Obama's War

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That was the situation on 9/11. Clearly it didn't keep us safe.

That was far from the situation on 9/11.

Be specific. How was that not the situation on 9/11?

We did not have anything close to a non-interventionist foreign policy, and we did not treat all foreign nations equally.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That was far from the situation on 9/11.

Be specific. How was that not the situation on 9/11?

We did not have anything close to a non-interventionist foreign policy, and we did not treat all foreign nations equally.

So you suggest that if the US were to decline to take action to stop a genocide and to treat friendly nations and hostile nations exactly the same way, and rich nations and poor nations the same way, we would be safe from attack? I'm not sure I follow your logic, but I am sure few Americans and few in the rest of the world would support such a policy by the US.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You don't let the guy who did 9/11 get away scot-free, the US wants his head. It is a powerful signal that the US needs to send, the guy who did the biggest terrorist crime in US history should not be able to walk away with it.

It's been roughly 7 and a half years since 9/11 and we still don't have bin-Laden, and that situation doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon however many civilians and children are killed. I agree that bin-Laden needs to be brought to justice, but the war on terror is a war of perpetuity that cannot possibly be won and the costs are far too high.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are not just the war on terror, they are also a war on drugs. And the US, NATO can't afford a humiliation in Afghanistan. The thing is that we don't have a choice: we need to bring the war abroad or they will bring the war to us. Right now terrorists are on the defense, if you give them room and retreat from Afghanistan we are going to be on the defense and that you do not want to happen.

The war on terror in general will never be won, because terrorism is just like any other crime. All wars can be won, you just need the right aproach: the US handled Iraq wrong, they couldn't understand that Iraqis need to solve the problems in Iraq not the Americans and now they ve come to realize that they can "solve" problems. The same is true in Afghanistan, you need the local people on your side.

Who's going to bring the war to us? al-Qaeda? What navy and airforce do they have that could possibly bring a war to the United States?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Be specific. How was that not the situation on 9/11?

We did not have anything close to a non-interventionist foreign policy, and we did not treat all foreign nations equally.

So you suggest that if the US were to decline to take action to stop a genocide and to treat friendly nations and hostile nations exactly the same way, and rich nations and poor nations the same way, we would be safe from attack? I'm not sure I follow your logic, but I am sure few Americans and few in the rest of the world would support such a policy by the US.

Why must the U.S. step in to stop a genocide? Because the rest of the world wouldn't support us if we didn't? I'm afraid I'm not worried about the opinion of those that would throw stones from inside their glass houses. If we didn't send economic and military aid to nations such as Israel, and treated them the same as everybody else we'd foster less resentment in the Arab world. If we didn't impose murderous sanctions on nations that are punishments on the population for the crimes of their government. If we didn't bomb nations simply because we don't like their leaders. If we didn't involve ourselves militarily around the world in every little incident that takes place. That would be a non-interventionist foreign policy.

 

[Munin]

It's been roughly 7 and a half years since 9/11 and we still don't have bin-Laden, and that situation doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon however many civilians and children are killed. I agree that bin-Laden needs to be brought to justice, but the war on terror is a war of perpetuity that cannot possibly be won and the costs are far too high.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are not just the war on terror, they are also a war on drugs. And the US, NATO can't afford a humiliation in Afghanistan. The thing is that we don't have a choice: we need to bring the war abroad or they will bring the war to us. Right now terrorists are on the defense, if you give them room and retreat from Afghanistan we are going to be on the defense and that you do not want to happen.

The war on terror in general will never be won, because terrorism is just like any other crime. All wars can be won, you just need the right aproach: the US handled Iraq wrong, they couldn't understand that Iraqis need to solve the problems in Iraq not the Americans and now they ve come to realize that they can "solve" problems. The same is true in Afghanistan, you need the local people on your side.

Who's going to bring the war to us? al-Qaeda? What navy and airforce do they have that could possibly bring a war to the United States?

I don't know, wich kind of public transport should they use? They took the plane to America, then they took the train in Madrid and then some of their friends took the metro and a bus in London. Maybe they will take a boat or something, that would be something new. Or as a pedestrian in Europe or in the US.

All known muslim extremists got there eye on Iraq and Afghanistan, extremists from the US and from Europe even go there to wage war.


Muslim terrorists showed to us that a democracy with a multicultural society is very vulnerable to terrorists, a trojan horse can just walk through the front gate of a Nation take flight lessons in that nation and then use a public transport plane as a flying bomb (9/11).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Afghanistan and Pakistan are not just the war on terror, they are also a war on drugs. And the US, NATO can't afford a humiliation in Afghanistan. The thing is that we don't have a choice: we need to bring the war abroad or they will bring the war to us. Right now terrorists are on the defense, if you give them room and retreat from Afghanistan we are going to be on the defense and that you do not want to happen.

The war on terror in general will never be won, because terrorism is just like any other crime. All wars can be won, you just need the right aproach: the US handled Iraq wrong, they couldn't understand that Iraqis need to solve the problems in Iraq not the Americans and now they ve come to realize that they can "solve" problems. The same is true in Afghanistan, you need the local people on your side.

Who's going to bring the war to us? al-Qaeda? What navy and airforce do they have that could possibly bring a war to the United States?

I don't know, wich kind of public transport should they use? They took the plane to America, then they took the train in Madrid and then some of their friends took the metro and a bus in London. Maybe they will take a boat or something, that would be something new. Or as a pedestrian in Europe or in the US.

All known muslim extremists got there eye on Iraq and Afghanistan, extremists from the US and from Europe even go there to wage war.

So what you meant was that al-Qaeda could attack us here, not wage a war here. Well, a Timothy McVeigh type could attack us as well. Canada may have some people that would like to blow up a building in the U.S. Anything is possible.

As far as waging war against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we weren't there they couldn't wage a war against us could they?

 

[Annie]

Drugs, terrorism? Really all are important and they are now on Obama's plate. He's on record now, those picked up on battlefield, well if not able to give what is needed by US criminal court? Wonder how many Marines in Afghanistan are going to be charged with murder?

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's been roughly 7 and a half years since 9/11 and we still don't have bin-Laden, and that situation doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon however many civilians and children are killed. I agree that bin-Laden needs to be brought to justice, but the war on terror is a war of perpetuity that cannot possibly be won and the costs are far too high.

The war on terror is a war to contain the terrorists to a place and a manner of surviving that will keep them from successfully attacking us again. Winning the war on terror is a long term goal that will require us to secure Afghanistan and help develop the government and the economy of that place as a bulwark against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan and then to strengthen the government of Pakistan so that it can contain or destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban in that country. It may then be necessary to apply this strategy to other places where Islamic terrorists are strong, such as Somalia and Sudan.

Containment is the immediate goal of the war on terror. When the terrorists are contained by the local or regional governments more than by us, we will have won our war on terror although other governments may still be struggling with their's.

So 7 and a half years later we're still in Afghanistan, we've made a mess of Iraq, we've begun bombing "strategic" targets in Pakistan, and you think it may be necessary to do something about Somalia and Sudan. How many more years, lives, and trillions of dollars (that we do not have) is it going to take to achieve our immediate goal of containment?

With all the mistakes we've made in Iraq, Iraq is now a functioning democracy with more freedom for its citizens than any other nation in the ME other than Israel, and it will soon be able to take full responsibility for its security with only backup support from the US; that's quite a lot to achieve in five years.

We have pretty much achieved our immediate goal of containing the Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan and we are now working on securing the area and helping the Afghan government develop to the point where it can take over much of what we are now doing as well as developing the economy so that the Afghan people can live in peace and enjoy some prosperity while staying free of the tyrannical rule of the Taliban. There will be a surge in US troops in Afghanistan this year that should bring us closer to reaching this goal.

Pakistan is a more complicated problem. We will probably have to help settle the issue of Kashmir and get help from India to persuade the Pakistani government that they can safely move troops from the Indian border to crack down on the terrorists and their supporters, and Obama has suggested that this is what he intends to do.

Somalia and Sudan may or may not become safe havens for terrorists who mean to harm us or our allies, so it is uncertain if we will have to take action in those places, but if that's what we have to do to keep safe at home, that's what we'll have to do.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's been roughly 7 and a half years since 9/11 and we still don't have bin-Laden, and that situation doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon however many civilians and children are killed. I agree that bin-Laden needs to be brought to justice, but the war on terror is a war of perpetuity that cannot possibly be won and the costs are far too high.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are not just the war on terror, they are also a war on drugs. And the US, NATO can't afford a humiliation in Afghanistan. The thing is that we don't have a choice: we need to bring the war abroad or they will bring the war to us. Right now terrorists are on the defense, if you give them room and retreat from Afghanistan we are going to be on the defense and that you do not want to happen.

The war on terror in general will never be won, because terrorism is just like any other crime. All wars can be won, you just need the right aproach: the US handled Iraq wrong, they couldn't understand that Iraqis need to solve the problems in Iraq not the Americans and now they ve come to realize that they can "solve" problems. The same is true in Afghanistan, you need the local people on your side.

Who's going to bring the war to us? al-Qaeda? What navy and airforce do they have that could possibly bring a war to the United States?

How did they bring it to us on 9/11?

 

[toomuchtime_]

We did not have anything close to a non-interventionist foreign policy, and we did not treat all foreign nations equally.

So you suggest that if the US were to decline to take action to stop a genocide and to treat friendly nations and hostile nations exactly the same way, and rich nations and poor nations the same way, we would be safe from attack? I'm not sure I follow your logic, but I am sure few Americans and few in the rest of the world would support such a policy by the US.

Why must the U.S. step in to stop a genocide? Because the rest of the world wouldn't support us if we didn't? I'm afraid I'm not worried about the opinion of those that would throw stones from inside their glass houses. If we didn't send economic and military aid to nations such as Israel, and treated them the same as everybody else we'd foster less resentment in the Arab world. If we didn't impose murderous sanctions on nations that are punishments on the population for the crimes of their government. If we didn't bomb nations simply because we don't like their leaders. If we didn't involve ourselves militarily around the world in every little incident that takes place. That would be a non-interventionist foreign policy.

And if we hadn't put an embargo on goods to Japan in protest against their actions is Asia, they wouldn't have attacked us at Pearl Harbor and we wouldn't have had to fight Germany or Japan and we might now be happily trading with nazi Europe and a Japanese empire that stretched across Asia. Maybe, but I doubt many Americans would agree with you on this policy and certainly few in the rest of the world would. And of course, if we hadn't forced Stalin out of Iran after WWII and hadn't supported Israel against USSR client states in the ME, the USSR might be giving us some very reasonable terms on ME oil today, but I doubt it.

The prosperity we have long enjoyed here in the US is based in large part on access to raw materials and markets abroad and when that access is threatened anywhere in the world, our way of life here at home is threatened and a non interventionist foreign policy would have long ago left the US relatively impoverished and at the mercy of expansionist empires for raw materials and access to markets.

 

[mash107]

I agree with Kevin for the most part, but the Constitutional path is the most appropriate. If people really want war, they need to have their representatives vote to declare war on a specific country for a specific reason, and it needs to be paid directly through tax hikes. I doubt so many would be willing to go into Iraq, for nation building, if they had to pay the however many $trillions directly. Paying it through the government's printing press sort of hides the true cost of wars (and all government spending).

WWI is the only reason WWII had happened, and if that war ended in a stalemate, Germany would never have been unfairly ravished, and Hitler would've never had a chance to rise to power. Instead, the U.S. had intervened and that resulted in a decisive outcome in favor of the Entente. Be that as it may, WWII was perhaps the only war this century that was justified, since it was in response to an attack. But we need to remember that on 9/11, we were attacked by a group of thugs, not an organized military. Terrorism is a tactic, not a group. Declaring war on terrorism is equivalent to declaring war on mobs and gangs. Sure, the world would be better off without them, but, definitely, no military solution exists.

 

[Munin]

So 7 and a half years later we're still in Afghanistan, we've made a mess of Iraq, we've begun bombing "strategic" targets in Pakistan, and you think it may be necessary to do something about Somalia and Sudan. How many more years, lives, and trillions of dollars (that we do not have) is it going to take to achieve our immediate goal of containment?

Look, Bush messed up both wars with the same mistake. 1st war in Afghanistan he used few troops to attack the terrorists, with the air support and artillery it was possible to take them out: the problem was that once you have to defend you have to few troops to cover an area that is too big. This makes that your troops have to be mobile all the time, attacking one place that is occupied again then leave to defend another place while the enemy moves back in the placed you just cleared out. The reason why it took 7 years is because Bush didn't provide the troops to keep a stable occupying force so you have a hard line of defense.


Then the 2nd war in Iraq he made the same mistake all over again, he had enough troops to defeat the enemy but not enough troops to occupy and stabilize the army other then that he made other huge mistakes: for example disbanding the Iraqi army (letting military soldiers without a job), the result is that you now have a shitload of people who will go into the resistance to earn money. Now after years it has become somewhat stable in Iraq because of a decent occupying force.

Iraq has now 142 000 US troops and is barely stable, Afghanistan has 19 000 US troops. The numbers speak for themselves.
And many Iraqi troops are going to leave Iraq, the troops that are gained (30 000 according to Obama) can now make sure that in Afghanistan the US can hold ground and advance again.

 

[Article 15]

Afghanistan and Pakistan are not just the war on terror, they are also a war on drugs. And the US, NATO can't afford a humiliation in Afghanistan. The thing is that we don't have a choice: we need to bring the war abroad or they will bring the war to us. Right now terrorists are on the defense, if you give them room and retreat from Afghanistan we are going to be on the defense and that you do not want to happen.

The war on terror in general will never be won, because terrorism is just like any other crime. All wars can be won, you just need the right aproach: the US handled Iraq wrong, they couldn't understand that Iraqis need to solve the problems in Iraq not the Americans and now they ve come to realize that they can "solve" problems. The same is true in Afghanistan, you need the local people on your side.

Who's going to bring the war to us? al-Qaeda? What navy and airforce do they have that could possibly bring a war to the United States?

How did they bring it to us on 9/11?

There's a big difference between 9/11 and real "war" being brought to the US.

9/11 being the candle to war's sun.

 

[Article 15]

That was the situation on 9/11. Clearly it didn't keep us safe.

That was far from the situation on 9/11.

Be specific. How was that not the situation on 9/11?

lol, wut?

U Serious?

 

[editec]

Well yeah, but this is no different then what Bush did. It is actually a war from the Bush years, so it is his war not Obama's war.

Of course it's no different from what Bush did, that's the problem. Obama is the President now and he has the power to stop this nonsense. If he doesn't, then it is indeed his war.

During his campaign, Obama promised to increase our military force in Afghanistan and to strike targets of opportunity inside of Pakistan. Why would anyone have expected him to do anything else once in office?

Exactly!

Obama is doing exactly what he said he was going to do...pursue Al Qada in Pakistan if necessary.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course it's no different from what Bush did, that's the problem. Obama is the President now and he has the power to stop this nonsense. If he doesn't, then it is indeed his war.

During his campaign, Obama promised to increase our military force in Afghanistan and to strike targets of opportunity inside of Pakistan. Why would anyone have expected him to do anything else once in office?

Exactly!

Obama is doing exactly what he said he was going to do...pursue Al Qada in Pakistan if necessary.

And killing civilians and children in the process.