All They are Saying, Is "Give WAR a Chance..."

[freddie mertz]

That is what I am reading in FAR too many threads this past few days.

It's a little creepy, I gotta tell ya.

[Cha]

1. No, all I'm saying is this is what President Obama said he

was going to do and I'm not surprised that he's doing it.

[freddie mertz]

3. So do tell us, is it a GOOD THING he is doing, or not?

Are you an absolute supporter of the escalation policy because you agree with it, or is it only because (yuo claim that) Obama SAID he would do it?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[freddie mertz]

20. I'll take that as a statement of support for escalation. Thanks for being honest.nt.

[FiveGoodMen]

56. THAT was the last straw.

Goodbye.

[LooseWilly]

60. "Honestly, I think we should just trust our President..."

... in every decision that he makes..."
-Britney Spears. A True American.

[Cha]

66. And, I gave you credit for being able to

tell the difference between bush and President Obama. I take that back.

[LooseWilly]

71. I can tell the difference between Obama and Bush... though sometimes its frustratingly tough.

What I can't distinguish is the difference between your perspective of the one and Ms. Spear's perspective of the other, respectively.

Implicit faith is implicit faith is implicit faith.

Would you care to attempt to illuminate the difference, assuming there is any difference except in personal tastes and affinities?

[Cha]

73. Yeah, if you're one of those who's

spouting that shit that they can't tell the difference between bush and Pres Obama then I'm not playing your game.

Enjoy your ignorance.

[LooseWilly]

99. If you read closely, you'll notice that I said that I *CAN* tell the difference

between Bush and Obama. What I then went on to point out was that I wasn't sure I could tell the difference between you and Ms. Spears.

To be clear: you are not Obama.
Likewise: Ms. Spears is not Bush.

Thus: To say that I am not sure I can tell the difference between you and Ms. Spears is not the same as saying that I can't tell the difference between Obama and Bush.

I hope, if nothing else, this has given you some small insight into the nature of rigorous thinking...

[FiveGoodMen]

94. Yeah, I remember that.

Almost feel sorry for her. I don't think she had thought that one through. (Not that it likely would have mattered)

[LooseWilly]

100. Heh, ironically, I'm not sure which "she" you mean... which I guess only re-inforces my point...

[Ken Burch]

102. Then again...does Britney DO "thought"?

:eyes:

[FiveGoodMen]

105. Well, that's kind of why I felt sorry for her (just a little)

She doesn't strike me as the sort who can be expected to answer questions about public policy, civil rights, foreign adventurism. It all just seems a little over her head.

[Cha]

65. Goodbye.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

83. Don't leave because of Cha

Cha has proven themselves to be...well, I wont say because I dont want to get banned.

[FiveGoodMen]

93. I wasn't saying goodbye to DU, just to Cha.

That 'internet tool' comment just struck a nerve.

[freddie mertz]

95. Cha posts very many times in these sorts of threads

This one must look like a swiss cheese to you right now!

[FiveGoodMen]

96. Yes it does.

Although I've been in threads with an even lower percentage of viewable posts.

Every once in a while I log out just to see what the folks on my list are saying.

When I do, I'm generally convinced that the list is about right.

[freddie mertz]

101. Is Cha a plural?

That would make sense statistically.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

97. Cha is all over all these threads n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

98. Oh okay well good you didnt leave cause of Cha

That would be unfortunate.

[tekisui]

28. He was talking around 10,000 more on the campaign trail.

He had his first shot surge of 22,000 and it failed! Now he is adding another 30k. Seriously. When is enough enough. We are throwing good troops and good money at a bad war.

[KansasVoter]

50. Not surprised, just disappointed.

[polichick]

2. The hero worship is way beyond creepy - it's flat-out sick!

[freddie mertz]

4. They are lemmings, following the leader over the cliff...

Crazy.

[FrenchieCat]

18. You are underestimating the intelligence of others,

simply because as far as you are concerned,
only those holding your viewpoints are correct,
and everyone else is stupid.

In essence, you consider yourself smarter than everyone that differs with you.
That's not a liberal point of view, that's an arrogant point of view.

[Cha]

22. It's so easy for them to underestimate everything.

[Jakes Progress]

67. So then you must have been for the war when bush was president.

Otherwise the poster has a valid point. If you did support bush and the war then you would be consistent to support Obama and the war. If you protested bush's actions, it would seem that your current support can only be personality-based.

Or were you for the war before you were against the war you now are for?

[dionysus]

80. for what it's worth a large percentage of DUers supported military action in afghanistan when bush

was in office, and were infuriated when he diverted the troops to iraq.

i am sure many of the people outraged at the upcoming buildup are sincere, but i garauntee you there's more than a few that don't give a shit about this decision and are just using this as a convenient new reason to lash out.

[Jakes Progress]

81. And I guarantee you

that there's more than a few who attacked bush for doing exactly what they are supporting Obama for now.

If you supported bush's wars and said so here in the past, you are to be congratulated for your consistency and intellectual honesty. But being consistent doesn't mean being right. Any historian and any scholar of geopolitical politics will disagree with the idea that putting 100,000 troops in Afghanistan will turn out well for them or us. The winners will be the very groups that we are really fighting.

[dionysus]

91. i never supported iraq. i do think afghanistan should have been wrapped up years ago.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I think your insults against DUer members in broad strokes are gross......

and against the rules.

[polichick]

11. You need to read more carefully - the "Obama can do no wrong" crowd...

...constantly tosses insults. Funny you don't notice that.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I just read the insult that you wrote.

Why when I point out what you are doing,
you try to point the finger elsewhere?

[polichick]

16. Oh yes, that was just horrible. LOL

[FrenchieCat]

23. when coupled with what folks who agree with you are saying in this thread,

what it amounts to is a cowardly pile-on ridicule of certain DUers.

You can hardy-har-har all you want,
but it points to a special type of arrogance,
which is reserved for those who consider themselves
superior; intellectually and morally.
This type of arrogance (where you think you know better than anyone else,
and so you should decide for everyone else)
makes you know longer a liberal.
but rather a strict non-bending ideologue.

[polichick]

26. No offense, but I find your posts idiotic and not worth bothering with. nt

[FrenchieCat]

36. Sounds fine with me.

[Cha]

41. That's a badge of honor bc I see

her blitherings all over the board and they usually involve cheap shots at the president and his supporters.

[knightinwhitesatin]

78. Is that similar to the pile on of

people who are against the surge. Is that like the pile on of people saying I can't really be in the military because I am against the Afghan surge? Is it like that pile on, or is it only a pile on when you get into a snit?

[Cha]

44. Because she doesn't want the spotlight on her shortcomings.

[LooseWilly]

27. "your insults against DUer members ... are gross... and against the rules." ??

Really? Are you sure? What is the usual penalty for breaking those "rules"?

[Lilith Velkor]

32. Bust a deal, face the wheel.

Said wheel has a penchant to land on "Aunty's Choice."

[LooseWilly]

35. Hehe... this could get entertaining then...

I think we'll all be getting a turn at the wheel before this is done.

I'll have to remember to wear my spikes ;)

[FrenchieCat]

37. Depends on Admin.....

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

Civility

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

[LooseWilly]

42. I am a big fan of irony, you?

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

53. I'm cool...really.

Beyond that, I'm not sure which Irony you are speaking of.

Could you illuminate me, my deeply intellectual friend?

[LooseWilly]

61. It would probably be against a different set of rules...

irony², methinks

[freddie mertz]

58. I've read that too, and it works both ways.nt.

[treestar]

86. Amen!

What an unreasonable jerk. My apologies to all freepers for assuming they were the only ones capable of this.

[jefferson_dem]

39. Please tell me we're not back to that tired old "celebrity" meme...

n/t

[polichick]

63. I said hero, not celebrity. The hero worship around here is childish. nt

[treestar]

87. It is not "hero worship" to accept the fact that someone is doing what he

said he would do during the campaign.

it is not "hero worship" to refuse to join your slamming bandwagon.

you can't support anybody, because you can't have 100% agreement with anyone else. If that's what you expect of any President, you're the one being unreasonable.

[tridim]

45. And being 100% anti-Obama 100% of the time isn't sick?

You still haven't answered my question from this morning BTW.

[treestar]

85. That's disgusting

No one can reason with you, obviously. What an unfair slam.

The sudden obsession with this war that has been going on for 8 years is creepy.

You've probably never supported any candidate - how could you when you have to slam them if you don't agree 100% of the time.

[avaistheone1]

5. Cha can not argue the issues.

She doesn't know them. All she can do is makes claims that Obama is perfect.

[freddie mertz]

6. Why do these folks refuse to address the policy directly? nt.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Who are "these Folks?" Are they "Those people"......?

If so, don't you consider me "one of them"?

I'll address the policy directly,
and hope I won't be called names in the process,
but I realize that is asking for a tall order.

[freddie mertz]

12. You know which ones.

I wasn't thinking of you, though I'll admit that your thread on the projected terror attack really freaked me out.

[FrenchieCat]

24. I'm surprised....cause most people who don't agree with me,

believe me to be the head of the chearleader squad, here at DU.

[freddie mertz]

76. Maybe once upon a time. I did read someone saying that...

And you certainly are absolutely, almost pathologically uncritical of the president.

Which is another way of saying that while I disagree with you, I can't really be angry with you, because I do think you try to be honest.

Some of your cohort, though, are much more cynical about the way they play the game.

You might even suggest that, in spirit at least, you could have more in common with the peaceniks than you do with the "war party."

Just a thought, do with it what you like.

[FrenchieCat]

9. actually, she isn't claiming that at all......

But it does appear that you are making shit up and running with it.

[polichick]

15. True - and toss endless insults. nt

[LooseWilly]

30. Trusting Obama IS the issue for Cha, all other issues pale in comparison, as far as I can tell.

It's as if the PR of a policy debate is more important than what the policy might turn out to be...

[Cha]

43. Yeah, I do trust him..so sue me.

[LooseWilly]

46. To trust him, while displaying no grasp of, or even concern about, the issues... makes me nervous.

You're freaking me out.

I don't think that's grounds for a lawsuit though.

(Just out of curiosity, would you like to prove me wrong and explain to me the wisdom of an escalation of troops in Afghanistan? Without any reference to trust in anyone that is... just outline the virtues of the policy for me... and I'll apologize fivefold.)

[Cha]

48. Don't freak out..The President knows what's going on and

as you must know he takes his responsibility seriously.

I'm waiting to hear his speech tomorrow night to know exactly what's going on..excuse me if I don't pretend to know.

[LooseWilly]

57. Once again... "The President knows" ... and Not A Word About Policy.

No Apology For You...


(" ... excuse me if I don't pretend to know."; if you aren't even going to pretend to know, it would be more reasonable to stop asserting that "The President knows..." , because, if you don't know, then there's obviously no way for you to know whether or not "The President knows"...)

[spoony]

89. Excellent point. nt

[treestar]

88. You'll just disagree with those, won't you?

Yes, we can trust Obama more than we trust Bush. What's unreasonable about that? It surely is a very complex issue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Readout-from-the-Press-Secretary-on-the-Presidents-National-Security-Meeting-on-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan

today’s meeting, the President engaged his national security team in a candid assessment of the progress that has been made and the challenges we still face in Afghanistan and Pakistan since the President's strategy was announced in March. As a part of this review, the President will consult with his national security team, including his military commanders, civilian leadership, and Ambassadors in the region. He will also consult closely with our Allies and with the United States Congress.

As the U.S. aggressively confronts al Qaeda and its leadership around the world, the President has set a clear goal in Afghanistan: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and their extremist allies. When it come to decisions as important as keeping this country safe and putting our troops into harm’s way, the President has made it clear that he will rigorously assess our progress. That is why he held this meeting today and will take the next several weeks to review our strategy.

This was the second of five scheduled intensive sessions with National Security Council as well as field commanders and regional ambassadors. The President has also directed his inter-agency team to provide regular consultation sessions with Congress, during this period, starting with Gen. Jones’ briefing of all U.S. Senators this evening.

The President will next meet with his national security team to discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan one week from today, Octob

I have to trust somebody at some point - I don't have time to read the minutes and get the full briefing from the military commanders, civilian leaders and ambassadors, nor the five sessions with the National Security Council nor the sessions of Congress.

And I have a realistic view of the world. If you start something and it goes on for 8 years, it makes it own issues and they can't just be cleaned up overnight. We could have gotten out in 2002 much easier than now.

[Cha]

38. All you do is make up shit.

[DrToast]

14. Why is it creepy?

Are you a pacifist?

[freddie mertz]

17. War is a bad, serious thing, even if you are not a strict pacifist.nt.

[DrToast]

21. No, some wars are good/necessary.

So are you a pacifist?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[DrToast]

34. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I wonder if you're capable of that

[jefferson_dem]

40. Some here are still waiting on Kucinich's "Department of Peace"...

La La Land.

[LooseWilly]

49. Silly fools... don't they know that Might makes Right?

After all...

-Taliban refuses to turn over war criminal Osama bin Laden -> The UN oks a war to attack.

-US Government refuses to turn over war criminal Henry Kissinger -> The UN can piss up a rope.

QED: Might Makes Right.

[jefferson_dem]

54. Might does not make right. Right makes right.

All "wars" are not equal. Afghanistan is not Iraq...nor is it Vietnam.

That being said, I would never go anywhere close to defending scumbaggy Kissinger.

[LooseWilly]

64. Your tax dollars defend Kissinger. And Cheney.

The Taliban's refusal to turn over bin Laden is comparable to the US government's refusal to turn Kissinger over to the World Court. Seen in that light, and realizing that the Taliban (as heinous as they are, kind of like Kissinger) never actually attacked the US... are you sure you are comfortable calling Afghanistan a "good" war?

What exactly is "good" about it? Propping up the Karzai government? Building infrastructure that we don't have the resources to defend? Trying to expand rights for women despite the fact that we're liable to soon negotiate a "peace" with the Taliban who will (being the heinous fundamentalists that they are) soon enough take those rights away?... Or are we just trying desperately to make sure that al Qa'eda can't build training camps in Afghanistan, despite the liklihood that there are already bases in Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan... what have you?

What is the "good" to which you refer at this point?

And, I do beg to differ: Might Does Make Right.

[jefferson_dem]

68. Honestly, I'm agnostic on Afghanistan at the moment.

I'll know more how I feel about it after tomorrow.

EDIT: The irrational anti-war rants are not warming me up to that position...for whatever that's worth.

[LooseWilly]

74. I'm a little agnostic myself... but leaning atheistic the more I think about it.

I'm still having a hard time thinking of a strategic goal that is worth staying for... but I still haven't come across one. Maybe tomorrow Obama will come up with something brilliant though.

The irrational rants against the war, to which you refer, seem a bit dogmatic to me too... but the kernels of their arguments I keep finding no strategic goals available in Afghanistan to counter. On the other hand... the "boundless faith" arguments are making me increasingly frustrated with those who seem to be determined not to question any decision made by the administration, regardless of the sensibility of the policy decisions. And that is pushing me toward greater and greater dubiousness over the possibilities of being convinceable tomorrow.

We'll see...

[jefferson_dem]

77. Good post.

Thanks for the perspective.

[freddie mertz]

52. Somewhat, but not an absolute one.

I do not criticize or condemn acts of violence in self-defense either at the personal or the national level.

Sometimes you have to fight to protect your home or your country.

I don;t take issue with that at all. This conflict is not a matter of that anymore, thus my objection.

I am pretty much in agreement with the kind of pacifism advocated by A J Muste (look him up).

In that sense I am more "anti-aggression," and definitely anti-imperialist, than strictly opposed to all violence.

PS: I may be misreading you, but in your responses, you seem to wield the term "pacifism" as if it were something dirty, or to be ashamed of.

Accept my apology if I have misinterpreted you.

[spoony]

90. Can't be said for any of the ones we're engaged in now. nt

[EFerrari]

19. No kidding.

[LooseWilly]

33. Fear of being second guessed trumps fears of casualties, or financial hemorrhaging.

Of course... there is the off chance that 30k more troops will turn the poppies into roses, and Afghanistan will turn a corner, and so on and so forth.

I don't think anyone really believes that. I can't think of a single scenario in which escalation will serve any purpose other than to try to put off Taliban, and associated "oppression fighters" (I couldn't bring myself to call the Taliban "freedom fighters", even if they can be seen as a nationalist force trying to re-take their country for themselves)... to try to put off giving them the chance at "bragging rights" for driving off US forces.

I still don't buy what seems to me to be the "Magic Dirt" theory that al Qa'eda training camps in Afghanistan will be any more effective than ones in Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan... and wherever else they might've set them up by now.

[BobTheSubgenius]

69. "Perhaps the horse will learn to sing."

[rollingrock]

47. Of course, GD:P is the cheerleading section

where all the jingoists like to hang out. which is why I don't come here very often.



Lennon is rolling in his grave.

[jefferson_dem]

51. Yes, I'm sure Lennon would be utterly disgusted with President Barack Obama...

What other deceased musicians do you claim to speak for?

[rollingrock]

59. Do you believe Lennon would have supported this escalation?

simply because the person ordering it has a 'D' after his name?

if yes, then history would prove you otherwise, because Lennon was deeply opposed to Johnson's Vietnam war for example.

[jefferson_dem]

62. I have no idea and would not claim to speak on his behalf.

I am aware of Lennon's position on the Vietnam War.

However...

2009 is not 1969.
Afghanistan is not Vietnam.
Taliban and al qaeda is not the Vietcong.
Obama is not Johnson.

[rollingrock]

70. According to our own ambassador to Afghanistan

the military situation in Afghanistan is very similar to Vietnam. mainly being, we are fighting an elusive and battle-hardened guerrilla enemy who have shown no signs of letting up. William Hoh, a former combat Marine officer who resigned his position at the State Department in protest of the war, paints a similar picture, in that a military 'victory' in Afghanistan is simply impossible. the best thing we can do for Afghanistan would be to leave it because to stay is making the situation worse for everybody.

[FiveGoodMen]

55. And it's DUers that are saying it!

[Thickasabrick]

72. Relax, even though Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, the Soviets

or the Brits couldn't do it...."yes we can".

:sarcasm:

[rollingrock]

75. No one could conquer Vietnam either

a country a fraction the size of Afghanistan.

not the French, not the Chinese, not even the US of A.

[freddie mertz]

79. In other news, they are still saying "give war a chance"

But they get all "outraged" and "insulted" when you simply point that out.

I was a bit surprised by that.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

82. It is unrecognizable as the DU I fell in love with years ago n/t

[treestar]

84. So unreasonable and so unfair

I could have said that in Oct. 2001 and could still say it to the neocon cabal.

The war is already there now.

[freddie mertz]

92. But also true. There is a "War Party" here in the forum now...

Can't be denied....

[Cha]

103. They have nothing but demagogic

rhetoric that has nothing to do with reality.

[boomerbust]

104. Hey Freddie

Isn't that Ethel I hear calling you?