Discussion for article #230470
No threat would exist to American troops if no troops were there, right? So, simply withdraw your goon squads from this nation of individuals who hate you and go home, fix something at home for a change, instead of assassinating and torturing innocent people worldwide and ruining their lives. Come to think of it, you are ruining our lives simultaneously, whatta guy! This vapid dolt of a president speaks in circles and tongues with his forked tongue, all lies and cowardice, a non-leader following his CIA daily script.
I have stuck by President Obama through a lot of bizarre behavior and counterproductive choices but this is likely the last straw. I did not elect this man to expand the US war in Afghanistan, especially after trumpeting his role in ending US military involvement there.
1 Like
No threat would exist in Afghanistan but you’re fooling yourself if you think us all together leaving would remove any threat all together. Your tin foil hat does have a hole in it because some logic is seeping in when you say we should focus our energy and money here and fix our own house for a change.
This President is still cleaning up the mess left by his predecessor, something will take another decade if we’re lucky, unfortunately the reason the ship hasn’t turned completely around from our war mongering ways is due to Conservatives, regardless of party affiliation or where they work (Congress, media, think tanks, etc.).
1 Like
Did you read anything other than the misleading TPM headline? Obama’s “expansion” of the combat role is to allow airstrikes after everyone leaves. Troop levels will be under 10,000 by the end of this year, half that by the end of 2015 and to zero when Obama leaves office. Seriously, do you know how many missions US pilots flew in order to maintain the No-Fly Zone in Iraq from 1992 to the start of the Iraq War in 2003? It is well over 200,000. We have always done this, Obama is returning to the old normal. Now, the old normal is still plenty of war to turn a stomach, but it still better than full on fucking invasions. And if you had actually listened to anything Obama said during his campaigns or his time in office, you wouldn’t be surprised at all that he is doing this. He never said he was anti-war, he said he was against “dumb wars.” Now, a person might fault Obama for not being anti-war, but a person can’t fault Obama for going back on his word.
1 Like
The only thing that is clear in your otherwise unintelligible rant is your distaste for Barack Obama. In fact, I can’t tell from what you’ve written if you oppose or support the decision, whether you believe this is nothing to report, or whether you simply oppose Obama in general. I’m guessing it’s the latter, and I’m happy to say I don’t share your bias, and that I choose to judge the man on each respective decision, not on facts as pointless as “how many missions US pilots flew in order to maintain the No-Fly Zone in Iraq from 1992 to the start of the Iraq War in 2003.” Extending troop commitments in Afghanistan beyond 2014 is a direct contravention of a standing US policy. (Anyone still whining about campaign promises six years into a man’s term of office has issues I can’t even begin to describe.) And for the record, with which you seem more than a bit obsessed, I initially read about this decision in today’s NY Times, where it is a two-column first lead and quite a bit more detailed than the TPM article.
From the Times: “Mr. Obama’s order allows American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the president described to the public earlier this year, according to several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions.” (Emphasis mine to clarify that this decision does not merely specify airstrikes.)
Given that the Taliban insurgency has escalated since 2012 when the Pentagon began withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and given that the Taliban enjoys the sympathy of anywhere from one-third to one-half of the Afghan population and now controls much of the frontier territory of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, this directive from Obama about carrying out missions specifically against the Taliban is as open-ended as anything up to and including an actual invasion. Closing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was the primary reason Barack Obama was elected President. This nation was, and is, tired of fruitless, expensive wars when people at home are suffering and being told there’s no money for social services. The President has just committed billions of US dollars to expand an area of war most people rightfully believed was quickly fading away. This is no small announcement, despite your claim that it is BAU.
You might want to try reading magurakurin’s comment again. S/he was defending Obama against your rant that “this is the last straw”.
If that’s the case, I don’t see it. As I mentioned, I found the bulk of the comment unintelligible. But here’s the part that clinched it:
“Can’t fault Obama for going back on his word.” Do you often extol people in this manner? If magurakurin is attempting to defend Barack Obama, is “going back on his word” one of the attributes he/she is praising? In this particular case, I see no reason to excuse the President GOING BACK ON HIS WORD.
In fact, I think I can safely say that, whenever someone talks about the President’s going back on his word, it’s not coming from an Obama supporter.
wow, you’re whacked. The ability for US troops to aid Afghans is only applicable when, you know, they are there. And they won’t be there after 2016. The draw down will continue. And the fact that the US flew over 200,000 sorties in Iraq under three different presidents, one of them Bill Clinton, is not irrelevant. It’s totally the point. We have always done this. Bill Clinton bombed camps in Afghanistan. Richard Clark told the incoming Bush Administration that Afghan need to be job one…they ignored him and 9/11 happened. If you some how thought that elected Barack Obama was going to end US involvement in the Middle East…well you’re pretty naive and you created a story in your mind. There is nothing that Obama said that should have indicated you that he was going to never use military force in that region again. Nothing.
Obama has clearly reduced US involvement. That’s just a fact. Even with increasing involvement in Iraq in Syria, it is being done in a much smarter and effective way than the previous gang of jackassess. And Obama has tried to help people at home. He has tried to increase aid to the poor, to students. He has tried to rebuild infrastructure and develop cleaner energy sources, but the asshole Republicans have thwarted him at every turn.
I suppose you wish that President Romney was in there. Or maybe you’ll be happier with President Rand Paul. Me, I’ll be pulling the Big D lever all day and night, because the alternative is too horrible to imagine.
Why can neocons never express an opinion without calling the other party either “antisemitic” or “tinfoil hat”?
Why not just say “my logic is full of holes I’m trying to hide from you with invective?” Same meaning, less words lmao.
Even when they’re saying that it’s reasonable for him to do so? (“Can’t fault Obama…”) Honestly I have no idea WTF you’re saying here. You just sound unhinged with hatred for Obama yourself.