Why can't Obama just snap his fingers and fix everything?!?!

[cbdo2007]

People here need to calm down.

You can't just fix a problem by *wishing* it was fixed like many people here think. Even worse, Obama can't really win with anyone right now, you know why? Cause he's trying to run as fast as he can into a sh*tstorm and half the people here at DU expect him to still get the World record.

I'm sure everyone here complaining could do a much better job as President, but unfortunately we don't have that luxury. In the mean time, what Obama needs more than anything is support so that they can try to clean up some of the mess we made in Afghanistan and Iraq before we end the wars. This isn't Bush anymore people. He started these wars for NO reason which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost. His "occupations" were about going in to kill people, to get oil and power and money. Obama's "Occupation" is truly what should have been included in Bush's stupid plan all along - a withdrawal plan that takes longer than 24 hours but is going to include trying to stabilize all the chaos that we caused.

I promise you, everyone here claiming they won't vote for Obama in the next election...they're all full of it. That's like someone saying they aren't going to support their favorite local sports team in 2012 because they traded the kicker this year. Not that anyone of these people will admit that they were wrong, and I'm sure they'll give someone else the credit if we really ARE withdrawing troops in 2012, but Obama can do it with or without the support of his biggest supporters and fans, it'll just be easier WITH all of our support.

[closeupready]

1. Because he's holding chess pieces with them?

??

[Thickasabrick]

3. LOL...noice

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. Heh

:spray:

[QC]

13. LOL!

:evilgrin:

[leftstreet]

47. ROFL

[Starry Messenger]

59. You win an internet.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cbdo2007]

16. You didn't know the Afghan war was going on when you voted???

And that whoever won was going to have to end it somehow and that bringing everyone home on the next plane is ridiculous???

You must have just been voting for Student Body President then instead of someone with real problems that has to come up with real solutions.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anonymous171]

6. Afghanistan has always been in a state of chaos. They like it that way

They have had no meaningful centralized government for over 30 years.

[Hannah Bell]

29. "they" = the folks who keep invading it & funding wars there, presumably?

otherwise, the comment is idiotic.

[anonymous171]

32. Yes. I'm pretty sure they had a strongish central government for a brief period

in the early to mid 20th century.

[Hannah Bell]

35. & i'm pretty sure the russians, brits & us were messing about there for most of the 20th century.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. Actually, it was quite stable and relatively progressive between

1919 and 1972. The king tried to model his regime on Ataturk's Turkey, with fair success.

That last 30 years does not = 'always'.

[Bluebear]

7. I was told here that I CANNOT vote for him in 2012, since I was not "listening"

when he told me that he supported a troop surge.

[Lex]

8. "You can't just fix a problem by *wishing* it was fixed like many people here think"

No one here thinks that. Empty rhetoric.

[Mari333]

9. dont worry, Karl Rove is a happy man today

and probably agrees with you as does most of the RNC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/bush-officials-rnc-praise_n_375400.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. Bullshit.

You actually take anything that Rove says at face value? Where were you the last 8 years?

There will be a troop increase, meant to stabilize the situation while giving the central government a chance to get trained. AND there will be a deadline for leaving - something no Bushie EVER wanted. AND we will leave, pipeline or no - also something no Bushie ever wanted.

The only reason the repugs are praising this is to POISON Obama. The repugs are getting nothing that they wanted (BTW, no no-bid contracts, either) and a firmly announced withdrawal schedule which, if Obama does not meet it, will end his presidency because it will be obvious well before 2012 if it is happening or not.

EVERYTHING Rove does is for the good of the Republican party and the detriment of the Democrats. If he is praising a Democratic president it is NOT because he likes what he is doing.

[Thickasabrick]

11. It's not that people will vote against him - they won't vote. His first

job out of the gate was the economic crisis - enabled Geithner and Summers to make it worse.

Next up, the healthcare legislation - made a deal with the pharmaceutical companies and would not come out and support a public option. The final product looks to be a gift to the big insurance companies.

Next up, deal with the wars - we do not draw down - we are escalating.

Everyone says to give him more time - great. We may have time to bomb Iran before the next election cycle.

[NoQuarter]

65. There's no "Final Product" yet.

He.Hasn't.Been.President.A.Year.Yet.

Sheesh.

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. You also can't fix problems by continuing the shit that caused the problems in the first place

Such as, letting Wall $treet and the "federal" reserve write your economic policies, or letting the neocon shitbags and the "defense" industry write your foreign policy.

[cbdo2007]

24. Obama is hardly on a mission to Occupy and finish off Al Queda which was the original

plan. Therefore, I'm confused how he is continuing any of the shit that caused the problems in the first place.

Were you not around in 2001-2004 to hear all the lame ass excuses for getting us into this mess? Starting a war without a plan or strategy? It sounds like Obama is doing the exact opposite of what the last Admin did. He's fixing as much of the mess as we can and getting the hell out of there in 3 years. When did Bush or Cheney ever mention that as a strategy?

[lame54]

14. What are you asking for?...

I will vote dem 2012

But I don't support this bullshit move

One is not the other

[Greyhound]

15. Why can't Obama even promote a step in the right direction?

To believe that a problem can be fixed by making worse is just stupid.

"We had to burn the village to save the village."

[cbdo2007]

19. How does sending more troops make the situation worse?

There's a lot of shit over there to clean up and the Afghans can't/aren't going to do it themselves.

You're assuming the troops are going over to kill more people in the "George Bush" sense of war. No, more troops are just needed for organization.

[Bluebear]

22. Dead soldiers and blown-up limbs, maybe?

[cbdo2007]

33. Right, you're proving the point. More soldiers = more security so there will

be less "dead soldiers and blown-up limbs".

Let's use a baseball analogy here and say that our team is in the field with 9 players, like normal to stop any hits and get anybody out. Now let's say that the coach wants to change things up and the Ump gives him the freedom to either add players to the field or take off players from the field. The coach wants to win the game obviously so would he be smarter to go from 9 players down to 4 players to win the game? Or would it be better to go from 9 players playing defense to 12??? 12 players means less chance of the other team getting a hit and scoring.

[PVnRT]

67. That worked well in Vietnam

[Romulox]

25. How does escalating an unwinnable war hurt? Are you serious?

"There's a lot of shit over there to clean up and the Afghans can't/aren't going to do it themselves."

Have you ever been to Detroit or Gary? :hi:

[cbdo2007]

34. Wait....so you must think the only skill the military has is to shoot people?

A troop escalation doesn't mean we are escalating the war and fighting harder to win. There's nothing to win. There's bits and pieces of Al Queda over there but there is no reward. What we can do though is try to restore some order to the country which is was extra troops provides.

[Romulox]

38. Is this satire or parody? Do you reckon that we need to destroy the village to save it?

Troops aren't being sent to engage the enemy, because, as a proponent of this war, you concede "there's nothing to win"?

I admit, the above has all the incongruity of a joke, but I don't see any punch line. Moreover, I'll have to assume that you haven't visited Detroit, Michigan, or Gary, Indiana, which are both in dire need of rebuilding.

I've said several times that the best thing for many US cities would be to offer a hiding place for OBL.

[cbdo2007]

45. Again, how does sending more troops "destroy the village"?

[Romulox]

58. Because, contrary to your (rather odd, btw) assertions, our troops engage in combat in Afghanistan

Coalition deaths have been increasing for the past year, your assertions notwithstanding.

http://icasualties.org/oef/

[cbdo2007]

68. Wait a second.....hold on....so you think sending MORE troops is going to

increase Coalition deaths?

Your reasoning explains exactly WHY more troops will lead to a safer environment for everyone while we begin preparations for withdrawal.

[StarfarerBill]

44. Some order, as in our vaunted surge in Iraq?

Let's pretend for a moment that the Afghanistan surge works as it's been advertised to this point, and the various insurgent groups are pushed into Pakistan or another nearby country. Then what? Even assuming that we don't widen the war theater into Pakistan to prop up the regime there, all those foreign troops will be doing is holding down the lid on a boiling pot; once the pressure comes off of that lid as in the troops leaving, it blows sky-high.

This is a civil war; no hearts-and-minds strategy is going to going to change that, especially with foreign occupiers with no concept of Afghan history and culture riding roughshod over the countryside and the people. We can help the Afghans...when we've withdrawn our forces, and when they ask for it. Till then, the Afghans will do as they've always done: expel foreign invaders, and choose their own path.

[TheCowsCameHome]

27. Oh brother.

So now they're going over there to tidy the place up.

Un-freakin'-real.........:wow:

[Greyhound]

61. Having troops there is itself the problem and sending more only exacerbates it.

There is simply no good reason to be there, unless you consider slaughtering civilians to protect corporate profits a good reason.

[QC]

17. Why can't the central committee send out some new talking points?

The current ones have gotten really stale.

[jakefrep]

18. The gestation period for a pony is 11 months, no matter what Obama does.

nt.

[Hannah Bell]

20. another straw post.

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. He can't? Hmmm.

Some on DU would disagree with that.

[Romulox]

23. Would you take the fawning adoration to GD:P? You'll find a ready audience for it over there. nt

[Bluebear]

26. Better still, go over and claim that you are gay or an enlisted marine, etc.

Watch the recommendationpalooza lol!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Uh-huh. Sending in more troops is really bringing them home. Up is down.

"Peace with Honor" is what Nixon called escalation and now it's "stabilization".

Same song, different singer. Add a monument to the dead cannon-fodder wasted to prove a Democratic President is "tough".

[sad sally]

41. Kind of like how we heard that troops in Iraq were leaving?

[Stinky The Clown]

30. Go cheer someplace else

Lemme ask you something ..... is there ANYTHING about Obama you could find to criticize? Maybe his ties. You know. Just so as not to be SO FUCKING OBVIOUS.

:eyes:

[Individualist]

31. Why can't neolibs learn

that no one is buying their BS?

[cbdo2007]

36. I feel like I'm playing Risk with my 10 year old brother here.

He doesn't quite understand any kind of strategy, all he knows is that he wants to win and that means having the most guys at the end.

It's ok though, Obama is doing the right thing and you'll all see that in time. And I'm quite sure you'll all still vote for him, whether you understand any kind of strategy or not.

[Bluebear]

37. If you have a 10 year old brother, you are quite enlistable. nt

[QC]

39. Maybe he has a pilonidal cyst. n/t

[Individualist]

53. ROFL!

:thumbsup:

[Ignis]

56. ...

:spray:

[cbdo2007]

50. I'm guessing you've run out of arguments then?

That's typically when people fall back on the "if you like this war then you should go fight it yourself" argument.

[Bluebear]

54. I am anti-war. There's my argument. So why AREN'T you going over to Afghanistan

[cbdo2007]

62. I'm anti-war also but just leaving...isn't a strategy.

It's ridiculous and is leaving the place in worse shape than when we got there.

Dude, we're on the same page as far as the war goes. It was completely unnecessary and has caused a ton of unnecessary damage, but to just bring everyone home on the next jumbo-jets isn't a solution. It's like filing for bankruptcy rather than getting a job and paying off your debt. It's true that many people out there think Bankruptcy is a good thing, and in some situations it is...but there are peoples lives at stake here, the Afghanistan people and we've pretty much obliterated everything they have over there.

This isn't like Bush who said we're going over there to restore democracy and all this other stuff that doesn't make sense...Obama is sending more troops over there to restore some sense of order to bring an end to this horrible situation. Again, just leaving doesn't *solve* anything and isn't even a rational argument. You can't just go f*ck up a country and then leave. What can we do? Well, maybe we can try to restore some shit over there, try to give the people over there some semblance of hope and some infrastructure back that we destroyed so they actually have a chance on their own, and that's about the best we can do.

If you think a troop escalation only means more violence then I'm not sure that you have a very good understanding of what all our troops do and what our military is capable of. They aren't just army men who go out and kill people. I know many soldiers in my group of friends and family who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan, very, very few of them even witnessed any violence or killed people over there because that isn't their goal.

[elocs]

42. Ever notice how on a message board telling people to calm down never works?

Myself, I never tire of being lectured to calm down.

[NYC_SKP]

43. Crap! You must have missed the memo. It's "Shit on the Democratically Elected President" Day.

K and R.

We're in the minority today, friend.

:toast:

[Bluebear]

46. Yes, you are. Only 27% of Democrats favor sending more troops.

[Forkboy]

51. I've seen a lot of people say they voted for Obama so they so have seen this coming.

And I agree. But the people saying that should have seen the backlash coming that even as yet undiscovered tribes in the heart of New Guinea are prepared for.

[noamnety]

48. I must have special powers! I just managed to snap my fingers

and not order thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan.

[ShortnFiery]

49. Because he's so busy having his head up Bernake's & McCrystal's figurative asses that he can't

see anything other than THE GLORY of Middle Eastern Occupations as well as multi-national CORPORATE rule.

[Neecy]

52. This is funny

The Pom-Poms are creeping out from GD/P today to berate, chastise, and browbeat anyone who doesn't support this escalation.

Do you guys take turns? Did you sign up for hours to "work"?

[Individualist]

55. They're out in force today.

They just can't understand that people aren't buying their neolib BS and that attempting to defend the indefensible is a fool's errand.

[Starry Messenger]

60. I think they get bored of their own pablum.

They need to feel the excitement of winning so they come over here and pick fights. Sadly for them, this never results in "winning".

[NYC_SKP]

63. We are well-paid, but we cannot share our working schedule with just anyone...

Sorry.

:P

[QC]

64. The cheering is taking on a remarkably desperate tone today.

I think that they are getting worried, because after two years of bullying and browbeating this community into submission, they are finally encountering some resistance and it freaks them out a little.

[Bluebear]

69. that is EXACTLY their tone today, isn't it?

You put your finger squarely on it.

[QC]

70. It's like that scene in A Christmas Story, where Ralphie finally gets fed up

and beats the crap out of that bully.

[branders seine]

66. he's using all his fingers taking money from Goldman Sachs

why can't he just do the right thing once?