thing, and it very rapidly became clear that it wasn't going to be.

------------------

OPERATIONMINDCRIME (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-18-06 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
95. I Supported The War In Afghanistan And Still Agree With It, But I Never Supported The War In Iraq.
With Afghanistan harboring al-qaeda and bin laden like it had, especially after 9-11 (obviously), it was definitely the right thing to do. That, of course, is under the notion that we would've had a leader and administration with the competency to have not fucked it up so badly. Unfortunately we had a leader that did fuck it up so badly.

Having that said, I think we should leave Iraq as soon as we can, but only after a solid plan is put in place to ensure the region's stability and Iraq's ability to at least somewhat take care of itself. Hopefully, with a Dem led congress, that can now happen far sooner than later. But I do believe it at least needs to be a responsible and strategic withdrawal.

----------------

Sapphocrat (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-20-06 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
119. I can't answer.
What about those of us who agreed with going into Afghanistan to pursue OBL, but who were always completely opposed to invading Iraq?

-----------------

I'm reading the other ones,
next one seems to be an argument on whether Bush let it happened vs. made it happened, and how one can't prove AlQeada had anything to do with 9/11.


I'll move on from that....

Thanks! :hi:

[LWolf]

110. Yes.

Afghanistan is the "forgotten" war; so much attention on the bogus war in Iraq that less media attention, and DU attention, was given to Afhanistan.

You often have to read through threads to find posts specifically about Afghanistan. That first poll is flawed, in that the question in the post asks about both wars, and then in the poll only mentions Iraq. So you can be getting responses for just Iraq, or for both.

I think you'll find that there were people then who supported action in Afghanistan, and people who were opposed, just like now.

You're welcome. ;)

[noamnety]

99. The problem with threads like this

is that they reveal the priorities of DUers.

What's the bigger concern to you, Frenchie - that our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan? That civilian men women and children are being killed in Afghanistan?

Or is it your concern over who got more criticism on a message board - Bush or Obama?

Some of us think it's a nonissue if someone says an unkind word on a message board about a commander-in-chief who escalates atrocities against humanity. You can count this veteran in that group.

If you feel the escalation is important, necessary, moral, required for the good of humanity, go enlist. Don't tell us it's important that OTHER people put their lives on the line for it.

People are dying as a result of our policies in Afghanistan. And other people appear to be more concerned that Obama supporters' feelings are getting hurt. My best advice is to get over it and meditate on the REAL and TRAGIC sacrifices you are expecting others to make to please your own agenda. This thread is a petty show of drama about a nonissue.

People are dying.

[FrenchieCat]

101. My biggest concern is having laws pass that help people of this country live

more meaningful lives, and have less worries.

My job as a voter and a political activist is to help elect politicians that won't send soldiers to the wrong war, without the right equipment or an exit strategy.....or allow those soldiers to be mistreated when they get back from being deployed. My job is to try to get people in office who are reasoned, have common sense, are intelligent, and won't make the lives of Americans miserable and filled without hope, and who will pass laws that are helpful to as many of us as possibe.

Soldiers enlist every day for a variety of reasons, but in the end, far as I know,
a soldier's job is to defend this country and its citizens and insure that what happened
one September day doesn't happen again. They take an oath to do this, and they take their job seriously, and they, just like the police and the Firemen and other brave souls put their lives on the line as part of what they have chosen to do. I am thankful for them, and I am thankful to them, and I don't wish for soldiers dying in needless wars just because they are soldiers. But if I am to be honest, my first priority in life is not to protect them. That is the job of those who command them, the pentagon, etc. My duty in order to support them further is to pay my fair share of taxes that are due without crying about it.

As for the "escalation", I am doubtful that after 8 years, and based on who I helped get elected, that it will all end tomorrow.

Further, I am becoming convinced that there are some DUers who believe themselves to be better than other DUers. They think that they own the cornermarket on wisdom, because they believe themselves to be morally superior (and in fact they apparently believe that it is their job to sit in judgement), looking down at the unwashed masses (that would be me).

I started a thread where I asked a question, and obviously people had plenty to say.
You can call that petty if you wish, but by definition, a message board
ain't gonna be that intense anyway; not when you are sitting in the comfort of your home discussing various political issues with people you don't know.

If you are so concerned, perhaps you could run for office, and then you could do as you wish to make it all stop. I don't claim moral superiority, so I don't have to prove anything.

BTY, your post was a pure show of intellectual arrogance.

[girl_interrupted]

102. News about the children in Afghanistan..making life "easier"?

Children of Afghan Refugees Are Dying From the Cold As Kabul Ignores Their Plight http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/children-afghan-refugees-are-dying-co

"Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for us to focus only on the humanitarian aid instead of bombing them? Yeah, I know there are huge logistical challenges - but are the challenges any worse than they are for trying to win a war?"

"Afghan refugees who fled the war-torn south have claimed they are so neglected by government in Kabul that their children are dying from hypothermia for want of the most basic supplies. Families that left Helmand, Kandahar and other southern provinces to escape the fighting between US-led forces and a resurgent Taliban say the cold is much more lethal."

"Living in a make-shift camp on the edge of Kabul, residents told Al Jazeera's James Bays that no government official has ever come to see how they have been forced to live. The claim comes as UN officials say Afghan children are suffering disastrous levels of abuse and deprivation."


I'd go for humanitarian aid instead of bombing them.

Rep. David Obey to Obama: If You Want A War, You Should Pay for It

"Nice to know I'm not the only person who feels this way. Because if Obama's serious about health care (or anything else), why continue to pour money down a rat hole? That said, what are the odds the congressional war lovers will vote for it? I'd love to make them explain why:

The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan -- sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

His demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops. Obey argued that the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy"


http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/rep-david-obey-obama-if-you-want-war

Interesting.

[FrenchieCat]

103. Yeah...humanitarian relief certainly should be something we do.....

but beyond that, I'm not as enthused as you in leaving the women and children to the Taliban. I'm not certain that's the perfect solution.

[girl_interrupted]

104. If you bothered to read it

It says and I quote: "that no Government Official has ever come to see how they have been forced to live." Government official...you know, like the "Government" we back there... "Officals"...like Hamid Karzai or any member of his cabinet.


And the children aren't suffering from the Taliban..but because of, and I quote: "to escape the fighting between US-led forces and a resurgent Taliban"

BOTH.

Trying reading the whole thing next time...Reading is "fun"damental!

No comment on Obey's proposal?

[FrenchieCat]

105. I read it.....

and I also read this....

"Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on."- Excerpted from Obama's Cairo Speech


And then, I'll wait till Tuesday to hear more....

[girl_interrupted]

106. As will I

I remember hearing how we were going to "build schools and hospitals and roads and help the displaced" And how "Pakistan was going to be our ally in this endeavor"

Only that was 8 years ago.

Deja Vu?

Too bad none of that happened.

Now the kids are just freezing to death.


Tuesday is going to be very interesting.

I notice you haven't commented on Obey or Levin's proposals...that will be very interesting too.

[noamnety]

107. Troubling parts of this post:

Soldiers enlist every day for a variety of reasons, but in the end, far as I know, a soldier's job is to defend this country and its citizens and insure that what happened one September day doesn't happen again.

If our occupation of Afghanistan was accomplishing that, instead of the opposite, that might be relevant to this thread. Instead it's doing the opposite there, AND it's doing the opposite of what you claim to care about domestically. Obama can't properly fund health care, schools, programs for the poor, anything that would come close to meeting domestic needs, when he's sending all our tax dollars into the black whole that is Afghanistan. We can pretend not to notice that, we can avoid that inconvenient reality if you like, but the fact remains, this policy is preventing all the things you CLAIM you care about from happening.

But if I am to be honest, my first priority in life is not to protect them. That is the job of those who command them, the pentagon, etc.

"Those who command them" - that would be the commander in chief, Obama, at the top of the chain, and you can't even bring yourself to put his name there, he's reduced to an "etc." That says a lot about your mindset.

As for intellectual arrogance, you were the one who tried to condemn other people in this thread for posting from the "comfort of their chairs." That was you trying to set yourself up as being "superior." The problem is that doesn't work with veterans and active duty soldiers, because we are PAINFULLY aware that you are the one glibly posting about sending more troops to war with NO intent to leave the comfort of your own chair (from which you apparently are gracious enough to pay taxes without whining). I know people whose lives have been destroyed by our policies in Afghanistan, I have friends who live in a near constant state of fear wondering if their children are alive or dead.

You know the post I remember from you regarding how Onama's presidency has personally affected you? Correct me if I'm wrong or it wasn't you, but what I remember is you being extremely pleased because the election motivated you to work out a bit and "tone your arms." Yeah, you are doing your part, sitting in your chair paying taxes with your newly toned arms. I honestly don't think you are capable of understanding WHY that would be so memorably insulting.

Your arms are toned, you pay your taxes, and the soldiers welfare ain't your job. Congrats.

[MollieBradford]

108. this is not 2002

2003, 2004 etc... this is 2009 and times are different. I was one of the few not in favor of going in to Afghanistan. but even if I were I would not be in favor of staying there now.

[MollieBradford]

109. ps

this is a pretty lame defense of your other thread.

[Clio the Leo]

111. You want to try ANOTHER interesting experiment Frenchie?

Go back to the archives and search the days surrounding March 27th, 2009 ..... the date of his last/first (however you want to look at it) .... Afghanistan speech. Count the number of negative threads there were then (or lack of negative threads rather.)

What makes that time frame unique is that no one can use the "well, things are a lot different then because it was a long time ago" or "well, he wasn't receiving daily briefings then like he is now" arguments.

Try it and see. ;)

I suspect we were all too worried about whether or not we were teetering on the brink of economic collapse .... or stressing over whether he could get a health care bill through Congress to be overly concerned with troop escalation in Afghanistan.