What is Digg?44 Comments
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -0/+12Actually, the initial strikes in Afghanistan were fully constitutional and fully legal. What isn't legal, is the occupation you are making reference.
Anything after 90 days requires a declaration of war to be constitutional. And please don't cite the War Powers Act, because it's not constitutional. - wacked, on 03/30/2009, -3/+17"Western involvement in the region is hugely problematic, but the rise of al-Qaida in Pakistan has made it worth the risk"
Even the press go with the ***** history decided by certain western powers. Afghanistan and Pakistan were ALWAYS the issue, both before 9/11 and ever since. Sure the problem has gotten worse in Pakistan, but that's only because good ol' American went and wasted time and effort in Iraq with no good reason to do so instead of dealing with the real sources of terrorism. - WiLdRiCe, on 03/31/2009, -2/+11It's hard to fail when you don't have a real goal
- Iatethecrayon, on 03/31/2009, -0/+9Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -0/+6Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't most of the attackers on 9/11 from Saudi Arabia?
Granted, they may have been trained in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but what makes you think if Afghanistan and Pakistan were neutralized that these same organizations won't migrate to another country like Syria, Iran, or some third world nation in Africa?
Clearly the source of the terrorists who hate America is not just Afghanistan and Pakistan; therefore I don't see how this quagmire will benefit us at all. This situation with Obama wanting to "eliminate the terrorists" in Afghanistan seems like the Bush years in repeat.
Are you suggesting we attack Saudi Arabia? - OrkEater, on 03/31/2009, -1/+6burried because brown is a fool.
he is worse than blair, all he did wrong was the whole iraq thing :P
brown's sold most of our gold away, we're nearly a fully paper currency now, no gold behind our money, and they're injecting money from thin air into the economy.. im going to love the hyperinflation when it comes around. - minoss, on 03/31/2009, -1/+6"Western involvement in the region is hugely problematic, but the rise of al-Qaida in Pakistan has made it worth the risk"
Gee, westerners get involved and the problem increases. We are the biggest help to the Al-Qaida recruiters. Getting people to blow themselves up because others are free and their woman wear less clothes doesn't work very well. It's been tried before. Now if the other guys kill a few of family member or friends and setup military bases in your land, the recruitment problem becomes much easier.
No, leaving the area won't make them all suddenly love us. These changes take generations to reverse. - iancgi, on 03/31/2009, -2/+6I thought Obama was gonna end the wars. Oh yea... he is a puppet and you all are still believing the left and right are here to help you.
- itstodd, on 03/31/2009, -1/+5why is it "worth the risk" when obama does it but bush is a war monger when he does it?
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -0/+4Before one can say that Obama will fail in Afghanistan, one must define how he will win. Further, the criteria for "winning" must be measurable and absolute.
To me, there is no clear cut quantifiable way to know that we have won since "winning" is a term applied in warfare where there is a formidable enemy that needs to be destroyed. Hence why I've been against the occupation of Afghanistan since the start, there is no identifiable enemy, let alone formidable, for troops on a battlefield to neutralize. - saady87, on 03/31/2009, -1/+5"A perception of hypocrisy in American claims to promote freedom intensifies Muslim alienation"
I'd say its a little more then a "perception" - mixmatosis, on 03/30/2009, -12/+15This illegal war and subsequent illegal occupation of Afghanistan has already failed its people.
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -0/+3D'Oh! Wrong war? I HATE it when that happens!
- pathouston22, on 03/31/2009, -0/+3Winning, when more of the enemy dies than you.
- cissystrut, on 03/31/2009, -0/+3why can't we all just get along?
- barstegry, on 03/31/2009, -0/+2stay the course...change we can believe in
- TheAuditor, on 03/31/2009, -0/+2Gold only has value because we say it does.
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -0/+2Let me make a correction here.
Article One of the United States Constitution, Section 8 Powers of Congress states (in part):
"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"
My argument boils down to the fact that the framers intended the president to have power for retaliatory strikes only. Not long terms wars or occupations.
Further, as specified in the War Powers Clause, which supposedly limits the power of the executive branch to engage in war, any ongoing conflict must be approved by Congress after a period of 60-90 days.
To my knowledge, other than declaring war, there is no other constitutional provisions for granting the President commander-and-chief status over the armed forces. Hence why I say the War Powers Clause is unconstitutional, Congress is authorizing wars without declaring them. - Wiggletits, on 03/31/2009, -0/+2so its ok if Obama does it? I thought i voted for peace!
- Barackalypse, on 03/31/2009, -0/+2You voted for "hope and change", and depending on how naive you are you still might have some hope left.
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -0/+2By that criteria we won a LONG time ago.
- foucaultsvac, on 03/31/2009, -0/+2Waiting for Code Pink to weigh in on this.
- Angostura, on 04/01/2009, -0/+2Niiice way to abrogate responsibility
- Angostura, on 03/31/2009, -1/+2So, you're happy for the current regime and all the Afghans who tried to rebuild the country after the ousting of the Taliban to be swinging from lamp-posts next week?
Because, let's be clear that's what an immediate withdrawal would lead to. - pathouston22, on 03/31/2009, -0/+1Winning is looking at it from the current perspective,
Won is looking at it from a historical perspective. - acklefutz, on 03/31/2009, -0/+1That's the beauty of the War on Terror: it's an endless war, with no definite enemy. The terrorists can be anywhere. We invaded country X, and darn wouldn't ya know it, those sneaky terrorists just slipped over to country Y. Well better invade there too.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia - itstodd, on 04/01/2009, -0/+1No, thats simple enough for you. Iran is a threat, russia is a threat, korea is a threat, packistan is a threat, mexico is a threat, Iraq WAS a threat. Is Obama going to use that logic to attack eveyone?
- ChristmasPoo, on 03/31/2009, -1/+1And Bush must of been genius right? Bush should be brought up on war crimes. He's killed a generation of Americans and we will be paying for his mistakes for decades to come. Obama is attempting to fix a ***** disaster left behind by the worst god damn president EVER.
- XBebop, on 03/30/2009, -4/+6How the hell is it illegal?
Never knew there was a law against invading another country. Sure, it's frowned upon, but it's not illegal. - regicide, on 03/31/2009, -1/+0Here's some interesting documentaries about war in Afghanistan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv_NzLtRiy4&fea ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG7ksVUTjdc&fea ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2F80llZ5F4&fea ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC5bZjPezVU&fea ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE_QDKMlugA&fea ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eU_tGA9oDY&fea ... - Rapter09, on 03/31/2009, -3/+3Man, the stupidity of global politics makes me angry.
And to think there's people out there that think these people are smart enough to have some sort of secret world government. - briLo, on 03/31/2009, -2/+2Maybe we should ask that 12 year old who's dad made him read the Geneva Convention. Don't get me wrong, I sure as ***** don't know if it's illegal, but I don't read no books without no picktures.
- Maddoktor2, on 03/31/2009, -1/+1Why is it that the GOP responsibility calendar appears to have the years from 2000 - 2008 missing?
- GrodyChamp, on 03/31/2009, -1/+1Bush sucked, but is that all you idiots do when someone brings up Obama's mistakes? He's not as bad as Bush? Well no *****. I guess that excuses Obama off all stupidity.
And you're being a bit over dramatic in saying a whole generation of Americans was killed, don't you think? - FredFredrickson, on 03/31/2009, -2/+2He was going to end the Iraq war, which we had no reason for starting in the first place. The Afghanistan war was where we should have been the whole time, trying to find the people who attacked us.
We shouldn't be in either place permanently, however. And at some point, it's time to pack up and go home, regardless of the outcome. No use in keeping bad blood between the US and the Middle East when there's no reason for it. - mwrl, on 03/31/2009, -1/+1You are looking in the wrong place. Afghanistan is a NATO operation. Terms of the conflict there fall under international laws and regulations and supercede the Articles of the US Constitution.
- OrkEater, on 03/31/2009, -2/+3your FACE has failed its people.
- freshgrease, on 03/31/2009, -6/+5I see an imminent Rick Roll coming around.
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -2/+1I do not care if they do. Taliban can not rule Afghanistan without popular support. Let them have it.
- FredFredrickson, on 03/31/2009, -4/+3Because Bush used that ideology to attack a nation which posed no threat to us, and had no ties to 9/11. Obama didn't. Simple enough for you?
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -3/+2The U.S. has no business fighting in Afghanistan. I say withdraw the troops ASAP, and let China, India, and Russia deal with Pukestan.
- iancgi, on 03/31/2009, -3/+1The people who attacked us are in our own government.
- ousthouse, on 03/31/2009, -8/+3I'm sure we'll get out once Obama takes office. Do we have any word on who the Secretary of Defense will be?
- GrodyChamp, on 03/31/2009, -10/+4Obama sure knows what he's doing with the military since he opposed the hugely successful surge in Iraq. After the surge more troops die from accidents than combat. Does anyone trust this guy's judgment as far as the military goes? I don't after that.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is