The Awesome Obama Thread II

If only the ol' humanitarian-Onifre was around.He'd help clarify things in this thread.

The WAR was a massive problem, not the ending of it.

Then I am still misunderstanding.(The Oni joke was funny, thanks)

16 out of the 19 9/11 highjackers were . . . Saudi Arabian. Al-Queda was based in . . . . . Saudi Arabia. If the terrorists were the REAL reason for attacking Afghanistan, why don't you include Saudi Arabia in your faulty equation.

During the VN war, THREE MILLION VIETNAMESE DIED. You think it was better to continue that bloodletting?This is a huge different topic. Please, if you need to, take ONE last reply and start a different thread if you feel like it.

If you think that I believe america chose Afghanistan randomly to invade, then you haven't been paying attention to any of my posts.

Is my type appearing blue on a blue background and it can't be read? To re-re-reiterate . . .Obama had desperately tried to EXTEND the Iraq war occupation. I correctly predicted it when I argued Kerusa years ago on this forum. If precedence continues, Obama will try, somehow, to extend the Afghanistan occupation (unless Obama has invaded Iran in the near future, then . . . ?). I've read rumors Obama is trying to lock in 10 year military base agreements, so don't be surprised.Everyone have a good weekend, heard the weather in the NE is gonna be real good.

As I wrote repeatedly before, it is a loaded question which can't be directly answered because it doesn't address, at all, america's illegal and immoral actions that PRECIPITATED the invasions.Obama funded the wars, I did not. If you buy it, you own it. He was NOT "supporting the troops" by funding the occupation. One does NOT support troops by FORCING them to immorally occupy a country that america had previously SUPPORTED the radical and violent Mujahideen that spawned Bin Laden which then indirectly led the Taliban to rise. The Afghans remember this. The American public doesn't know or care. Crash certainly doesn't address these pertinent points (. . . again, I am amazed he sways so many people here. He is a self-admitted moral-relativist. Read as: arrogant/dishonest).Nor does it address america's fanatical interest in the natural gas pipelines PREVIOUS to 9/11. The Afghans know this. The American public doesn't know or care.The american troop suicide rates are through the roof, no wonder atrocities by american troops keep happening. Ask yourself, why? NOT rhetorical, ask yourself why?American troop presence is so bad, the population has chosen the Taliban. American government knows this, that is why america WAS in desperate talks with the Taliban (The Taliban has just walked away from the talks because AMERICA was acting so criminally, see sites below).Since the invasion, America has made things worse. Who doesn't know this? Why in the world would you think in ANOTHER ten years we could help the Afghani police and military secure their own country? C'mon Perd, are you paying any attention to the problems there?As I wrote repeatedly before, America's CONTINUED occupation in Afghanistan is about hegemony and energy resources. The American government knows it. The Afghan people know it. The American public that watches corporate "news" like FOX news, are unaware. If America was REALLY pro- democracy, human rights and against "terrorism", then you FIRST need to explain america's support/aid for Israel, Egypt, Coloumbia, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc,. Are you kidding me?

quote:

---

March 15, 2012; Karzai wants U.S., allies out of Afghanistan next year, not 2014 as planned

---

Read more: New York Daily News

quote:

---

March 15, 2012 ; Karzai wants early US troops pullback as Panetta shrugs off Afghan runway attack

---

http://www.news.com.au/...ttack/story-e6frfkyi-1226301006989

quote:

---

March 15, 2012 : Karzai Calls on U.S. to Pull Back as Taliban Cancel Talks

---

Karzai Wants U.S. Troops Confined to Bases; Taliban Suspend Peace Talks - The New York TimesEdited by dronester, : Re-linked Saddam and Rumsfield photo.

I know your reply was an attempt at humor Xong, but . . .Someone who carries a pocket-sized copy of the U.S. Constitution and wants the USA to follow its rules and laws and international laws is "an extreme leftist"??? This is the type of mindset we usually get from Crash. Just saying.Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

Huh? I don't know how you can entertain both extreme ideas in your head. No wonder you find it strange that I am having such a difficult time replying to your posts. Perdition, this is an area where we are at exact polar opposites. You view the military as a source of potential solutions, I see the military as ONLY a source of PROBLEMS/CRIMINALITY. Asking the military for advice will only get you military "solutions." (Ravhin has cheered your post? Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, Rahvin is also pro-atom bomb/pro-military "solution".)SENATOR Obama pledged, as an "anti-war" candidiate, he would end the Iraq war. But the opposite happened, PRESIDENT Obama ended up desperately trying to EXTEND the Iraqi war with an immunity clause against criminal actions by american troops. But SENATOR Obama didn't vow just to end the Iraq War, he also vowed to "end the mindset" that led to war. So why did he recommend his cabinet be stacked with war-mongerer appointees to influential positions with foreign policy; Biden, H. Clinton, Gates, Blair, J. Napolitano, Holmbrooke, and Emanuel? These people all fully supported the Iraq war with a disdain against international law, United Nations Charters, and international treaties. Furthermore, H. Clinton, (while continually funding the death to innocent Iraqi women and childrenas did Obama), continued to parrot Bush Jr. lies long after truth's were self evident. WTF? Yet Obama still recommended H. Clinton to SOS.Some cabinet appointees like the National Security Advisor, ARE appointed by the President without any confirmation process. In addition, some appointees serve at the pleasure of the President, also without any confirmation process, such as Obama's choice of RICHARD HOLBROOKE (a Jimmy Carter aide that made certain Indonesian dictator Suharto received U.S. weapons so that Suharto could invade and massacre 200,000 people in East Timor) special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.So, even IF Obama was somewhat constrained by the Senate, it doesn't explain why all, ALL, his recommendations NEEDED to be war-mongerers, . . . exactly the opposite of what he pledged.As an analogous example: why did so many news writers, military advisers, talk show "analysts," who wrongly promoted the Iraq war, retain their jobs in the media?

quote:

---

Bill O'Reilly declared on Good Morning America: "And I said on my program, if -- if -- the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."

​

William Kristol, member of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) recommended america invade Iraq for their energy resources, BEFORE 9/11. He is now an American neoconservative[1] political analyst and commentator and a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel.

​

Judith Miller (born January 2, 1948) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, formerly of the New York Times Washington bureau. Her coverage of Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program both before and after the 2003 invasion generated much controversy.[1] A number of stories she wrote while working for The New York Times later turned out to be inaccurate or completely false. Media observers have criticized Miller and the New York Times for not publishing her role in the Plame-Wilson leak. She became a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank. She is currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations!

---

It would seem to me, if the corporate media wanted truth and a writer's ability to see through government lies, they should had fired them all and hired the people who instead warned of Bush Jr. Lies. IF the corporate media wanted the truth. Yes, I understand that the government and the corporate media would have liked you to believe that (and that Iraq had WMD, and that america is winning the war on terrorism, and etc., ). If I was forced at gunpoint to be president of the US on 2009, I would be FOR: surrounding myself with people who have easily seen through the lies of the Iraqi WMD, who understand that "military solutions" are an oxymoron, who understand that only REAL diplomacy can ever achieve lasting peace. Believe it or not, there were many who didn't believe the immoral simpleton, Bush Jr.: "the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom". I wouldn't hire those mentally retarded mindsets, as Obama has done. I'd surround myself with the opposite mindsets. That is what I am "for".Edited by dronester, : clarity

One of your better posts Perdition, good job. Some nitpicks . . . When it is knowingly war propaganda, I think it should be criminal. I am absolutely CONFIDENT there ARE smart/highly-informed/educated/moral people in the world who see war as truly a last resort (and that would make good advisors).