So now we see his opposition to Iraq was shallow.

[originalpckelly]

He may have been against Iraq back when everyone seemed to be for it, but President Obama fails to understand the real reason why the wars in Iraq, and yes, Afghanistan are wrong.

We CANNOT for any alleged reason force other countries into becoming democracies, to do that violates the very idea of a democracy itself. The idea of democracy is that the people in a given country control their affairs, not tyrants or foreign governments.

And it's not just that, these two nations do not have foundations of democracy. When our country along with the Allies in WWII invaded and "liberated" the countries in Europe who'd fallen under the boots of the Axis powers, we were invading countries where the ideas behind democracy came from in part. We were invading countries that were democracies or constitutional monarchies, but had succumb to the lies of dictators like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. We forget that the Weimar Republic was a republic and in the 20s was quite liberal.

So, in a sense, we were helping these countries revert to their original status. And at some level, we had a much easier go of it, because we weren't fighting a tactic, we were fighting nations. The Allies also had legitimate claims of self-defense, as they had suffered casualties at sea or suffered aerial bombardment from aircraft of the nations in question.

The idea of invading foreign countries that have not had prior intellectual development along the lines of democracy will almost always fail. It doesn't mean that these nations shouldn't be democracies, or that their people probably wouldn't be safer in those kinds of countries, but that they must understand and come to the conclusion of their own free will to become those types of countries.

That is why I am opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan. If one day these nations do become democracies, it will have very little to do with what we in America did or didn't do, as it is always the choice of the people in a country what government they should have.

With that said, I'm also extremely troubled about what these wars mean for our own nation. The fact that this country could accept a proposition such as forced conversion to democracy as logical and not the insanity it is, means that we too lack the foundation ourselves.

I fear that means the end of this nation.

[Minimus]

1. Are we in Afghanistan to force democracy?

[originalpckelly]

2. I forgot the Taliban still control Afghanistan...

and that the people weren't forced into choosing democracy. Silly me!

[leftofthedial]

70. no.

we're there to reprise Viet Nam.

[ixion]

3. I agree...and was opposed to both illegal invasions from the start

That they have been co-opted into our national @todo list I find disturbing in the extreme, but I'm not surprised.

Police States don't roll backwards, only forward, until they ultimately breakdown and collapse.

And just because we have a new President, doesn't mean we're any less of a police state.

[originalpckelly]

10. Couldn't agree more, even if he decides to not be like Bush...

the fact that he even had a choice is telling, and scary. The previous President set precedents that will linger like ghouls throughout the rest of this nation's life, and it is only a matter of time before more Rubicons are crossed and we become a full dictatorship.

[Gregorian]

4. I think patience is required.

We do not know what is going on yet.

Here is one idea I had tonight. It may be complete garbage. But it is kind of the sentiment of where I'm going with this. What if Obama is anxious to make a capture of Osama? He may be doing everything he can to accomplish something the Republicans were blabbing about for so long, and what Bush had no interest in. Capturing Osama. Let's say he does that. Now he's just bumped up he standing in the eyes of everyone. And then he pulls troops out.

I don't know... You may be right. And I'll be just as pissed. But let's see where this goes.

[originalpckelly]

7. Capturing one guy is not going to keep pissed off people from bombing us.

Every time we kill another civilian, we risk creating a new terrorist out of their grieving family. Violence begets violence. The solution to violence is non-violence, not more violence.

[Pastiche423]

16. Osama had been dead for over seven years

And if Obama is not aware of that, then he sure as hell isn't as intelligent as people think.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. I have Afghani friends.............

None of them wants the US there. They laugh and ask why the Americans haven't learned from history.

If we thought Iraq was a bloodbath, we're in for a real treat in Afghanistan. They'll slaughter our troops wholesale.

Ask the old Soviets about fighting these people.

Obama has disappointed me by doing this. Big time.

[originalpckelly]

8. I heard a phrase...

The US personnel have watches, the Taliban has time. They will live there long after interest wanes in this country, and when it does wane, they will take that as the opportunity to return to power.

I think we Americans must realize that our country is:
1. An evil empire
2. That it is in a decline, and it will be only a matter of months or years before the empire finally collapses

I look on Obama as a Gorbachev like figure, he wants to reform the system, but there is only so much one person can do, and in the long run, his rhetoric will cause the people of this country to be disillusioned and frustrated as they continue to lose their jobs, houses, and family members in these awful wars.

[crimsonblue]

24. give me a fucking break

our country is an evil empire? are you fucking serious?

First of all, as flawed as our country is, is still the height of democracy, the harbinger of freedom of the press, speech, religion. Our country is far from perfect, and the struggle towards creating a more perfect union is never ending, but we are slowly marching towards perfection.

Secondly, the invasion of Afghanistan was: a) warranted, b) legal. The taliban was directly involved in the support and training of the 9/11 hijackers. The country was dominated by a brutal totalitarian oligarchy. Human rights were routinely destroyed. More than half of the world's opium supply came from Afghanistan. Now, did we drop the ball on Afghanistan? We sure did. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq. We had essentially won Afghanistan, but by diverting our attention we allowed the Taliban and the opium trade to reemerge.

[originalpckelly]

32. The height of democracy or the height of the illusion of democracy?

What good is freedom of speech if no one in power ever hears it? The nice little overlords of this country (aka the rich people who own you and I) are not stupid. If they shot us all dead in the street or locked us away (which they do sometimes anyway when we get too uppity) that would cause uproar and outrage. Apathy is their goal, as long as people don't give a shit, they can do anything.

Why tell people what religion they should have, when you could just let them do their stupid little bullshit and stay in power?

We've got some smart assholes in control of America, and what's telling is that other oligarchies are picking up their tricks. For example, in China during the Olympics, there was a free speech zone set up. Why lock people away when you can put them somewhere that their protests will be out of earshot and effectively won't matter.

Regulatory capture. People get outraged by some shitty thing that went wrong, say the recent salmonell outbreak with peanutbutter. The politicians have to do something to make it look good, so they pass regulation to keep the shit from happening again. In the process they set up new regulatory boards. Regulatory boards make the industry feel pain.

Until one day when public apathy sets in, the company buys off the officials of the regulatory boards with either jobs after their time on the board, by outright or covert bribery, or by getting politicians to appoint industry insiders to the regulatory boards. The boards loosen regulations, and the same old shit happens again.

The problem with our political system is that in order to end public apathy, the public must suffer first. There is no force consistently causing the public to be interested in the affairs of government, because the affairs of government are handled by a very small portion of the overall population.

We are an empire, and certainly there is a good case to be made we are evil (or at least the people fucking us are.)

[crimsonblue]

33. Jesus Christ, we should just call you John Calvin...

for fucks sake: get a life, get laid, get stoned.

[originalpckelly]

38. I blame/cite DU.

I came here gung ho about America, albeit as a Democrat pissed off at Bush, but I didn't have the mistrust of power like I do now. I have learned that since being here.

[crimsonblue]

39. well, a lot of the people on DU are bitter.

that explains a lot of it. Another aspect is that many people are unwilling to see more than one side of any given situation.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

67. Your posts in this thread

are a perfect example of what you just cited: "... unwilling to see more than one side of any given situation."

[Tangerine LaBamba]

66. Please

Calling us "the height of democracy" is laughable. Where have you been the past eight years? We've been educated is how fragile the idea of "democracy" can be, while we had our hijacked right out from under us.

We're in the process of reclaiming it, but, in the world, we're viewed as weakened and stupid, thanks to the last eight years and the thugs who overruled our votes and corrupted and broke our country.

No invasion of Afghanistan was warranted. The fact is that no one knows where the 9/11 terrorists came from, save their countries of origin, and if that mattered, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. The invasion of Afghanistan was politically facile, a lovely cover while the thugs in the White House got their Iraq invasion plans underway. The American public watched Afghanistan, believing it really meant something, when, in fact, it was - and is - meaningless.

We do not belong in Afghanistan, and if we remain - this latest escalation sickens me - then it will become Obama's Vietnam.

[SidneyCarton]

60. For all our sakes, may you be wrong.

The 90's were not a good time to be a Russian, Ukranian, Kazakh, Armenian, Azerbaijani, or any one of the citizens of any of the other Former Soviet Republics. If we fall, the satisfaction that our "evil empire" has come to an end will be cold comfort as we starve in the dark.

[Gregorian]

9. That really is the bottom line. We weren't invited.

I cringed every time Obama mentioned this subject during the campaign. I still wonder what he's doing. But it's blatantly stupid that we are even there.

Well, we're going broke. So our options may be thinning. Bring em home.

[originalpckelly]

12. We are the USSR circa '86.

Obama is Gorbachev, he's lived the American dream and genuinely wants to reform the system, but it is too damaged to be reformed, it is collapsing and his efforts will probably only hasten that.

Gorbachev didn't want to bring down the USSR, he wanted to make it Sweden. The problem was that there was this massive mental wall, and it had started crumbling perhaps from day one of the USSR. The same is true with the USA. Our history has actually been pretty fucking awful.

[Zywiec]

57. Iraq a bloodbath?

Please show me your historic references for the loss of life in Iraq since 2003 being considered a bloodbath?

In Afghanistan, here is what the Soviet Union published figures of dead Soviet soldiers: the total was 13,836 men, on average, and 1,537 men a year. According to updated figures, the Soviet army lost 14,427, the KGB lost 576, with 28 people dead and missing.
Remains of Soviet trucks in Kandahar, 2002

Material losses were as follows:

* 118 aircraft
* 333 helicopters
* 147 tanks
* 1,314 IFV/APCs
* 433 artillery guns and mortars
* 1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
* 510 engineering vehicles
* 11,369 trucks and petrol tankers

Please show me where we've lost anything close to this since 2001.

Do I think it's a good idea to be in either place, no. However, things need to be put in some perspective.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

59. First,

I think it's great that you believe figures from the Soviet Union. Your naivete is touching and amusing.

Next, did you not consider - when I used the word "bloodbath" - the number of Iraqi civilian casualties? I did, and it was a very considered use of the word, because what has taken place in Iraq since 2003 (not 2001) has been nothing short of a bloodbath.

Next time, use real figures if you're going to try to refute an intelligent and informed opinion, and always consider your sources. Your cutting and copying just don't work.

How's that for perspective?

[Zywiec]

64. Did you read what you wrote?

Your first post says: "Ask the old Soviets about fighting these people."

Your second post now disputes the Soviets: "I think it's great that you believe figures from the Soviet Union. Your naivete is touching and amusing."

We can ask the Soviets, but it would be naive to believe them? Not exactly sure what info from the Soviets you want us to believe. Are you claiming they lost more or less than stated in public information?

:shrug:

"Next, did you not consider - when I used the word "bloodbath" - the number of Iraqi civilian casualties?"

No - your post only mentioned that "They'll slaughter our troops wholesale." and didn't mention civilians.

Again, just out of curiosity, and in the perspective of history, what number do you consider it "wholesale slaughter" of our troops?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

65. It's called "context,"

and when you take individual lines out of context, you obscure the meaning of the whole.

If you don't know what a bloodbath is, I cannot define it for you. If you regard any number of dead American soldiers in a futile effort as less than significant, I surely will never convince you otherwise.

Yes, you tried hard to break down my original remarks, but you failed, because you're relying on someone else to do your thinking for you, and you scrambled to find "facts" from a spurious and laughable source to back up what you wanted to believe. That's doing it backwards, as this reply from you indicates.

We're finished now.

[Zywiec]

68. Yep, you have all the answers

except didn't provide anything except hyperbole.

Ciao.

[undeterred]

6. Yeah, but he gave a great speech a few years ago.

People have evidently forgotten what it was about. We don't need to be spending billions imposing ourselves all over the world when things are so screwed up at home.

[luvspeas]

Please just take a deep breath here...

Listen, I'm a peace activist and I'm very impatient when it comes to such things. I don't believe that there is any good to come out of military action anywhere. Obama has never fully shared my beliefs, he has never given any indication otherwise. I do trust him to consider the situation fully, and make a decision that is going to be wise and cause the least harm within his belief system. I am glad that we now have a president with his experience and philosophy. Over time I think he will bring greater and more lasting peace to our world than Bush or McCain ever would. I admire your speaking out, and I think you should continue to do so, but I do think Obama could be pursuaded over time and with more support.

[originalpckelly]

14. It doesn't matter what he believes, countries cannot be forced into becoming democracies.

How is that going to change, even if he believe otherwise?

[luvspeas]

17. I've never heard Obama say that he believed that...

In fact I'd say his rhetoric presumes that he knows that what you are saying is true. so why blame the person who inherited this mess?

[originalpckelly]

20. I'm blaming him, because he's only seeking to keep the mess and make it worse...

by sending more troops in. If we cannot "win" then why send more people to risk their lives/die?

[TwilightGardener]

53. Do you think Pres. Obama and Biden are liars when they say we face a serious threat

from a resurgent Al Qaeda in that region? Because essentially, you're saying there's no threat, Obama's just as much a liar on Afghanistan as Bush was concerning WMD's in Iraq. Is that your position?

[originalpckelly]

54. Why does the threat even exist?

And if we're not in Iraq to bring democracy, but dictatorship, that's even worse than pushing democracy on someone. Last time I checked, these countries have shotgun democracies, do you want shotgun dictatorships?

[TwilightGardener]

58. Well, Afghanistan and Iraq are two different situations--I don't lump them together.

We were never in Iraq to promote democracy, I believe. That was just feel-good bullshit tojustify our invading and staying there, after the WMD thing fell through as an excuse. If some form of democracy works there to keep the country stable, that will probably be a blessing, but who knows what their form of government will look like 5 or ten years from now? (Hamas was elected democratically, if I recall correctly--not exactly the results we hope for.) But Iraq was just a massive mistake, all around. Afghanistan, in my view, was justified, and it's too bad that the ball was dropped (for years--they don't call it "the forgotten war" for no reason) on that mission. There are people in or near there who wish us harm, and have harmed us in the past, and will attempt it in the future--and a pretty awful regime (the Taliban is worse than Saddam, IMO) that is supporting them. Not sure how we just walk away from that.

[lib2DaBone]

11. If Pakistan falls to the Taliban... the terrorists will have nukes.

. The Neocons have put us in a helluva fix. $10 Billion a month going down the toilet in Iraq (as we face financial collapse).

[originalpckelly]

13. And yet, no matter how we try, we cannot force a nation into a democracy.

[anonymous171]

27. We shouldn't. Our overall strategy should be partitioning it

by tribal associations. That way they will focus on killing eachother instead of us.

[wuvuj]

49. That is the method used....

...in the US...can't see why it wouldn't work over there. :sarcasm:

Many of the political techniques used in the US for the last 8 years were developed for use in South and Central Am?

Many of the methods and techniques being used in Iraq and Afgan. WILL eventually be used in the US? They will be used by the military/police.

We also use some Israeli methods....in fact the US is now mostly just a larger version of Israel? Dumb and dumber?

McCain mentioned "partitioning" parts of some US cities during the election.

The American people have allowed their govt. to do a lot of nasty things in other countries as long as they weren't affected...or thought they weren't.

Looks like 9/11 did change everything? Showed the Am people that they were vulnerable? And...since then the US has basically just done more of the same...only worse.

Guess the big idea is: once you get a hole started...you just make it deeper? :think:

Now some of the Am people are starting to figure out that they've been exploited just as much as all those poor throwaway people in other countries? They can add 2 + 2....and even connect some dots.

[bertman]

40. Unfortunately, Pakistan is controlled by their intelligence apparatus, who are sympathetic

to the Taliban. We can't do shit about that without starting a war with Pakistan.

I was in favor of invading Afghanistan and still think it was a good thing to kick out the Taliban. But we immediately diverted our forces to Iraq instead of solidifying a popular government. Karzai let the warlords regain control of the country with their corruption and private armies. Now the Afghans are so pissed that they are going back to the Taliban for relief.

At the beginning we might have succeeded if the neocons hadn't shifted the focus to Iraq, but now it may be impossible.

[Chulanowa]

47. If Pakistan falls to the Taliban...

The dumb luddite sons of bitches will kill themselves whacking those nukes with rocks because they find their phallic representativeness intimidating and idolatrous. The Taliban are about as anti-intellectual and anti-science as you can get without cramming an icepick up your nose and reading Ann Coulter.

Don't worry about the Taliban - they're the comic relief. The general population of Afghanistan is who should be cause for worry. I bet there's a booming business for knife-sharpeners right about now.

[mike_c]

15. agreed, 100 percent....

I am terribly disappointed by Obama's decision to embrace Bush's war crimes. This is unconscionable.

[originalpckelly]

19. And a few other fundamental questions:

1. How can anyone decide whether or not to investigate and if it merits, prosecute war crimes?
2. What happens when public apathy sets in and this nation's improved regulations (which I assume Obama will lead an effort to improve) start being dismantled?
3. How can we escape the fact of the precedents set by Bush?
4. Isn't the power to give the right to a speedy trial also the power to take it away? (The same applies for any other rights that he may restore through unilateral executive branch orders/actions.)
5. How can we call ourselves a just country when we profit from the fruits of the labor of people in countries with unjust governments like China?

[luvspeas]

22. I don't think he is going that far...

and don't count him out yet. I think that he's just being very methodical and going for the most urgent issues first. there are many ways to approach addressing the neocons. Perhaps he thinks it's better to let congress hold hearings, I'm sure he won't stand in the way. He may be of more help and more effective to let others handle it. If he starts going after Bush & co. now, he will look vindictive and will create something for the republicans to mobilize around that might energize their base.

[originalpckelly]

25. What scares me is that it's even being debated, and yes it is.

That is a matter that I can see patience with, because he hasn't done enough yet to merit judgment.

[spanone]

18. petreaus doctrine...war without end...amen

i would rather think it's so fucking corrupt and fucked that the military has him by the balls somehow

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. I believe our involvement in Afghanistan

immediately post-9/11 was entirely justifiable- to get rid of al-Queda's Taliban-sponsored "sanctuary" and, ostensibly, to hunt down and capture (or kill) Bin Laden and others responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Nothing very controversial there IMHO although, in retrospect, it would seem that there WERE some self-serving corporate interests involved there as well (i.e. Unocal pipeline). At this point I'm not sure exactly what we stand to accomplish there, particularly since it's been several years since it seemed we were close to Bin Laden and the Taliban and, although the Taliban seems somewhat resurgent, they seem to be mostly unreachable right now- becoming ever more secure and protected within the lawless tribal regions of Pakistan some of which are now apparently more or less being ceded to them by the Pakistanis. I'm not sure we'll meet quite the same fate there as the Russians did and I'm not sure that Obama intends for us to hunker down and fight for Afghanistan at all costs- like Bush has had us doing in Iraq for unknown reasons- but I'm interested in knowing exactly what he's trying to do before judging whether or not it's a good idea. Afghanistan may be too far neglected/gone for us to do any good there but IMHO we DO need to ensure that al Queda can't just move back in there and set the training camps right back up.

[originalpckelly]

23. So the idea that we can change another country's government...

made more sense in '01 than it does now? I could see capturing Al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama, but changing a nation's government is not possible without the consent of those whose government is being changed.

While we certainly have a legitimate reason to end Al-Qaeda's existence, I do not think more violence is the best way to do that. In our strikes with hellfire missiles fired from Predator drones, we've killed civilians, not just adults, but helpless children. That pisses people off, and it most certainly increases the ranks of the enemy. We have to realize that hatred is the problem, not terrorism, terrorism is the side effect. Only when we end their hatred of us do we get anywhere close to ending Al-Qaeda.

We cannot end hatred when we enrage people by killing innocent children.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. So, what do we do now to/for Afghnistan (if anything)?

:shrug:

For those opposed to any further involvement in Afghanistan (and I completely respect your position and share it to some degree), what is the solution/alternative for dealing with the Taliban/Al-Queda remnants in Afghanistan? How do we keep them from coming back in there to re-establish jihadist training camps?

[originalpckelly]

34. We've already blown it.

The first casualty caused by the US was the blowing of the shot. We can't preach to people when we don't get democracy ourselves. Maybe some of the people in this country can, but not as Americans. Just as people to people. I suggest that NGOs should try to fill in for the government.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. Do NGOs have sufficient resources to pursue/confront/eliminate Al-Queda?

:shrug:

THAT is what I think we should be most worried about in regards to Afghanistan.

[mike_c]

30. I think you're completely wrong....

Under international law and U.S. treaty obligation there are only three legal justifications for bombarding and invading another country: in self defense, to block an imminent threat of attack, and in response to an international consensus that military force is needed to prevent some greater harm, e.g. genocide.

The invasion of Afghanistan met none of those standards-- it was at best, revenge-- and revenge against the wrong nation, at that. None of the 9/11 attackers was from Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden, having never been tried and convicted of involvement in 9/11, is presently presumed innocent until proven guilty, no matter how inconvenient that circumstance might be to the cable news lynch mob. In any event, the Taliban was not in any position to hand him over when the U.S. demanded it, and they were entirely within their rights refusing the U.S. permission to operate militarily within their country. Afghanistan had no direct involvement in attacks against America and was NO threat at all-- probably even less than Iraq, if such a thing is possible.

There was no legal or moral justification for invading Afghanistan, and even less for trying to impose democracy there-- the very notion is antithetical to every democratic ideal imaginable.

It's a crime against humanity. A war crime. Obama's acceptance of it as an element of U.S. foreign policy is terribly disappointing. I hope Bush pays for his crimes some day. Now Obama has added his name to the account.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. I respectfully disagree with most of your points

I'd say that the Al Queda-run jihadist training camps- that specifically trained people in terrorist attacks and preached vitriolic hatred of Americans (among other people/countries)- made their continued existence in Afghanistan a definite threat to us as demonstrated by the major terrorist attacks over the prior decade including (but not limited to) WTC (1993), Khobar Towers (1996), Kenya and Tanzania (1998), USS Cole (2000), and most notoriously, 9/11- all or most of which were perpetrated by people participating in such training camps. From what I understand OBL and/or Al Queda were implicated in all or most of these attacks and I believe that the Clinton administration had ample evidence and intelligence sufficient enough for him to have signed a Presidential directive authorizing OBL's capture prior to 9/11.
The Taliban were an odious regime but I might have agreed with you that, as bad as they were, their thuggery and disregard for human rights would certainly not have been justification enough for us to invade/remove their regime. However, they clearly supported/protected/helped fund OBL and Al Queda, as well as hosted their training camps which IMHO was more than adequate justification for becoming militarily involved and toppling their regime so as to be able to get at Al Queda and destroy their camps.

[quiet.american]

28. I don't know where you've been....

.... but Barack Obama said over and over again during his campaign that he intended to increase troop levels in Afghanistan -- not to "force" democracy on them, but to close down jihadist camps that are flourishing.

Now, whether that can actually work is another discussion, but please, understand that the reason he is sending additional troops to Afghanistan is not for the purpose of enforcing democracy at the point of a gun.

The November/December 2008 issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine has some excellent articles which may offer a wider perspective on why he is escalating the U.S. troop presence in the area.

[BlooInBloo]

29. Concern noted.

[roamer65]

31. After we go the way of the USSR in Afghanistan, the Chinese will invade.

Jobs for millions of unemployed Chinese.

[originalpckelly]

35. "After we go the way of the USSR"

The historical parallels are highly disturbing.

[mmonk]

36. We're not in those countries for democracy.

Afghanistan=pipeline project
Iraq=oil field contracts

Take a look at the Bremer orders in this I did:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mmonk/39

It's plain old colonialism and geopolitical exploitation for hegemony.

[originalpckelly]

37. Of course, but the story is democracy.

I'm arguing from the point of assuming that what our leaders say is their real motives, and attempting to show that even if we believe them it doesn't make sense. I think we the people are there for democracy among other reasons like revenge and fear.

My point is that even if you buy what they're saying, it's all bullshit.

[mmonk]

41. True, the unwilling host country tends to reject whatever the invader

wants to impose.

[leftstreet]

43. We have to bring them our Freedoms

[wuvuj]

50. Americans....

...ARE such NICE people. :patriot:

[lostnfound]

45. The end of our nation? More like the substance of our nation, for 100+ years_

Smedley Butler, War is a Racket, contains example after example of it.

I'm troubled by the immorality and cruelty of it, but it's nothing new. What is new is the ability to wage wars from a comfortable computer seat somewhere in California etc.

If you want to do anything about it, it might be helpful to focus on deconstructing the repeated lies that we are told about it instead of appearing to accept the lies.

[norepubsin08]

46. Good for you...I agree 100%

[readmoreoften]

48. We're not in Afghanistan or Iraq to promote democracy.

We're there to deploy disaster capitalism, profit from rebuilding, building and controlling exploitable oil infrastructure, surrounding Iran, and in the case of Afghanistan--we're there to make sure the Taliban don't stop the production of heroin that the warlords we back are so excellent at producing and distributing. None of this has a damn thing to do with "democracy" or "freedom" or any such nonsense. This is an issue of pure profitability. This is an issue of "U.S. Interests"--meaning corporate profit and underhanded economic moves.

[originalpckelly]

51. We the people believe it, the politicians sell it...

and even if you analyze it, then it is bullshit. Now, of course, there are covert goals which have not been openly talked about, but those aren't as easily dissected.

[TwilightGardener]

52. Neither Iraq or Afghanistan have anything to do with promoting democracy.

Iraq was the taking over of a weak country with vast oil resources, for the purpose of maintaining a strategic foothold there and "staking a claim" of influence and control. Afghanistan was to go after the terrorist element that attacked us--as long as you aren't a LIHOP/MIHOP subscriber, anyway. If the consensus of most government officials and politicians is to be believed, there is still a good deal of terrorist danger to the US from the border area there (Waziristan?)--supposedly as much as existed in 2001. The Taliban is back and better than ever (because Bush allowed the mission to languish), Pakistan is slowly succumbing to them now too, and what are we supposed to do about it? Nobody has any good answers.

BTW, we have 30,000 troops in Afgh. (where a continued threat to the US exists) vs. 130-140,000 in Iraq. And we face no danger from Iraq. Maybe Pres. Obama is trying to correct that weird little imbalance.

[steelmania75]

55. Afganistan is where the REAL terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are....so I agree with his decision

We need to pull troops out of Iraq, then give the Palestinians some of their land back from Israel, and go into the mountains of Afganistan and Pakistan, and find Al Quada and the Taliban and kill them.

[originalpckelly]

56. The problem is that everytime you kill "al-Qaeda and the Taliban"

you risk killing innocent children, and people do not take lightly to have their children killed. Don't you see that you cannot end violence and rage with more violence?

[NNN0LHI]

63. al-Qaeda and the Taliban we are killing now were children on 9/11

9 and 10 year-olds. Doubtful they had anything to do with a bunch of Saudis ramming planes into our buildings over 7 years ago.

Don

[Middle finga]

61. It has been 7 going on 8 years since we invaded Afghanistan

Do you realize in a few years we will be fighting AQ/Taliban members that were in diapers or wasn't even born when 9/11 happened.

[snot]

62. I doubt that's the motive for continuing war there. If it were,

there are many other places in the world in which much greater atrocities are taking place on a much larger scale, and we should fight there first -- but that doesn't suit our interests.

We've never done anything just for the sake of spreading democracy.

[northernlights]

69. Afghanistan, Pakistan and several hundred nukes

Do you *really* want to see the Taliban and al Qaeda in control of a country with a nuclear arsenal?

We didn't go to Afghanistan to force democracy. We went to Afghanistan because the Taliban had taken control of it and was harboring Al Qaeda. Had * followed his own soundbite and "stayed the course" there, instead of going off on his attempt to corner the oil market by controlling Iraq, we wouldn't face the potential disaster we face today.

Due to *'s neglect of Afghanistan, the Taliban and al Qaeda are stronger than they were in '01.

Pakistan, the breeding ground of the Taliban, is on the brink of becoming a failed state. The Taliban and al Qaeda are doing everything they can to push it over the brink and have their very own state. Oh, and their very own nuclear arsenal, too.



That is why Obama is refocussing efforts on Afghanistan.