Obama is full of it

Hey Jazzns,Thanks for the more civilized discourse. And again, I think we generally are in agreement. 8 years? Oh boy. Invasions of Afghanistan - WikipediaFrom Onifre: I agree with Oni (big surprise there, eh?). This is what so pissed me off about Bush Jr.'s invasion into Iraq. His administration didn't know the history of Iraq's internal conflicts. They also didn't want to know. There WERE strategists who tried to warn the Bush Jr. Admin about Sunnis and Shiite and Kurds history, but the Bush Admin didn't care. That is why the Iraq fiasco HAD to turn out the way it did.And now it is Obama's turn. Did he ever offer a word of empathy to what the Afghans specifically want? Did he ever make a comment to Afghanistan's long history of invasion? Saying that the problem only goes back "8 years" is not helpful to realize a successful mission. This Afghan fiasco will end just like Iraq. Same mentality.

Jazzns is right. He specifically stated during the presidential campaign that he would consolidate US forces in to Afghanistan and stop the Iraq War. He has placed more troops in Afghanistan, but the Iraq War still marches on.More to the point, he bombed Pakistan which is grounds for war. If Bush did anything like that he'd have been condemned up and down, but when Obama does it for some reason it's cool.Democrats and Republicans are just different sides of the same coin... They're still the same coin that I for one want nothing to do with."Change we can believe in?" Sounds like more of the same.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Bush DID bomb Pakistani targets. REPEATEDLY.Jun 2008: U.S. strike aggravates alliance with Pakistan - CSMonitor.com
Nov 2008: American Craft Kills 5 Militants in Pakistan - The New York Times
Dec 2008: Page Unavailable - ABC NewsAnd those are just a sampling of the 2008 incidents.Now, show me all the condemnations, up and down, for each of those acts of war.Your claim. Back it up.

Thanks jacortina, you beat me to it.Here's a few of my links too:US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changedThe Times & The Sunday Times. . . the aggressive policies of the alliance between President Pervez Musharraf and the Bush administration in the tribal areas.U.S. air strike in tribal area of Pakistan kills 9 - The New York TimesObama Continues Bush Policy of Deadly Air Strikes in PakistanObama Continues Bush Policy of Deadly Air Strikes in Pakistan | Democracy Now!

You're missing the point entirely. Bush is a despised as a "war president," which is fine. He has hundreds of protests during his tenure, but not a peep for Obama who has taken up his mantle.Obama promised he'd stop the Iraq War through campaign platitudes. Hasn't happened. He's increased the troops to Afghanistan and bombs coalition allies.Why then is it morally acceptable when Obama does it, but not Bush? Just so you know, I don't like Bush or Obama. I defend neither of them.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

The point is that you seem to be pretty clueless about what has actually been going on in the world.You make these idiotic assertions ('if Bush did this...') without the slightest bit of knowledge about what Bush did.You proclaim things about what Obama promised/planned and what's been done with no clue about either of them.So, again, show some actual evidence to back up YOUR CLAIM that this stuff wasn't accepted under Bush (a claim you've now repeated) while being found acceptable under Obama or stop spewing on a subject you seem to know little about.

That may because you are directing us AWAY from your entire point when you write: (Captialization emphasis added by me.)

Hi Hyro, I don't think anyone has said that it's morally OK for Obama to do it. Not to defend Obama, but I don't think he ordered the bombing of Pakistan since they started before he took office (in fact, it started way back in 2006 - as far as I've been able to research it). Sure, it's under his watch NOW, but it's not comparable to the invasion of Iraq by US military forces, and equally in Afghanistan, ordered directly by Bush Jr. himself. There have been many protesters, but, currently we are in a pro-US politics media frenzy so it wouldn't be good for US foreign policy to show anti-Obama campaigns. Likewise, what the right-wing media is doing with their exaggerated stories is not helping either, because then it becomes a finger pointing argument, and nothing gets accomplished.- Oni

Sorry, Jazzns, I have a difficult time letting your question go in light of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. In a just world, a "Peace Prize" wouldn't be given to Arafat, Kissinger, or Obama.The US CONTINUES to use or sell illegal weapons (such as depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs, napalm, and PARTICULARLY, phosphorus weapons to Israel) that ARE used against civilians. And the US still has not signed the land mine treaty (The Ottawa Treaty). As a result, innocent civilians continue to die.BEFORE responding, take a look at the following sites regarding phosphorus weapon use in Israel, in particular the picture page below with the DEAD CHILDREN. Is it possible to understand why I am not impressed with Obama? In a time of recession and health care crisis in the US, why has the US military budget (equal to ALL COMBINED military spending of the rest of the world) NOT been reduced? I often wonder why so few people are saddened/upset by all this:Human Rights Watch: Israel Used White Phosphorus Against People of Gaza.
The U.S government is complicit in any war crimes committed by Israel in its use of white phosphorus.
http://www.worldcantwait.net/...horus-against-people-of-gazaIsrael Used White Phosphorus —Made in USA—on Gazans
Israel Used White Phosphorus –Made in USA–on Gazans | Allison Kilkenny: UnreportedIn the view of Human Rights Watch the use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas in Gaza contravenes international humanitarian law.
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=15350Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes
The United States government, which supplied Israel with its white phosphorus munitions, should also conduct an investigation to determine whether Israel used it in violation of the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said.
http://www.internationalnetworkforpeace.org/spip.php?arti...white phosphorus israel photos (WARNING, very graphic)
white phosphorus israel - Google SearchBoth the United States and Israel routinely use illegal weapons against civilian populations in the Middle East, including firing depleted uranium shells into city structures (roads, buildings, bridges, etc.), thereby contaminating the region with latent radiation for the next few thousand years.
Alex Jones' EndgameDetailed evidence has emerged of Israel's extensive use of US-made weaponry during its war in Gaza last month, including white phosphorus artillery shells, 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles.
Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups. It called on the Obama administration to suspend military aid to Israel.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/23Israel faces heat over white phosphorus
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

I have to stop you right there. Now I am not over there, so like the rest of us, all I have to go by is what we see on TV, and what we hear from our friends who are actually over there serving.There was a special on the green Berets in Afghanistan the other day on National Geographic Explorer. It left me with the impression that the people of Afghanistan do want us over there, and do need our help, and are so scared of their lives to ask for it, that they don't. They had to block out people's faces, and voices so that the Taliban would not kill them for what they are doing. It is clear that nobody involved WANTS WAR, but the Taliban are ruthless killers, and they need to be put down, to let the people of Afghanistan rise up and be free.While I don't completely understand if we should be involved, and just how much this is actually protecting us, I am sure that there is some level of concern we should have over a people that hate us the way they do. They want to kill us, just for being us, not for any other reason. That is wrong, and unacceptable in today's modern world, jungle or not. Basic human rights.The other thing is we never really seem to understand these people. They are always so willing to switch sides. Villages never move, but the side they are on moves as the war front moves. Nobody retreats, they just switch sides. This also could be done just out of plain fear. I compare it to a woman who is being abused by her husband, and won't tell out of fear. Should we allow that? Are we the police of the world? Are they really a threat to us? I think they are. The world is a small place now.We don't negotiate with terrorist, plain and simple.

While 'some' may welcome us, that number seems to be on the decline.The elections in August were (to put it kindly) flawed. That leaves our military in the terrible position of being seen as an occupying force which is propping up an illegitimate leadership.And that is NOT a sustainable position.

Yeah........

---

- xongsmith

And let me stop you right there.I will answer your post in more detail in a few hours, but for now just take a look at the actual polls from Kabul, Afghan:
source

quote:

---

These are the results of a nationwide poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News (USA) and ARD (Germany), in which 1,534 Afghans were interviewed in all of the country's 34 provinces between 30 December 2008 and 12 January 2009.

​

The poll found enormous hostility to the Taliban. 82% of people said they would prefer the present government; only 4% favoured a Taliban government. 90% of people said they opposed Taliban fighters. The Taliban were seen as the biggest danger to the country by 58% of people; the United States was in fourth place with 8% (just ahead of 'local commanders' - a euphemism for US-backed warlords).

​

'Who do you blame the most for the violence that is occurring in the country?' The Taliban came top with 27%; al-Qa'eda/foreign jihadis were next with 22%. In third place were 'US/American forces/Bush/US government/America/NATO/ISAF forces' with 21%.

​

69% of people thought it was a good thing that the US-led forces had come to Aghanistan to bring down the Taliban. (Down from 88% in 2006.)

​

64% of Afghans thought (in January 2009) that 'The Taliban are the same as before', and had not grown more moderate.

​

What we know is that the majority of people in Afghanistan (77%) want an end to the airstrikes that have killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Afghan civilians. We also know that the majority of Afghans (64%) want a negotiated end to the conflict, and are willing to accept the creation of a coalition government including the Taliban leadership.

​

We also know that a majority of Afghans oppose the Obama surge that is increasing the number of foreign troops in the country. 73% of Afghans think that US-led forces in the country should either be decreased in number (44%) or 'kept at the current level' (29%). Only 18% of Afghans favour an increase.

​

Negotiate now

​

Despite all this, a solid 64% of Afghans thought 'the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they agree to stop fighting'. However, Afghans favoured preconditions to such talks: 71% said the government should 'negotiate only if the Taliban stop fighting'.

​

64% of British people also think 'America and Britain be willing to talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to achieve a peace deal'. (Sunday Times, 15 March 2009)

​

Talks are only meaningful if the other side is willing to play their part. It seems, in the case of Afghanistan, that there is serious interest in a national reconciliation process on the part of the Taliban and the Karzai administration - but that these negotiations are being blocked by the United States and Britain, who are determined to achieve a military victory.

---

(The highlighted portion and bold emphasis is the most shocking part)The Afghans not only want the US and British forces out, the also don't want an increase in military forces and are now, due to our prolonged invasion, willing to negotiate with the Taliban and allow them a place in the new government.The US and Britain had intended to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, but all they did was make them part of the government.I'll answer the rest shortly, RR.- Oni

You are totally misrepresenting my reply to you. I never made the claim that Obama was out to fix the problems that Afghanistan has had for the past century. I was obviously talking about our most recent involvement and the policy thereof.If you look back to my original reply to both you and RR I was complaining about how there is this mentality that just because everything is not fixed yet that Obama is "full of it" and subsequently from you claiming that he supports the killing of civilians which is total bullshit hyperbole. Obama made the promise in his campaign that he was going to restore focus to Afghanistan, he said he was going to fight Al Quada and the Taliban and to act all surprised and shocked when in fact he is working through on that talk is simply dishonest.Do I think we need to hold his feet to the fire? Yes absolutely. I am not an Obama drone. I consider myself both an idealist AND a realist.Obama will have his term(s) and get some things done that I like and some things done that I don't like. I believe we will be better off with the result with him as POTUS than the viable alternatives that we had or are even going to have.

What evidence do you have that Obama is against the US signing the land mine treaty? And for what reasons if they do exist is he against it?Israel policy is also an area you will not find me in much agreement with Obama on but it is a FAR cry to go from that to saying that Obama endorses the killing of civilians.I started off this conversation a little rough and admitted that my tone was too coarse. Are you willing to admit you very obvious hyperbole?

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson