Now That Obama is President What Happened to the Anti War Movement?

[Trajan]

good question. I suspect that there was more to it than the "war" itself...

take 10 and check it out....Reason TV....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_VHEts3fqk&feature=player_embedded

Ever read before you post? http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...t-what-happened-to-the-anti-war-movement.html

I missed that, and apologize to the forum at large.



now, as to you? I blow up your home world? check your attitude....you're not off to a fine start.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To be fair, Afghanistan was supported. Iraq? Not so much. I take issue with Obama calling Afghanistan the "good" war, as if ANY such thing ever existed. That shit was craven politics at this point. So was Iraq at that point.

Can any of you imagine for a second what the unemployment stats would be if we pulled everyone back home?

There are other political considerations involved, having to do with perception and domestic spending; government is given the benefit of the doubt more in all areas when we consider ourselves "at war" and "strong" and when people see the government as "protecting" them.

Well Afghanistan is considered good because the people who planned 9/11 trained and planned the attacks there, thats why we went there. Iraq we invaded for god knows what reasons.

Oh, come on, 9/11 was originally considered an international CRIME, and with all unseemly haste it was turned into a justification for WAR, a nebulous WAR, one without any recognizable end or definable objective. This was done for a reason. Thars GOLD in them thar hills, for certain folk, and justification for all manner of skull fuckery.

Clear, concise and indisbutable by reason alone. Add emotional rhetoric and I suspect the usual suspects will offer the usual excuses.

 

[Trajan]

Merged.

Hey bro you can delete mine if you want ....my butt won't be hurt.....

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Left/Democrats are only "Anti-War" when the other side has power. This has been proven time and time again. They are frauds. I've always said that. They'll pop up again at some point when the other side regains power. It is what it is.

 

[Barb]

To be fair, Afghanistan was supported. Iraq? Not so much. I take issue with Obama calling Afghanistan the "good" war, as if ANY such thing ever existed. That shit was craven politics at this point. So was Iraq at that point.

Can any of you imagine for a second what the unemployment stats would be if we pulled everyone back home?

There are other political considerations involved, having to do with perception and domestic spending; government is given the benefit of the doubt more in all areas when we consider ourselves "at war" and "strong" and when people see the government as "protecting" them.

So to keep our unemployment stats from going higher, and to maintain the illusion of "protecting" people, it is in our political interest to invade small and stone-age countries and mass-murder its people.

You missed one other small thing ..

Gotta justify that madness.

Hey, I didn't say I agreed, or that it was wise. I just pointed out the POV behind it. Its about private profits and public (the masses) perception.

 

[Trajan]

To be fair, Afghanistan was supported. Iraq? Not so much. I take issue with Obama calling Afghanistan the "good" war, as if ANY such thing ever existed. That shit was craven politics at this point. So was Iraq at that point.

Can any of you imagine for a second what the unemployment stats would be if we pulled everyone back home?

There are other political considerations involved, having to do with perception and domestic spending; government is given the benefit of the doubt more in all areas when we consider ourselves "at war" and "strong" and when people see the government as "protecting" them.

Well Afghanistan is considered good because the people who planned 9/11 trained and planned the attacks there, thats why we went there. Iraq we invaded for god knows what reasons.

Oh, come on, 9/11 was originally considered an international CRIME, and with all unseemly haste it was turned into a justification for WAR, a nebulous WAR, one without any recognizable end or definable objective. This was done for a reason. Thars GOLD in them thar hills, for certain folk, and justification for all manner of skull fuckery.

Oh boy, " international CRIME"..excellent barb never head that one before.

yea I mean wth is wrong with us? we get our citizens blown up and.....what? we call inspector Clouseau? Maybe we should have let the UN, whom cannot find the nerve to even publish anything finding an Arab, Persian or Palestinian culpable of anything, yea that would certainly have settled it.

 

[Barb]

Well Afghanistan is considered good because the people who planned 9/11 trained and planned the attacks there, thats why we went there. Iraq we invaded for god knows what reasons.

Oh, come on, 9/11 was originally considered an international CRIME, and with all unseemly haste it was turned into a justification for WAR, a nebulous WAR, one without any recognizable end or definable objective. This was done for a reason. Thars GOLD in them thar hills, for certain folk, and justification for all manner of skull fuckery.

The hyjacking of the topic continues.

Stop that lame assed shit. My post was certainly on topic. You just don't like where the discussion is leading.
The weakness of the left, politically, is that there are many different viewpoints and priorities.
The strength of the left is that there are many different viewpoints and priorities.
If we ever get those differences in cooperation towards complementary goals for more than a political season, the right will have a major problem to worry about.

 

[Oddball]

Same thing that happened to all the conservatives who worried about the deficit and less freedom when Bush was in charge - they rolled over without a peep.

Oh, I peeped.

Then again, I'm neither a republican, "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) nor a neocon Bushbot.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Well Afghanistan is considered good because the people who planned 9/11 trained and planned the attacks there, thats why we went there. Iraq we invaded for god knows what reasons.

Oh, come on, 9/11 was originally considered an international CRIME, and with all unseemly haste it was turned into a justification for WAR, a nebulous WAR, one without any recognizable end or definable objective. This was done for a reason. Thars GOLD in them thar hills, for certain folk, and justification for all manner of skull fuckery.

Oh boy, " international CRIME"..excellent barb never head that one before.

yea I mean wth is wrong with us? we get our citizens blown up and.....what? we call inspector Clouseau? Maybe we should have let the UN, whom cannot find the nerve to even publish anything finding an Arab, Persian or Palestinian culpable of anything, yea that would certainly have settled it.

Rand Corporation: Strategy Against Al-Qaeda Faulted
Report Says Effort Is Not a 'War'

The Bush administration's terrorism-fighting strategy has not significantly undermined al-Qaeda's capabilities, according to a major new study that argues the struggle against terrorism is better waged by law enforcement agencies than by armies.

The study by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. also contends that the administration committed a fundamental error in portraying the conflict with al-Qaeda as a "war on terrorism." The phrase falsely suggests that there can be a battlefield solution to terrorism, and symbolically conveys warrior status on terrorists, it said.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors," authors Seth Jones and Martin Libicki write in "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al-Qaeda," a 200-page volume released yesterday

The study was based in part on an analysis of more than 600 terrorist movements tracked over decades by Rand and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. Jones and Libicki sought to determine why such movements ultimately die out, and how lessons from recent history can be applied to the current struggle against al-Qaeda.

more at link
Strategy Against Al-Qaeda Faulted - washingtonpost.com

 

[Barb]

Well Afghanistan is considered good because the people who planned 9/11 trained and planned the attacks there, thats why we went there. Iraq we invaded for god knows what reasons.

Oh, come on, 9/11 was originally considered an international CRIME, and with all unseemly haste it was turned into a justification for WAR, a nebulous WAR, one without any recognizable end or definable objective. This was done for a reason. Thars GOLD in them thar hills, for certain folk, and justification for all manner of skull fuckery.

Oh boy, " international CRIME"..excellent barb never head that one before.

yea I mean wth is wrong with us? we get our citizens blown up and.....what? we call inspector Clouseau? Maybe we should have let the UN, whom cannot find the nerve to even publish anything finding an Arab, Persian or Palestinian culpable of anything, yea that would certainly have settled it.

Oddly enough, the blind in one eye asshat behind the first attempt is behind bars, and we didn't have to go into debt with China (or airlift pallet fulls of our national treasury, which nobody STILL knows what happened to, $8 billion of it) to FUND it. Not to mention the blood and futures of our young.

Individualism is almost its own religion in this country...until it is more profitable and politically expedient to other objectives to make any given topic a collective venture. Even when that is unjustified. Even when that is unjust. Even when that gets innocents killed for no good or rational reason. As long as it is profitable to some, salable to many, and serves the overriding and unspoken objectives of those in power, and that includes the current crew, individual lives and the good of all will be sacrificed for political expedience and the profits of those who stand to risk the least while gaining the most.

It is what it is. I make no distinction between parties at this point.

 

[B. Kidd]

The Left/Democrats are only "Anti-War" when the other side has power. This has been proven time and time again. They are frauds. I've always said that. They'll pop up again at some point when the other side regains power. It is what it is.

Totally true. Trajan's posted vid from Reason states that only 24% of Dems supported Bush's war policies. After Obama got elected, 78% of Dems supported Obama's war policies.
Good vid, recently made.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Left/Democrats are only "Anti-War" when the other side has power. This has been proven time and time again. They are frauds. I've always said that. They'll pop up again at some point when the other side regains power. It is what it is.

Of course they are libo, and alway have been, as a review of 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago shows us. All those anti-war hippie democrats weren't really protesting. (or getting wacked by the police) It was all made up.....

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The Left/Democrats are only "Anti-War" when the other side has power. This has been proven time and time again. They are frauds. I've always said that. They'll pop up again at some point when the other side regains power. It is what it is.

Of course they are libo, and alway have been, as a review of 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago shows us. All those anti-war hippie democrats weren't really protesting. (or getting wacked by the police) It was all made up.....

That's nonsensical bullshit.

During the Vietnam war it was the left that opposed LBJ on the war, it was the left that was behind the civil disobediance that brought the war to an end.

 

[B. Kidd]

The Left/Democrats are only "Anti-War" when the other side has power. This has been proven time and time again. They are frauds. I've always said that. They'll pop up again at some point when the other side regains power. It is what it is.

Of course they are libo, and alway have been, as a review of 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago shows us. All those anti-war hippie democrats weren't really protesting. (or getting wacked by the police) It was all made up.....

That's nonsensical bullshit.

During the Vietnam war it was the left that opposed LBJ on the war, it was the left that was behind the civil disobediance that brought the war to an end.

Those were 'old-time' Dems who still put the good of the country first before partisan hare-brained ideology.

 

[Barb]

The Left/Democrats are only "Anti-War" when the other side has power. This has been proven time and time again. They are frauds. I've always said that. They'll pop up again at some point when the other side regains power. It is what it is.

Of course they are libo, and alway have been, as a review of 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago shows us. All those anti-war hippie democrats weren't really protesting. (or getting wacked by the police) It was all made up.....

That's nonsensical bullshit.

During the Vietnam war it was the left that opposed LBJ on the war, it was the left that was behind the civil disobediance that brought the war to an end.

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Of course they are libo, and alway have been, as a review of 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago shows us. All those anti-war hippie democrats weren't really protesting. (or getting wacked by the police) It was all made up.....

That's nonsensical bullshit.

During the Vietnam war it was the left that opposed LBJ on the war, it was the left that was behind the civil disobediance that brought the war to an end.

Those were 'old-time' Dems who still put the good of the country first before partisan hare-brained ideology.

... who were challenging "old time" republicans who were fiscally conservative and would scoff at the specter of a Sarah palin and the celebration of failure.

 

[Oddball]

... who were challenging "old time" republicans who were fiscally conservative and would scoff at the specter of a Sarah palin and the celebration of failure.

Rockefeller republicans (the neocon goofballs that nominated Nixon and the Bushes) were just as big of fakes back then as they are today.

Goofballette Palin is a non-starter.

 

[B. Kidd]

That's nonsensical bullshit.

During the Vietnam war it was the left that opposed LBJ on the war, it was the left that was behind the civil disobediance that brought the war to an end.

Those were 'old-time' Dems who still put the good of the country first before partisan hare-brained ideology.

... who were challenging "old time" republicans who were fiscally conservative and would scoff at the specter of a Sarah palin and the celebration of failure.

Can't disagree there. Now we got the best two-party system Wall St. and the 'banksters' can buy.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

... who were challenging "old time" republicans who were fiscally conservative and would scoff at the specter of a Sarah palin and the celebration of failure.

Rockefeller republicans (the neocon goofballs that nominated Nixon and the Bushes) were just as big of fakes back then as they are today.

Goofballette Palin is a non-starter.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

those were 'old-time' dems who still put the good of the country first before partisan hare-brained ideology.

... Who were challenging "old time" republicans who were fiscally conservative and would scoff at the specter of a sarah palin and the celebration of failure.

can't disagree there. now we got the best two-party system wall st. And the 'banksters' can buy.

bingo !!!