What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
70 Comments
- Insightful, on 11/03/2009, -7/+29WSJ: WAR WAR WAR
(Obama gets elected)
WSJ: still WAR WAR WAR
but now
1) if Obama sends more troops then a) validation of Bush and b) where's the change or
2) if Obama maintains the troop level or pulls out then a) Bush is right and b) Obama put our country in danger - fadeout, on 11/03/2009, -3/+24It'll be news when there's a war or military escalation that the WSJ doesn't blindly support.
- mnocket, on 11/03/2009, -9/+27I'm guessing Obama wishes he didn't call this a war of necessity.
- BasalCellBossk, on 11/04/2009, -4/+17More whining from the bitter, intellectually bankrupt Murdoch !Right.
- mrcoderga, on 11/04/2009, -1/+10I identified with the Canadian soldiers at the funeral mourning the loss of their friend. Like them, I went to Afghanistan believing in "fighting terrorism" and "liberating Afghans." During my first mission, we were protecting refugees escaping an area that was under attack by the mujahedeen. I was deeply affected by their misery, and by the poverty and suffering of the Afghan people in general. In my mind, our presence was "helping Afghans," particularly with educating women and children. My combat unit participated in "humanitarian aid" - accompanying doctors and delivering food, fuel, clothing, school and other supplies to Afghan villages.
It was only later that I began to wonder: Did that aid justify our aggression ?
Exactly the same quandaries arose which the U.S. confronts today, and the same justifications were concocted to dismiss them:
It is hard to kill people without demonizing them. In 1988, my unit accidentally hit an Afghan wedding party. My friend, whose mortar shells had killed innocent people, was shocked when he learned of it. Some soldiers, however, were indifferent. "That village supports the resistance, anyway," they said. Like NATO now, we didn't count "their" casualties. As another friend, Alexander, would later write : "We thought that all of them - old and young - were insurgents." Alexander, to save his unit, had called in artillery that destroyed a village from which the mujahedeen were attacking. People of the villages hit by our air strikes became hostile and turned to the resistance. More attacks by insurgents led to more Soviet strikes.
After 10 years of such a tragic cycle, more than a million Afghans were dead and millions more had fled their devastated country. Also, ignored by many, a powerful religious force of militant Islamic movements grew under the pressure of foreign aggression. In 1989, during negotiations between my regiment and the most radical militants from the area, a mujahed told my friend : "We’ll take our revenge to your country." And they did. The backlash spilled out and hit not only the former Soviet Union and Afghans themselves in the 1990s, but also America on 9/11. The vicious cycle I witnessed in the 1980s - violence causing violence - is still continuing.
At Andrew’s funeral, the shock and disbelief on the faces of his military friends were all too familiar. So were the official speeches. And the Canadian media coverage seemed like an echo of the Soviet press. "Positive changes are evident. However, it would be premature to say that Kandahar is not a ’hot spot’ any more," the Soviets said in the 1980s. "Things have improved," one Canadian newspaper said now, yet "significant problems" remain. "Development is occurring" in Kandahar, the paper added, just like a Soviet journalist had observed in 1988.
http://www.vigile.net/We-re-still-dying-in-Afghani ... - superkendall, on 11/03/2009, -3/+11The head of the SEUI met with Obama 20 times in a month. Priorities!
- kylescousin, on 11/03/2009, -10/+17He doesn't look very legit.
- NorthMass, on 11/03/2009, -4/+9Well if you dislike McCrystal(I don't know much about him), then why did Obama appoint him? And what does Bush's terrible presidency have to do with Obama? Does two wrongs make a right? No, so Bush is irrelevant.
If I was president I would attempt to meet with military leaders I appointed like McCrystal more than once in 70 days, and not waste time on stupid ***** like the Olympics. Why couldn't he meet with someone as high up as McCrystal more than once in 70 days? - Wosat, on 11/03/2009, -14/+19FTA: Was their support for "the good war" merely a cynical way to look hawkish while opposing President Bush on Iraq?
Answer: Yes. - NorthMass, on 11/03/2009, -15/+20Why did Obama only meet with McCrystal once in 70 days but he had the time to attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago? I seriously don't understand this, can't everyone agree that deciding strategy for a war is more important than the Olympics?
For the record I take Ron Paul/Kucinich's view, bring our troops home ASAP from Afghanistan. But at least I could understand putting more troops in, what Obama is doing makes no sense. - akchrs, on 11/04/2009, -2/+7"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan." ~ Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_n ...
whatever dude... - SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/04/2009, -3/+8Wait, so, someone help me out here because I'm confused.
Are we bashing Obama for being a war monger who can't wait to escalate Afghanistan or are we bashing Obama for taking too long to plan his next move?
Should I be angry if he pulls out of Afghanistan because he let the terrorists win or angry if he has us stay because he's perpetuating a failed war?
Or is it that the only thing I need to know to be a conservative is "Obama is wrong, and I disagree with what he just did, whatever it was."? - catalysis, on 11/04/2009, -2/+7Bush didn't "continue" anything. He started the wars.
- akamurph, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5^^ Are you kidding? What about the hundreds of American soldiers who have died there in the past 8 years? ...and the ones dying this week? "Hey kids, keep dying for your country while our President figures out what his 'political goal' is."
***** on the pot or get off Obama! Either oblige the General (who is on the ground in the country) and send more troops or get them all out of there and let the same ***** happen again (whether it's the US or another country) go in there within the next decade. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/04/2009, -3/+7"Why did Obama only meet with McCrystal once in 70 days"
Because that's how the military works.
There's nothing negligent or even unusual about this. - mejf2loy, on 11/04/2009, -11/+15When Bush was in office: For continuing this genocide in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush should be charged with war crimes.
Now with Obama in office: For continuing this fight for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama should be praised and thanked! - SQLDigger, on 11/03/2009, -5/+8Nixon would be the better of the two - he at least got us out (eventually). Johnson's the one who turned it into a huge mess to begin with.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 11/03/2009, -12/+15Will Obama put the Military ahead of the Taxpayers? Maybe he should consult the ghosts of LBJ and Nixon for advice?
- bootie, on 11/04/2009, -0/+32legit...2legit to quit
- consonance, on 11/04/2009, -3/+6Don't conflate Afghanistan and Iraq. That's completely disingenuous; the two are totally different ball games.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Right, but my point is that if he made a "firm decision" 99% of the people bitching about his taking too long would be bitching about him being too hasty.
There's just too much rhetoric and not enough substance to the vast majority of criticisms leveled at Obama, and it gets old after a while.
We get it. You don't like him. That doesn't mean you have to bitch perpetually about every single thing you do. People criticized he choice in cheeseburger toppings for crying out loud! It's just obnoxious. - govtdoesnotwork, on 11/03/2009, -6/+8I'm no big fan of Obama's, but the Olympics fiasco is his advisors' fault, IMO. They should have never brought him on a mission designed for Michelle if uncertain, and this one was obviously anything BUT a sure thing! Instead, they screwed their boss.
I think he could have met this general for an hour a day for 70 days and Afghanistan would still be a *****, because we've waited too long to do anything before Obama even took office! I mean, my understanding of the goals in Afghanistan was "get Osama & get out." Instead, it has become an opium & pipeline protection racket, with all the corruption that entails. Plus, now that goddam Libertarian Party has put Karzai's crooked drug smuggling brother on the payroll for the past few years -- those hypocrites!! - JeremiahLaments, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Economic stimulus? “We have to act Now!”
Heath care? “We have to act Now!”
Global warming? “We have to act Now!”
Afghanistan? “Whoa! We have to think about his.”
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! - KokomoNYC, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3"But...but...BUT Nixon was a Republican!"
Who gives a ***** what Nixon was? He tried to cover up illicit surreptitious acts with lies to the American people, including carpet bombing the crap out of Cambodia. - zKman, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3Chain of command.
- Barackalypse, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2After seeing how Obama has acted on the economy and wants to act on health care, I think Afghanistan is best off without whatever solution he would propose for them.
- abcdeath, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4While I agree that most of this is insulting to the intelligence of people following it the request is for an additional 60,000 (I think thats the number off the top of my head may be wrong) on top of the 40,000 who are already being sent.
And as someone said earlier earlier, either do it or GTFO already ***** this halfway *****! - dayal911, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2or obama could pull out?
- Barackalypse, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I see two solutions:
1. Leave immediately.
2. Nuke the whole damn place and warn Iran, Syria, North Korea, and anyone else who might be a threat to us that the US is through invading problem Countries, from here on out if you're a threat to us your Country disappears permanently. - MrFunStuff, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Both are nation building.
- Barackalypse, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1You sequence of events is a bit off.
- Fundamentalist religious Government allows extremists to use Country as a training base
- Terrorists attack against United States
- Bush decides he must act and someone must pay and invades Afghanistan (and later Iraq even though they had nothing to do with it and appeared not to have any WMD's since they probably gave them all to Syria before the war even started)
- Extremist elements scatter to the far corners of the Country and the security situation in the Country degrades as tribal militias, terrorist groups, and Taliban elements attack US troops and civilians.
- Drug dealer gets elected Afghani President. - JeremiahLaments, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Are you saying the lemmings were wrong? Bwahahahaha!
- illinest, on 11/04/2009, -2/+3increasing troop levels would make our bases more secure and that would be very good. Even better would be to gtfo. The only losing play is this 'do nothing' policy that obama has been following.
- Rantus, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2"Bush is irrelevant"
Yeah, the problem is that he was irrelevant when he was still president too.
"And what does Bush's terrible presidency have to do with Obama?"
Are you ***** serious?
"If I was president I would attempt to meet with military leaders I appointed like McCrystal more than once in 70 days, and not waste time on stupid ***** like the Olympics. Why couldn't he meet with someone as high up as McCrystal more than once in 70 days?"
I was going to give you a real answer but instead I'll just point something out for you: YOU ARE A ***** RETARD. - illinest, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1You don't have all the information. My father in law just returned from a base in Afghanistan. Mortar shells were hitting the base all the time and the base didn't have enough resources to remove the guys who were launching the attacks.
I'd rather get out entirely but I'd settle for at least providing proper support to the guys that we already have over there. - pingveno, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2It depends on who you talk to. Many of the same people who were spouting the "war crimes" accusations against Bush are now furious with Obama.
- akamurph, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Not quite sure why you're getting dugg down?
- inactive, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1war is VERY big business. wsj is leading business newspaper.
nothing to see here, please move along. - SkittlesUSA, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1You're right, clearly Obama is making the swift and decisive actions needed for success in Afghanistan.
All criticisms that talk about this non-existent "indecisiveness" without "direction" is simply whining from the bitter, intellectually bankrupt Murdoch !Right. - akamurph, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2To the troll above me... I stopped after "-us troops invade afghanistan on the pretenses of bringing democracy".
Really? That is why they went there? Nothing to do with someone named Osama? Or handing him over? Or the Taliban? - Barackalypse, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1@illinest, I didn't say base attacks didn't happen, I said they weren't the main cause of casualties. Go read through the list of all combat deaths in Afghanistan. Last month I count nine dead in base attacks and I gave up counting at 30 dead in roadside or patrol attacks in the last 2 weeks of the month.
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualtie ... - JeremiahLaments, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Now wait just one minute. Why should the messiah listen to some general with 33 years of experience who graduated from West Point? PLEZZZZZZEEEEE! He is the messiah after all!
If I don’t add the /s would you still get the joke? Okay, I’ll add it for all the kool-aid drinkers as they might not get it. They’re not too bright ya know... - Barackalypse, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Base attacks aren't the main problem, its troops out of the base that are taking the brunt of the casualties. Also, the only losing policy is to stay there (or send more troops), which is exactly what Obama has done (he sent 21,000 more over).
- JeremiahLaments, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1What are you saying? They're a bunch of dupes? Okay, I'll buy that!
- ftc08, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1{{Citation Needed}}
- ftc08, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Wasn't the right saying he can't rush the decision because of the election a few weeks ago?
Then they started accusing him of holding off after Kerry suggested it.
Now they'll kick it into overdrive.
And at no point have they at all suggested anything. - pingveno, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1I don't bury for opinions I dislike. I do bury for lack of funniness. Bury.
- akamurph, on 11/04/2009, -2/+2I'm bashing him because he can't make a firm decision. Either send more troops like your General requested, or get everyone out.
- pingveno, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1The US didn't invade Afghanistan on the pretenses of bringing democracy. At least the justification made to the public was that the guy who had just blown up the Twin Towers was being supported by the Taliban. The whole democracy idea came later.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is