Thanks for the change, Obama.

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Dont blame Obama...blame narrow minded thinking on behalf of the American people for thinking one man can change the entire system.

at least the fact that Obama is in office introduced the concept of 'change' to these people who arbitrarily accept the legitimacy of our system

so Obama is not the change we asked for. Can we finally make the changes that really need to be made rather than a symbolic one? 
the whole system is trash...it has nothing to do with Obama...and dont blame our brother for this !#@$ hole of a nations situation. 

Once again, for the "Obama is free from blame" crowd... we KNOW he can't "change" everything single-handedly. This does NOT absolve him from any responsibility. Look at the bolded sentence. You REALLY believe Obama has NOTHING to do with any of the problems in the "system" ? Simply look at my previous post. Obama is a coward & is responsible (both him and his administration) for many of the problems we face today. 
I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

Do you know whats going on? 

Seems the mentality for most is: Bush = evil/illegal war. Obama war = humanitarian war/if he does anything negative, has no control over it.  

Obama didn't wage these wars...these conflicts were already in place 

his allegiances are questionable...it'll be interesting to see what he has to say for 2012...he can be a leader or a follower. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Dont blame Obama...blame narrow minded thinking on behalf of the American people for thinking one man can change the entire system.

at least the fact that Obama is in office introduced the concept of 'change' to these people who arbitrarily accept the legitimacy of our system

so Obama is not the change we asked for. Can we finally make the changes that really need to be made rather than a symbolic one? 
the whole system is trash...it has nothing to do with Obama...and dont blame our brother for this !#@$ hole of a nations situation. 

Once again, for the "Obama is free from blame" crowd... we KNOW he can't "change" everything single-handedly. This does NOT absolve him from any responsibility. Look at the bolded sentence. You REALLY believe Obama has NOTHING to do with any of the problems in the "system" ? Simply look at my previous post. Obama is a coward & is responsible (both him and his administration) for many of the problems we face today. 
I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

Do you know whats going on? 

Seems the mentality for most is: Bush = evil/illegal war. Obama war = humanitarian war/if he does anything negative, has no control over it.  

Obama didn't wage these wars...these conflicts were already in place 

his allegiances are questionable...it'll be interesting to see what he has to say for 2012...he can be a leader or a follower. 

 

[flyest in the hood]

America needs a Jewish president

 

[flyest in the hood]

America needs a Jewish president

 

[wawaweewa]

Obama has chosen to be part of the system. That much is clear. 
If any President in recent memory had the mandate to at least begin the fight against the status quo it was Obama. 

Of course one man can't change the status quo but he at least can use his position and power to begin the process. That's a straw man argument to begin with.  Obama has just further entrenched the status quo. 

He's a clown just like all recent presidents; out for their own personal interests.  

 

[wawaweewa]

Obama has chosen to be part of the system. That much is clear. 
If any President in recent memory had the mandate to at least begin the fight against the status quo it was Obama. 

Of course one man can't change the status quo but he at least can use his position and power to begin the process. That's a straw man argument to begin with.  Obama has just further entrenched the status quo. 

He's a clown just like all recent presidents; out for their own personal interests.  

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Dont blame Obama...blame narrow minded thinking on behalf of the American people for thinking one man can change the entire system.

at least the fact that Obama is in office introduced the concept of 'change' to these people who arbitrarily accept the legitimacy of our system

so Obama is not the change we asked for. Can we finally make the changes that really need to be made rather than a symbolic one? 
the whole system is trash...it has nothing to do with Obama...and dont blame our brother for this !#@$ hole of a nations situation. 

Once again, for the "Obama is free from blame" crowd... we KNOW he can't "change" everything single-handedly. This does NOT absolve him from any responsibility. Look at the bolded sentence. You REALLY believe Obama has NOTHING to do with any of the problems in the "system" ? Simply look at my previous post. Obama is a coward & is responsible (both him and his administration) for many of the problems we face today. 
I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

Do you know whats going on? 

Seems the mentality for most is: Bush = evil/illegal war. Obama war = humanitarian war/if he does anything negative, has no control over it.  

Obama didn't wage these wars...these conflicts were already in place 

his allegiances are questionable...it'll be interesting to see what he has to say for 2012...he can be a leader or a follower. 

So why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan ? Can you make a logical argument for it ? 
Other than Obama already being a coward follower unfit to lead.

Libya and the Patriot Act extension certainly weren't already in place either.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Dont blame Obama...blame narrow minded thinking on behalf of the American people for thinking one man can change the entire system.

at least the fact that Obama is in office introduced the concept of 'change' to these people who arbitrarily accept the legitimacy of our system

so Obama is not the change we asked for. Can we finally make the changes that really need to be made rather than a symbolic one? 
the whole system is trash...it has nothing to do with Obama...and dont blame our brother for this !#@$ hole of a nations situation. 

Once again, for the "Obama is free from blame" crowd... we KNOW he can't "change" everything single-handedly. This does NOT absolve him from any responsibility. Look at the bolded sentence. You REALLY believe Obama has NOTHING to do with any of the problems in the "system" ? Simply look at my previous post. Obama is a coward & is responsible (both him and his administration) for many of the problems we face today. 
I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

Do you know whats going on? 

Seems the mentality for most is: Bush = evil/illegal war. Obama war = humanitarian war/if he does anything negative, has no control over it.  

Obama didn't wage these wars...these conflicts were already in place 

his allegiances are questionable...it'll be interesting to see what he has to say for 2012...he can be a leader or a follower. 

So why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan ? Can you make a logical argument for it ? 
Other than Obama already being a coward follower unfit to lead.

Libya and the Patriot Act extension certainly weren't already in place either.

 

[callhimar]

tkthafm wrote:
You're right I know nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm clueless and just want them out for the sake of complaining. 

If you have a case for us staying in either country then go ahead and make it so we can have a discussion... because if you think being in either is still in our "interest" 

 and we've gotten involved in Libya but you're complaining that we didn't/won't get involved in Egypt and Syria? Why? So people like you can say "OMGZ LOOK HE'S STARTING MORE WARS WHY!"

Completely missed the point. 

My gripe with how we handled Egypt is the fact that we were ever involved in the first place (not our lack of involvement once it got started). I'm just laughing at the fact we were butt-buddies with Mubarak and once he's gone we make speeches celebrating like the Egyptian citizens are too dumb to realize what was going on (hence the snake stabbing you in the back then wishing you well - the audacity of Clinton to visit Tahrir Square). 

I raised Syria in regards to Libya to point out the complete hypocrisy of the administration in claiming we are really doing it out of concern for the lives of Libya's citizens... yet have not even demanded Assad step down when he's massacring civilians (not armed rebels). 

I'm just complaining about wars though. 

Seems the mentality for most is: Bush = evil/illegal war. Obama war = humanitarian war/if he does anything negative, has no control over it.  

The case for staying in either country is we created the volatile situations that currently exist there today, so while it was wrong of us to start the two wars to begin with, it would be significantly worse to simply say "Welp, we have to leave now, you're on your own guys!" It would be a terrible decision. It would be similar to what was done in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. We used the Mujahideen as our pawns and left Afghanistan a battered country that eventually devolved into a brutal civil war. 
Worst case scenario for Afghanistan if we leave prematurely? The Taliban retakes control, which could actually happen even if we stay, without any preconditions for power sharing or democracy and the pre-invasion status quo is restored with an even more radicalized public because of the past eight years. 

Worst case scenario for Iraq? Civil war, again, with poorly trained security forces unable to hold the country together and in the end, more bloodshed.

But please, post more rolling smileys so you can look like you made a valid point. 

You vastly underestimate the complexity of international politics with your Egyptian example. There is MUCH more at stake here. First of all, while Mubarak was a ruthless dictator who deserved to be ousted from power, it was extremely difficult for the United States to speak out in favor of the revolution because A) if Mubarak had regained control of the situation irreparable damage would have been done to the relationship between the United States and Egypt and B) if the U.S. had in fact gotten too deeply involved with the revolution it would have gone from being a revolution carried out by the Egyptian people to a revolution concocted and carried out be secret American agents and all legitimacy for it would have flown straight out the window. 

The same can be said in the case of Syria, but it is a bit different in the sense that we don't have great relations with the Syrian regime to begin with, so calls for Assad to step down would mean absolutely nothing. Also, at least we're saying a bit more now. 

And no, the mentality is that Bush = a man who started one war after he was offered Osama bin Laden if he could provide evidence of his involvement in 9/11, felt that this was completely ridiculous and invaded, and started a second when first the myth that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 was subtly hinted at a number of times and then flat out lied to the American people about there being WMD's that could wipe out humanity, or the moon, or something. 

Obama = Someone who inherited these issues and is clearly doing his best to deal with them and help get rid of a man who would have not only crushed the resistance in his country, but massacred thousands more afterward. And who also increased drone strikes in Pakistan and violated their sovereignty in many instances to do what they don't have the ability to do; fight the Taliban in the north. 

tl;dr - International politics is not black and white, and is not as simple as many people make it out to be.

 

[callhimar]

tkthafm wrote:
You're right I know nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm clueless and just want them out for the sake of complaining. 

If you have a case for us staying in either country then go ahead and make it so we can have a discussion... because if you think being in either is still in our "interest" 

 and we've gotten involved in Libya but you're complaining that we didn't/won't get involved in Egypt and Syria? Why? So people like you can say "OMGZ LOOK HE'S STARTING MORE WARS WHY!"

Completely missed the point. 

My gripe with how we handled Egypt is the fact that we were ever involved in the first place (not our lack of involvement once it got started). I'm just laughing at the fact we were butt-buddies with Mubarak and once he's gone we make speeches celebrating like the Egyptian citizens are too dumb to realize what was going on (hence the snake stabbing you in the back then wishing you well - the audacity of Clinton to visit Tahrir Square). 

I raised Syria in regards to Libya to point out the complete hypocrisy of the administration in claiming we are really doing it out of concern for the lives of Libya's citizens... yet have not even demanded Assad step down when he's massacring civilians (not armed rebels). 

I'm just complaining about wars though. 

Seems the mentality for most is: Bush = evil/illegal war. Obama war = humanitarian war/if he does anything negative, has no control over it.  

The case for staying in either country is we created the volatile situations that currently exist there today, so while it was wrong of us to start the two wars to begin with, it would be significantly worse to simply say "Welp, we have to leave now, you're on your own guys!" It would be a terrible decision. It would be similar to what was done in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. We used the Mujahideen as our pawns and left Afghanistan a battered country that eventually devolved into a brutal civil war. 
Worst case scenario for Afghanistan if we leave prematurely? The Taliban retakes control, which could actually happen even if we stay, without any preconditions for power sharing or democracy and the pre-invasion status quo is restored with an even more radicalized public because of the past eight years. 

Worst case scenario for Iraq? Civil war, again, with poorly trained security forces unable to hold the country together and in the end, more bloodshed.

But please, post more rolling smileys so you can look like you made a valid point. 

You vastly underestimate the complexity of international politics with your Egyptian example. There is MUCH more at stake here. First of all, while Mubarak was a ruthless dictator who deserved to be ousted from power, it was extremely difficult for the United States to speak out in favor of the revolution because A) if Mubarak had regained control of the situation irreparable damage would have been done to the relationship between the United States and Egypt and B) if the U.S. had in fact gotten too deeply involved with the revolution it would have gone from being a revolution carried out by the Egyptian people to a revolution concocted and carried out be secret American agents and all legitimacy for it would have flown straight out the window. 

The same can be said in the case of Syria, but it is a bit different in the sense that we don't have great relations with the Syrian regime to begin with, so calls for Assad to step down would mean absolutely nothing. Also, at least we're saying a bit more now. 

And no, the mentality is that Bush = a man who started one war after he was offered Osama bin Laden if he could provide evidence of his involvement in 9/11, felt that this was completely ridiculous and invaded, and started a second when first the myth that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 was subtly hinted at a number of times and then flat out lied to the American people about there being WMD's that could wipe out humanity, or the moon, or something. 

Obama = Someone who inherited these issues and is clearly doing his best to deal with them and help get rid of a man who would have not only crushed the resistance in his country, but massacred thousands more afterward. And who also increased drone strikes in Pakistan and violated their sovereignty in many instances to do what they don't have the ability to do; fight the Taliban in the north. 

tl;dr - International politics is not black and white, and is not as simple as many people make it out to be.

 

[wawaweewa]

CallHimAR wrote:

The case for staying in either country is we created the volatile situations that currently exist there today, so while it was wrong of us to start the two wars to begin with, it would be significantly worse to simply say "Welp, we have to leave now, you're on your own guys!" It would be a terrible decision. It would be similar to what was done in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. We used the Mujahideen as our pawns and left Afghanistan a battered country that eventually devolved into a brutal civil war. 
Worst case scenario for Afghanistan if we leave prematurely? The Taliban retakes control, which could actually happen even if we stay, without any preconditions for power sharing or democracy and the pre-invasion status quo is restored with an even more radicalized public because of the past eight years. 

Worst case scenario for Iraq? Civil war, again, with poorly trained security forces unable to hold the country together and in the end, more bloodshed.

But please, post more rolling smileys so you can look like you made a valid point. 

You vastly underestimate the complexity of international politics with your Egyptian example. There is MUCH more at stake here. First of all, while Mubarak was a ruthless dictator who deserved to be ousted from power, it was extremely difficult for the United States to speak out in favor of the revolution because A) if Mubarak had regained control of the situation irreparable damage would have been done to the relationship between the United States and Egypt and B) if the U.S. had in fact gotten too deeply involved with the revolution it would have gone from being a revolution carried out by the Egyptian people to a revolution concocted and carried out be secret American agents and all legitimacy for it would have flown straight out the window. 

The same can be said in the case of Syria, but it is a bit different in the sense that we don't have great relations with the Syrian regime to begin with, so calls for Assad to step down would mean absolutely nothing. Also, at least we're saying a bit more now. 

And no, the mentality is that Bush = a man who started one war after he was offered Osama bin Laden if he could provide evidence of his involvement in 9/11, felt that this was completely ridiculous and invaded, and started a second when first the myth that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 was subtly hinted at a number of times and then flat out lied to the American people about there being WMD's that could wipe out humanity, or the moon, or something. 

Obama = Someone who inherited these issues and is clearly doing his best to deal with them and help get rid of a man who would have not only crushed the resistance in his country, but massacred thousands more afterward. And who also increased drone strikes in Pakistan and violated their sovereignty in many instances to do what they don't have the ability to do; fight the Taliban in the north. 

tl;dr - International politics is not black and white, and is not as simple as many people make it out to be.

That volatility defense for staying is complete horses---.  If it's in your interest to withdraw, than you withdrew. You don't follow irrational actions by more irrational actions. 
The European colonial powers all withdrew from their former colonies and yes, they left a mess. However, it was in their interest to withdraw and so they did. 

The problem is that for certain entities in the US, wars are great. They generate lots of revenue and produce tidy sums of profit. We're in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2 major reasons. It feeds the military-industrial complex and it advances a US geopolitical position which some technocrats concocted because a hegemonic US gives them orgasms. 

I realize Obama can't end the wars overnight but over the past 2.5 years there's been no indication that  he's the one who wants to finally end these ill fated adventures. For whatever reason, he seems to be fine with the status quo so long as the media are complicit and in the pro war camp and we don't get body counts akin to Vietnam. 

 

[wawaweewa]

CallHimAR wrote:

The case for staying in either country is we created the volatile situations that currently exist there today, so while it was wrong of us to start the two wars to begin with, it would be significantly worse to simply say "Welp, we have to leave now, you're on your own guys!" It would be a terrible decision. It would be similar to what was done in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. We used the Mujahideen as our pawns and left Afghanistan a battered country that eventually devolved into a brutal civil war. 
Worst case scenario for Afghanistan if we leave prematurely? The Taliban retakes control, which could actually happen even if we stay, without any preconditions for power sharing or democracy and the pre-invasion status quo is restored with an even more radicalized public because of the past eight years. 

Worst case scenario for Iraq? Civil war, again, with poorly trained security forces unable to hold the country together and in the end, more bloodshed.

But please, post more rolling smileys so you can look like you made a valid point. 

You vastly underestimate the complexity of international politics with your Egyptian example. There is MUCH more at stake here. First of all, while Mubarak was a ruthless dictator who deserved to be ousted from power, it was extremely difficult for the United States to speak out in favor of the revolution because A) if Mubarak had regained control of the situation irreparable damage would have been done to the relationship between the United States and Egypt and B) if the U.S. had in fact gotten too deeply involved with the revolution it would have gone from being a revolution carried out by the Egyptian people to a revolution concocted and carried out be secret American agents and all legitimacy for it would have flown straight out the window. 

The same can be said in the case of Syria, but it is a bit different in the sense that we don't have great relations with the Syrian regime to begin with, so calls for Assad to step down would mean absolutely nothing. Also, at least we're saying a bit more now. 

And no, the mentality is that Bush = a man who started one war after he was offered Osama bin Laden if he could provide evidence of his involvement in 9/11, felt that this was completely ridiculous and invaded, and started a second when first the myth that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 was subtly hinted at a number of times and then flat out lied to the American people about there being WMD's that could wipe out humanity, or the moon, or something. 

Obama = Someone who inherited these issues and is clearly doing his best to deal with them and help get rid of a man who would have not only crushed the resistance in his country, but massacred thousands more afterward. And who also increased drone strikes in Pakistan and violated their sovereignty in many instances to do what they don't have the ability to do; fight the Taliban in the north. 

tl;dr - International politics is not black and white, and is not as simple as many people make it out to be.

That volatility defense for staying is complete horses---.  If it's in your interest to withdraw, than you withdrew. You don't follow irrational actions by more irrational actions. 
The European colonial powers all withdrew from their former colonies and yes, they left a mess. However, it was in their interest to withdraw and so they did. 

The problem is that for certain entities in the US, wars are great. They generate lots of revenue and produce tidy sums of profit. We're in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2 major reasons. It feeds the military-industrial complex and it advances a US geopolitical position which some technocrats concocted because a hegemonic US gives them orgasms. 

I realize Obama can't end the wars overnight but over the past 2.5 years there's been no indication that  he's the one who wants to finally end these ill fated adventures. For whatever reason, he seems to be fine with the status quo so long as the media are complicit and in the pro war camp and we don't get body counts akin to Vietnam. 

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

tkthafm wrote:
You're right I know nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm clueless and just want them out for the sake of complaining. 

If you have a case for us staying in either country then go ahead and make it so we can have a discussion... because if you think being in either is still in our "interest" 

 and we've gotten involved in Libya but you're complaining that we didn't/won't get involved in Egypt and Syria? Why? So people like you can say "OMGZ LOOK HE'S STARTING MORE WARS WHY!"

Completely missed the point. 

My gripe with how we handled Egypt is the fact that we were ever involved in the first place (not our lack of involvement once it got started). I'm just laughing at the fact we were butt-buddies with Mubarak and once he's gone we make speeches celebrating like the Egyptian citizens are too dumb to realize what was going on (hence the snake stabbing you in the back then wishing you well - the audacity of Clinton to visit Tahrir Square). 

I raised Syria in regards to Libya to point out the complete hypocrisy of the administration in claiming we are really doing it out of concern for the lives of Libya's citizens... yet have not even demanded Assad step down when he's massacring civilians (not armed rebels). 

I'm just complaining about wars though. 

Seems the mentality for most is: Bush = evil/illegal war. Obama war = humanitarian war/if he does anything negative, has no control over it.  

The case for staying in either country is we created the volatile situations that currently exist there today, so while it was wrong of us to start the two wars to begin with, it would be significantly worse to simply say "Welp, we have to leave now, you're on your own guys!" It would be a terrible decision. It would be similar to what was done in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. We used the Mujahideen as our pawns and left Afghanistan a battered country that eventually devolved into a brutal civil war. 
Worst case scenario for Afghanistan if we leave prematurely? The Taliban retakes control, which could actually happen even if we stay, without any preconditions for power sharing or democracy and the pre-invasion status quo is restored with an even more radicalized public because of the past eight years. 


Or we can stay and support a puppet narco state.

Your "worst case" is happening anyway. Taliban is going nowhere. Our staying is only adding inflammation to the already screwed situation. Want to know how screwed we are ? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...s-is-negotiating-with-taliban-guerrillas.html

 

Worst case scenario for Iraq? Civil war, again, with poorly trained security forces unable to hold the country together and in the end, more bloodshed.

But please, post more rolling smileys so you can look like you made a valid point. 

want more ?

Or we could support a weak puppet government that is in bed with Iran and Shiite death squads that have already slaughtered Sunni civilians. Ever think maybe the country wasn't meant to be one ? Forcing the issue is going no where as is blatantly obvious with the continuing dissatisfaction with the government. Secondly, our presence even is the "security" capacity at this point is highly questionable. The insurgency is a shell of its former self, and I don't buy into the propaganda that our troops are magically stopping them from taking '06 form, as if this can suddenly occur. 

You vastly underestimate the complexity of international politics with your Egyptian example. There is MUCH more at stake here. First of all, while Mubarak was a ruthless dictator who deserved to be ousted from power, it was extremely difficult for the United States to speak out in favor of the revolution because A) if Mubarak had regained control of the situation irreparable damage would have been done to the relationship between the United States and Egypt and B) if the U.S. had in fact gotten too deeply involved with the revolution it would have gone from being a revolution carried out by the Egyptian people to a revolution concocted and carried out be secret American agents and all legitimacy for it would have flown straight out the window. 

Vastly underestimate what ? Mubarak was our puppy dog. It's not like he could have gone "rouge" on his puppet masters (look how entrenched we are in the military, also why this "revolution" is a fraud and failure with the current military junta). We supported him for Israel. Plain and simple. You're point "b" just shows you lack comprehension reading my posts. I never asked for them to get involved in anything, more like the exact opposite. This "revolution" already has no legitimacy. 

Let's just ignore supporting him for 30+ years. Let's go celebrate in Tahrir Square now ! 

The same can be said in the case of Syria, but it is a bit different in the sense that we don't have great relations with the Syrian regime to begin with, so calls for Assad to step down would mean absolutely nothing. Also, at least we're saying a bit more now. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8569756/US-calls-on-Syria-to-end-outrageous-violence.html
I don't see your point. 

And no, the mentality is that Bush = a man who started one war after he was offered Osama bin Laden if he could provide evidence of his involvement in 9/11, felt that this was completely ridiculous and invaded, and started a second when first the myth that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 was subtly hinted at a number of times and then flat out lied to the American people about there being WMD's that could wipe out humanity, or the moon, or something. 

Obama = Someone who inherited these issues and is clearly doing his best to deal with them and help get rid of a man who would have not only crushed the resistance in his country, but massacred thousands more afterward. And who also increased drone strikes in Pakistan and violated their sovereignty in many instances to do what they don't have the ability to do; fight the Taliban in the north. 

tl;dr - International politics is not black and white, and is not as simple as many people make it out to be.

More like tl;dr Obama = someone who is a coward with a hypocritical foreign policy and lacks the courage to stop useless wars.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

tkthafm wrote:
You're right I know nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm clueless and just want them out for the sake of complaining. 

If you have a case for us staying in either country then go ahead and make it so we can have a discussion... because if you think being in either is still in our "interest" 

 and we've gotten involved in Libya but you're complaining that we didn't/won't get involved in Egypt and Syria? Why? So people like you can say "OMGZ LOOK HE'S STARTING MORE WARS WHY!"

Completely missed the point. 

My gripe with how we handled Egypt is the fact that we were ever involved in the first place (not our lack of involvement once it got started). I'm just laughing at the fact we were butt-buddies with Mubarak and once he's gone we make speeches celebrating like the Egyptian citizens are too dumb to realize what was going on (hence the snake stabbing you in the back then wishing you well - the audacity of Clinton to visit Tahrir Square). 

I raised Syria in regards to Libya to point out the complete hypocrisy of the administration in claiming we are really doing it out of concern for the lives of Libya's citizens... yet have not even demanded Assad step down when he's massacring civilians (not armed rebels). 

I'm just complaining about wars though. 

Seems the mentality for most is: Bush = evil/illegal war. Obama war = humanitarian war/if he does anything negative, has no control over it.  

The case for staying in either country is we created the volatile situations that currently exist there today, so while it was wrong of us to start the two wars to begin with, it would be significantly worse to simply say "Welp, we have to leave now, you're on your own guys!" It would be a terrible decision. It would be similar to what was done in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. We used the Mujahideen as our pawns and left Afghanistan a battered country that eventually devolved into a brutal civil war. 
Worst case scenario for Afghanistan if we leave prematurely? The Taliban retakes control, which could actually happen even if we stay, without any preconditions for power sharing or democracy and the pre-invasion status quo is restored with an even more radicalized public because of the past eight years. 


Or we can stay and support a puppet narco state.

Your "worst case" is happening anyway. Taliban is going nowhere. Our staying is only adding inflammation to the already screwed situation. Want to know how screwed we are ? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...s-is-negotiating-with-taliban-guerrillas.html

 

Worst case scenario for Iraq? Civil war, again, with poorly trained security forces unable to hold the country together and in the end, more bloodshed.

But please, post more rolling smileys so you can look like you made a valid point. 

want more ?

Or we could support a weak puppet government that is in bed with Iran and Shiite death squads that have already slaughtered Sunni civilians. Ever think maybe the country wasn't meant to be one ? Forcing the issue is going no where as is blatantly obvious with the continuing dissatisfaction with the government. Secondly, our presence even is the "security" capacity at this point is highly questionable. The insurgency is a shell of its former self, and I don't buy into the propaganda that our troops are magically stopping them from taking '06 form, as if this can suddenly occur. 

You vastly underestimate the complexity of international politics with your Egyptian example. There is MUCH more at stake here. First of all, while Mubarak was a ruthless dictator who deserved to be ousted from power, it was extremely difficult for the United States to speak out in favor of the revolution because A) if Mubarak had regained control of the situation irreparable damage would have been done to the relationship between the United States and Egypt and B) if the U.S. had in fact gotten too deeply involved with the revolution it would have gone from being a revolution carried out by the Egyptian people to a revolution concocted and carried out be secret American agents and all legitimacy for it would have flown straight out the window. 

Vastly underestimate what ? Mubarak was our puppy dog. It's not like he could have gone "rouge" on his puppet masters (look how entrenched we are in the military, also why this "revolution" is a fraud and failure with the current military junta). We supported him for Israel. Plain and simple. You're point "b" just shows you lack comprehension reading my posts. I never asked for them to get involved in anything, more like the exact opposite. This "revolution" already has no legitimacy. 

Let's just ignore supporting him for 30+ years. Let's go celebrate in Tahrir Square now ! 

The same can be said in the case of Syria, but it is a bit different in the sense that we don't have great relations with the Syrian regime to begin with, so calls for Assad to step down would mean absolutely nothing. Also, at least we're saying a bit more now. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8569756/US-calls-on-Syria-to-end-outrageous-violence.html
I don't see your point. 

And no, the mentality is that Bush = a man who started one war after he was offered Osama bin Laden if he could provide evidence of his involvement in 9/11, felt that this was completely ridiculous and invaded, and started a second when first the myth that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 was subtly hinted at a number of times and then flat out lied to the American people about there being WMD's that could wipe out humanity, or the moon, or something. 

Obama = Someone who inherited these issues and is clearly doing his best to deal with them and help get rid of a man who would have not only crushed the resistance in his country, but massacred thousands more afterward. And who also increased drone strikes in Pakistan and violated their sovereignty in many instances to do what they don't have the ability to do; fight the Taliban in the north. 

tl;dr - International politics is not black and white, and is not as simple as many people make it out to be.

More like tl;dr Obama = someone who is a coward with a hypocritical foreign policy and lacks the courage to stop useless wars.

 

[capricdragon]

Originally Posted by 36 OUNCES

Y'all are really that surprised tho?

It's like watching basketball and not expecting to see anyone get dunked on....

....Anything any politician tries to pull doesn't catch me off guard one bit.

This

 

[capricdragon]

Originally Posted by 36 OUNCES

Y'all are really that surprised tho?

It's like watching basketball and not expecting to see anyone get dunked on....

....Anything any politician tries to pull doesn't catch me off guard one bit.

This

 

[patrick bateman]

Originally Posted by Flyest In The Hood

America needs a Jewish president

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Define "Jewish" and we'll go from there.[/color]

 

[patrick bateman]

Originally Posted by Flyest In The Hood

America needs a Jewish president

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Define "Jewish" and we'll go from there.[/color]

 

[callhimar]

wawaweewa wrote:
That volatility defense for staying is complete horses---.  If it's in your interest to withdraw, than you withdrew. You don't follow irrational actions by more irrational actions. 
The European colonial powers all withdrew from their former colonies and yes, they left a mess. However, it was in their interest to withdraw and so they did. 

The problem is that for certain entities in the US, wars are great. They generate lots of revenue and produce tidy sums of profit. We're in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2 major reasons. It feeds the military-industrial complex and it advances a US geopolitical position which some technocrats concocted because a hegemonic US gives them orgasms. 

I realize Obama can't end the wars overnight but over the past 2.5 years there's been no indication that  he's the one who wants to finally end these ill fated adventures. For whatever reason, he seems to be fine with the status quo so long as the media are complicit and in the pro war camp and we don't get body counts akin to Vietnam. 


It was in their interest to withdraw and they certainly did, and the mess they left has us stuck in the position we're in today. You simply don't create a mess, admit it isn't working for you anymore, and then leave. That is ridiculous. If you think leaving one of the most oil rich countries in the region to simply destabilize into civil war is in our interests then your opinion should automatically be invalid. Why do you think we supported these dictators for so long? Because America hates democracy? No. We did it so we wouldn't have to deal with instability in countries that provide us with our lifeblood. And it worked for a very long time. 
You're second point has a lot to do with it as well. The defense industry is huge in America and it's certainly in our interest to keep that moving, not to mention that there are clearly close ties to the government there. U.S. hegemony is on the decline as it is, this may in fact also be the last of American muscle flexing. 

Also, you're flat out lying that there is no indication he wants to end the war in Iraq. Evidence: Here and here.

Afghanistan is a completely different issue, and is where we should have been focused in the first place. Maybe if a pointless war wasn't started in Iraq we wouldn't have to possibly negotiate with the Taliban now. 

Or we can stay and support a puppet narco state.




Your "worst case" is happening anyway. Taliban is going nowhere. Our staying is only adding inflammation to the already screwed situation. Want to know how screwed we are ? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...s-is-negotiating-with-taliban-guerrillas.html

Way to ignore the second part of the sentence and tell me something I already knew.

which could actually happen even if we stay, without any preconditions for power sharing or democracy and the pre-invasion status quo is restored with an even more radicalized public because of the past eight years.

want more ?




Or we could support a weak puppet government that is in bed with Iran and Shiite death squads that have already slaughtered Sunni civilians. Ever think maybe the country wasn't meant to be one ? Forcing the issue is going no where as is blatantly obvious with the continuing dissatisfaction with the government. Secondly, our presence even is the "security" capacity at this point is highly questionable. The insurgency is a shell of its former self, and I don't buy into the propaganda that our troops are magically stopping them from taking '06 form, as if this can suddenly occur.


I wholeheartedly agree with Iraq not being meant to be a unified country, however it breaking up simply isn't going to happen, and if it did then an even bigger %*#+ storm would be unleashed. Actually, you know what really might bring the Sunnis and Shia together? Kurdish independence and them taking control of the majority of the oil feilds.

Our troops aren't there to stop the insurgency, they're there to train the Iraqi Army so they can keep the insurgency from taking its '06 form so we won't have to in ten years. The dissatisfaction in Iraq is due to infrastructure taking time to be rebuilt, but this honestly should not come as a surprise to anyone who watched the first night of the invasion on the news.

Not going to respond to anything else you say because its barely coherent and laced with smileys.

 

[callhimar]

wawaweewa wrote:
That volatility defense for staying is complete horses---.  If it's in your interest to withdraw, than you withdrew. You don't follow irrational actions by more irrational actions. 
The European colonial powers all withdrew from their former colonies and yes, they left a mess. However, it was in their interest to withdraw and so they did. 

The problem is that for certain entities in the US, wars are great. They generate lots of revenue and produce tidy sums of profit. We're in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2 major reasons. It feeds the military-industrial complex and it advances a US geopolitical position which some technocrats concocted because a hegemonic US gives them orgasms. 

I realize Obama can't end the wars overnight but over the past 2.5 years there's been no indication that  he's the one who wants to finally end these ill fated adventures. For whatever reason, he seems to be fine with the status quo so long as the media are complicit and in the pro war camp and we don't get body counts akin to Vietnam. 


It was in their interest to withdraw and they certainly did, and the mess they left has us stuck in the position we're in today. You simply don't create a mess, admit it isn't working for you anymore, and then leave. That is ridiculous. If you think leaving one of the most oil rich countries in the region to simply destabilize into civil war is in our interests then your opinion should automatically be invalid. Why do you think we supported these dictators for so long? Because America hates democracy? No. We did it so we wouldn't have to deal with instability in countries that provide us with our lifeblood. And it worked for a very long time. 
You're second point has a lot to do with it as well. The defense industry is huge in America and it's certainly in our interest to keep that moving, not to mention that there are clearly close ties to the government there. U.S. hegemony is on the decline as it is, this may in fact also be the last of American muscle flexing. 

Also, you're flat out lying that there is no indication he wants to end the war in Iraq. Evidence: Here and here.

Afghanistan is a completely different issue, and is where we should have been focused in the first place. Maybe if a pointless war wasn't started in Iraq we wouldn't have to possibly negotiate with the Taliban now. 

Or we can stay and support a puppet narco state.




Your "worst case" is happening anyway. Taliban is going nowhere. Our staying is only adding inflammation to the already screwed situation. Want to know how screwed we are ? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...s-is-negotiating-with-taliban-guerrillas.html

Way to ignore the second part of the sentence and tell me something I already knew.

which could actually happen even if we stay, without any preconditions for power sharing or democracy and the pre-invasion status quo is restored with an even more radicalized public because of the past eight years.

want more ?




Or we could support a weak puppet government that is in bed with Iran and Shiite death squads that have already slaughtered Sunni civilians. Ever think maybe the country wasn't meant to be one ? Forcing the issue is going no where as is blatantly obvious with the continuing dissatisfaction with the government. Secondly, our presence even is the "security" capacity at this point is highly questionable. The insurgency is a shell of its former self, and I don't buy into the propaganda that our troops are magically stopping them from taking '06 form, as if this can suddenly occur.


I wholeheartedly agree with Iraq not being meant to be a unified country, however it breaking up simply isn't going to happen, and if it did then an even bigger %*#+ storm would be unleashed. Actually, you know what really might bring the Sunnis and Shia together? Kurdish independence and them taking control of the majority of the oil feilds.

Our troops aren't there to stop the insurgency, they're there to train the Iraqi Army so they can keep the insurgency from taking its '06 form so we won't have to in ten years. The dissatisfaction in Iraq is due to infrastructure taking time to be rebuilt, but this honestly should not come as a surprise to anyone who watched the first night of the invasion on the news.

Not going to respond to anything else you say because its barely coherent and laced with smileys.

 

[tkthafm]

^ Don't see why you bothered quoting me. You added absolutely nothing to the discussion.

 

[tkthafm]

^ Don't see why you bothered quoting me. You added absolutely nothing to the discussion.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

^ Don't see why you bothered quoting me. You added absolutely nothing to the discussion.

No, actually. Doing this:
(Throw up awful argument)

End with: 

adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

^ Don't see why you bothered quoting me. You added absolutely nothing to the discussion.

No, actually. Doing this:
(Throw up awful argument)

End with: 

adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[tkthafm]

You of all speaking of awful arguments... look at your post.

Perhaps you lack the comprehension to understand it, given how you are unable to grasp simple concepts like what I was getting at in regards to the US role in Egypt earlier. It's expected when folks who have no idea what they are talking about get exposed that they might resort to just ignoring the other side's views. I have no problem schooling folks so it doesn't bother me.