Kucinich: Prolonging Afghan war a ‘threat to our national security’

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

This is what we wanted to hear from Obama, right? Let the Kucinich bashing begin again.

--snip--

“America is in the fight of its life and that fight is not in Afghanistan -- it's here," Kucinich declared. "We are deeply in debt. Our GDP is down. Our manufacturing is down. Our savings are down. The value of the dollar is down. Our trade deficit is up. Business failures are up. Bankruptcies are up.

“The war is a threat to our national security. We’ll spend over $100 billion next year to bomb a nation of poor people while we reenergize the Taliban, destabilize Pakistan, deplete our army and put more of our soldiers’ lives on the line. Meanwhile, back here in the USA, 15 million people are out of work. People are losing their jobs, their health care, their savings, their investments, and their retirement security. $13 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, trillions for war; when are we going to start taking care of things here at home?

--snip--

full article at rawstory.com

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/kucinich-war-threat-national-security/

[AllentownJake]

1. If there was any real threat

We'd all have ration coupons in our pockets, there would be a draft, and the elites would be forcing their children into military service.

I've seen how they act when they are scared of something, they are not scared of anything in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. there must be something else going on?

[AllentownJake]

13. They need an evil doer to keep the population from questioning declining economic realities

caused by their awful policies.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. throughout history there has always got to be a war

until it goes wrong

[Kolesar]

2. We are going to waste $100 billion on unneeded weapons in the next 20 months

but deploying troops to Afghanistan is a much flashier story.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. you mean using up old stock?

[Kolesar]

22. No, I mean ICBMs, ballistic-missile-subs, spy satellites,...

...and I have my doubts about buying new aircraft carriers and operating the aircraft carrier fleet. thanks for asking

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. He might not have noticed this, but Pakistan's already unstable.

I know he's short and it's hard for him to look over the soapbox he's permanently affixed to, but if he took a few moments to look into the matter he might realize that a) he voted for this war and b) it's not about what the people of Afghanistan want, it's about the nuclear arsenal just southwest of them and a Taliban infrastructure that they're either unwilling or unable to extricate from their nation.

If he can put forth a plan for stabilizing Pakistan, securing their nuclear cache and rendering the Taliban/Al Qaeda inert in the meantime, then I will start listening to what he has to say on the matter.

[ixion]

4. yeah, like it is up to us to stabilize the world

hell, we can't even stabilize our own country. :eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. You do remember that it was Al Qaeda that attacked us, right?

I know if you listened to Bush long enough, you might've actually gone on to believe that it was Saddam Hussein, but really, it was Al Qaeda. And yes, it's up to us to make sure that people who openly attack us and claim to want to attack us again don't get nuclear weapons. That does not equal "stabilizing the world".

[AllentownJake]

7. Yes and we were told to shop

Shows you how serious the people in charge took the threat.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. but was it?

Al Q were just mercenaries for somebody else - relatively disjointed groups, mainly patsies.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. So who do you think it was? (nt)

[Echo In Light]

26. PNAC

[MadHound]

11. So I guess that you're in favor of war forever and ever, amen, right?

After all, once Al Qaeda leaves Afghanistan, Obama has promised we'll follow them wherever they go, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, wherever.

Perpetual war, while our country crumbles.

[ixion]

14. actually, the US never produced evidence to that effect...but even if they did, it was Saudi Arabia

that should have been invaded, given that most of the alleged hijackers hailed from there, NOT from Afghanistan.

The Taliban offered to turn over any party involved, as long as the US produced evidence of their involvement. The US produced nothing, and instead invaded.

It is foolish to think that one can stabilize the world, when one cannot maintain one's own house.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. It doesn't matter where they're from - it matters where they are.

And by the way, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested in Pakistan, not Saudi Arabia.

Who do you think was responsible then if not Al Qaeda?

[ixion]

23. follow the money

certain groups of people made out quite well from that 'attack'.

[timtom]

16. There has been no evidence of that brought to light.

They "couldn't imagine such a scenario occurring," yet they had the names of 19 hijackers immediately, with planted clues readily and miraculously available.

Feh!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. There are things called flight manifests and security cameras.

Time to get more tinfoil.

[timtom]

19. I got your tinfoil, right here!

No one fitting those descriptions or names were on any flight manifestos, nor were their images ever captured on security cameras.

Unless, of course, YOU have the footage in one form or another.

[AllentownJake]

9. The reason Pakistan is unstable is because we chased all the militants into their country. nt

[yui]

20. Ah, yes,

let's once again use the tired, childish "I know he's short..." to demean Kucinich instead of simply giving one's opinion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. I seemed to do both just fine. (nt)

[Vidar]

24. K&R.

[Echo In Light]

25. "We’ll spend over $100 billion next year to bomb a nation of poor people ....

... while we reenergize the Taliban"

K&R for DK

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. But..but..if we come to our senses and leave Rush will say nasty things out our prez!!

[amborin]

28. he's right; numerous articles saying China, etc, gleeful, as US bogs down n/t