A handy link for everyone supporting the President's Afghanistan strategy

[jgraz]

http://www.army.com/enlist

[IndianaGreen]

1. K&R

Easy to support a war that one doesn't have to fight in.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. True

[FrenchieCat]

3. Here's one for those supporting the Republicans

by dissing this president every fucking day.....

How to Run for President of the United States | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/information_1236-politics.html

[jgraz]

5. By all means, show your support for Our President

http://www.army.com/enlist

[closeupready]

20. Oh, no he wouldn't do that - easier just to pound a keyboard.

Or so I've been told. :sarcasm:

[jgraz]

21. She, actually

And, who knows? Frenchie is a big Obama backer from way back. She might just be down at the Berkeley recruiting office as we speak.

[closeupready]

24. 'Down at the recruiting office'? With all due respect, I don't believe that for one second.

n/t

[jgraz]

28. Um... I wasn't being serious

[closeupready]

30. Oops, sorry.

:D Hard to tell these days.

[Prism]

33. I'm not old enough, alas

And I don't think anyone would vote for a gay president at this point. Especially when so many Democrats are pretty good themselves at tossing gays downriver when they need to get their blue shirt on.

We did lose the 2004 elections after all, according to you.

[jgraz]

45. Hey, with the "Fierce Advocate" in the White House, we'll have a gay president in no time.

Just so long as you aren't married. Or in the military.

[Better Believe It]

46. The Republicans who support Obama's escalation or those who want to bring the troops home?

[NoSheep]

55. Ding

[jgraz]

72. Yes, you can only criticize the President if you actually run for president

That's some fine thinkin there. :eyes:

OK, I officially announce my candidacy for President of the United States. NOW do I get to tell Obama cheerleaders what fools they're being?

[NoSheep]

104. Sure. Go ahead.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Here's one for those supporting the Republicans

by dissing this president every fucking day.....

How to Run for President of the United States | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/information_1236-politics.html

[Cant trust em]

6. Part of me wants to take a pass at all national security issues because...

because I'd never have the guts to enlist. Even though it's an intellectual cop-out, at least I'm my integrity is in tact.

[jgraz]

7. I'd never enlist, so I'll never support a war

Unless I'm willing to fight and die for my country, I have no right to ask others to do so.

[Cant trust em]

9. Let's say that my work entails working at a non-profit for economic justice.

If I support the war, does that mean that I have to turn my back on fighting poverty?

[okieinpain]

22. sure you do if you're too old to help out. I guess the elderly

should have been against wwII because they couldn't enlist. I'd like for the troops to come home now too. but I really believe that president obama made the right decision.

[jgraz]

23. The elderly can sign up their children and grandchildren

Unless you're willing to see your child come home in a box, you shouldn't be supporting the war.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Umm the children and grandchildren have to decide that for themselves

The elderly can't force them to go to war.

[okieinpain]

148. I have a daughter in the reserves, she hasn't been sent over seas

but if she was and something happened I could live with it. if I could I would go in her place or anyone's that is facing multiple tours. I don't feel that way about iraq, but afghan is were we need to do our best. I don't know about you but I never want to feel as hapless as I did on 9/11 again for the rest of my life.

[eleny]

8. The application - so they can be ready tomorrow morning

http://www.army.com/forms/pdf/DD4.PDF

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Rest assured, Afghanistan war supporters, that our thoughts and prayers will be with you

Stay safe, and if you survive, please let us know how the Loofas are.

[IndianaGreen]

12. I'll be thinking of our prowar DUers as they hump up and down the mountains of Afghanistan

meanwhile I'll sit at my local sports pub drinking beer while watching the NFL. USA! USA! USA!

[VMI Dem]

11. Shit...mostly chickenhawks.

[Algorem]

13. it's great they can enlist on the net,all the broken-down recruiting office doors could bust budget

over there!over there!you all geh-eh-eh-et over there!you'll be done in 18 mo-onths,then you can come back over here!

[eleny]

14. Heck yeah - I hear they're camping out in sleeping bags to be first in line

:sarcasm:

[Algorem]

150. guess there'll be an Obama Surge Enlistee Group very soon

[glitch]

15. After my heart you are. K & R nt

[ihavenobias]

16. I have to admit

that was pretty damn good.

[jgraz]

17. Kick for the morning recruits.

:patriot:

[JVS]

39. Hoo-rah!

[closeupready]

18. K&R

n/t

[ShortnFiery]

19. KnR eom

[jesus_of_suburbia]

25. K&R

[SIMPLYB1980]

26. And a link for you get off your ass and the computer,

and work for peace.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.howvol

[jgraz]

27. From the guy sitting on his ass in front of the computer

Why don't you tell us about your time in the Peace Corps?

[SIMPLYB1980]

29. So what are you doing other than raging on the internets?

:rofl:

[jgraz]

31. Quite a bit, actually.

Still waiting on the Peace Corps story... Which country did you go to?

[SIMPLYB1980]

35. Never joined the peace core either.

Does that mean I can't ever talk about peace? So again what are you doing other than raging on DU?

[jgraz]

36. And thanks for playing: Really Bad Analogies

When Peace Corps members start coming home in coffins, you can make that comparison.

[SIMPLYB1980]

37. When the peace core fights our

wars let me know.

[jgraz]

40. Thanks for reinforcing my point

Really. Bad. Analogy.

[SIMPLYB1980]

42. Not a bad analogy you just seem to not

understand it because of your notions that we should not have a volunteer army.

[jgraz]

44. What is this new ass pull?

We shouldn't have a volunteer army? Dude, I don't think we should have an army at all. But what we really don't need is the pompon squad turning into keyboard commandos just because Dear Leader decided to git his war on.

[SIMPLYB1980]

54. If you don't think we should have an army at all then I'm done with

you. That is about the most laughable thing I have ever read on DU. :rofl:

[jgraz]

57. Then you're done with many of the Founding Fathers, too

Education is a marvelous thing. You really should look into it.

[SIMPLYB1980]

64. Different world. The constitution is a living document.

It does say something about providing for the common defense though. Just how far would any politician last that said they wanted to do away with the US military? Even DK isn't dumb enough for that move. I guess we should just live off of local militias? How's that working out for the Afghans?

Also I realize I said I was done, but this is just too much fun!

[jgraz]

76. That's all you have? The Constitution is a living document?

Maybe you should have been done with me. You'd get less embarrassed that way. :rofl:

[SIMPLYB1980]

77. God you are dense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Command_of_military.3B_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries.3B_Pardons

Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President is the military's commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the authority to declare war. Presidents have often deployed troops with Congressional authorization, but without an explicit declaration of war. (Since WW II, every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. "police action", which are deemed legally legitimate because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Authorization for Use of Force by Congress, and various U.N. Resolutions. This is also true in the case of the Korean War, which was only retroactively deemed a war—50 years to the day, after the fact—by a ceremonial Act of Congress.) This clause is included because it gives the President power over the troops, and under one commander, the military is bound to be more organized and efficient.

The President may require the "principal officer" of any executive department to tender his advice in writing. Thus, implicitly, the Constitution creates a Cabinet that includes the principal officers of the various departments.

The President, furthermore, may grant pardon or reprieves, except in cases of impeachment. Originally, the pardon could be rejected by the convict. In Biddle v. Perovich, however, the Supreme Court reversed the doctrine, ruling that "a pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed."

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#af

The Air Force

The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane. It provides, specifically, for a navy and an army in Article 1, Section 8. Though they were aware of lighter-than-air flying craft, the Framers could not have reasonably provided for an Air Force. It should be noted at the outset that the Constitution does not provide, specifically, for the other uniformed services, the Marines and Coast Guard. The Marines, however, as an arm of the Navy, could be excepted; and the Constitution does provide for "naval forces," and the Coast Guard could thus be excepted. How, then, do we except the Air Force? The first way is via common sense - the Framers certainly did not intend to preclude the use of new technology in the U.S. military, and because of the varied roles of the Air Force, it makes sense for it to be a separate branch. The second (and less desirable) way is historical - the Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an arm of the Army, similar to the Navy/Marine relationship. Basically, unless your interpretation of the Constitution freezes it in 1789, the Air Force is a perfectly constitutional branch of the U.S. military.
Thanks to James Severin for the idea.

So where exactly can you point and say that the US should not have a standing military? :rofl:

[jgraz]

81. We'll start your basic education in history with a few quotes

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for ." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies inconsistent with freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"A distinction between the civil and military which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm

That's just Jefferson. Now take it slow... get someone to help you if you need it. If your wittle bwain can digest these, we'll move on to some more advanced concepts.

[SIMPLYB1980]

89. Again you fail. None of that is in the constitution.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Now show me where in the Constitution that it states the US should have no standing army.

[jgraz]

90. Ah, so you think the only things Jefferson actually thought were in the Constutition

How very very sad for you.

However, I never mentioned the Constitution. I said that some of the Founding Fathers agreed with my position on standing armies.

Apparently we need to work on our reading comprehension as well.

[SIMPLYB1980]

96. No I just think things he wrote after are not in it.

You mean a founding father. A lot were hawks. Or do you think the revolution was won by doves? :rofl:

[jgraz]

98. Again, let's try to stay on point

You reacted to my statement on standing armies like I just suggested you eat a live puppy. The concept is not that unknown, especially to those of us actually active in the peace movement.

[MidwestRick]

32. I already served...

during Panama, Gulf War 1, Kosovo and Gulf War 2. What now Mr. Smarty Pants? Are you suggesting that for me to support the CiC's call that I must serve in every conflict? Oh, and my children are too young, besides, the last time I checked, the military is a voluntary force and thus, I can't make any of them join the military if it is not their wish.

I guess in your eyes I'm still un-patriotic, or should just stfu since I have no skin in the current game.

[jgraz]

34. I like your last suggestion

Are you willing to re-enlist to help fight this war? No? Willing to send your children when they get old enough?

That criteria needs to be applied for *every* commitment of military force. If we're not willing to do the fighting ourselves (or have our children do it) it's not worth committing other people's children to do the job for us.

[MidwestRick]

38. Sorry but...

I did speak with a recruiter about 6 months ago and started the re-enlistment process and found out my blood pressure and cholesterol were too high for them to accept this 40 year old.

In regards to my children, as I mentioned before it's a volunteer force so as far as I know, forcing a child of age into the military isn't an option. When my girls to turn 17 and they had the desire to serve, I certainly would sign the dotted line to allow them to enlist.

With all that said, I'd have to recommend the stfu option to you.

Have a wonderful day. :)

[jgraz]

41. You seriously tried to re-enlist 6 months ago?

What the fuck for? Are you daft?

[MidwestRick]

43. Daft?

Not at all. I enjoyed the military (the 12 years I spent in the Air Force and Air Force Reserves). Hell, after I got my degree I had planned on re-joining but as an officer. I made a poor choice and ended up taking a well paying civilian job instead of attending officer training school.

I had always kicked myself for not taking that commission and earlier this year decided to get back in, unfortunately at this point in my life, my health won't allow it. :(

[jgraz]

51. Did you expect to be in combat? Were you in combat before?

I'm just trying to understand why someone would actually *want* to be in the military at this time if they had any other choice.

[MidwestRick]

59. In combat before...

No, I was an engineering assistant in a civil engineering group that was attached to an aerial refueling wing. None of my units were activated except during Kosovo but then we were in place on an old French nuke facility in the South of France. When I was talking with the recruiter I was looking at jobs in military intelligence (yeah yeah I know the jokes) so again, no, I wouldn't be on the front lines with the combat soldiers.

I can't give you a specific reason (there were many) as to why I was looking to get in other than I truly missed being in the military. Unless you've served it may be hard to understand but much of it is about duty and honor.

[jgraz]

68. Duty and honor get a lot of people killed

And no, I don't understand it.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

52. You could always go to work for a contractor like Xe

they would love to have you considering you have military experience.

http://www.xecompany.com/

[MidwestRick]

62. I don't belive

my job in the military is or has been farmed out to civilian companies.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

63. Contractors are all ex military get with the program

http://www.xecompany.com/

[MidwestRick]

65. Checked the jobs list

Too bad, I'm not qualified for anything they are looking to fill at this moment.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

66. There are other contractors

check those.

[MidwestRick]

67. LOL

as I stated, the job I did in the military isn't a job that contractors do. What part of that don't you understand?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

70. I dont know what you did in the military but

Contractors do all kinds of jobs and they are mostly all ex-military.

[MidwestRick]

74. I'm not arguing that

I agree, there are many contractors and private corporations that hire prior military. My only point is...my career field in the Air Force is not a job that is given by the DoD to their contractors to do.

[jgraz]

48. wrong spot

:dunce:

[Algorem]

151. I wish hardened war veterans wouldn't use the term "Mr. Smarty Pants".

[MidwestRick]

157. Why do you hate freedom of speech?

Just wondering.

[CrawlingChaos]

47. Love it! K&R my friend

From one who has been enjoying your posts and appreciates your presence here.

[jgraz]

49. Heh. Welcome to my fan club.

Sorry, but you're the only one here :P

[spiritual_gunfighter]

50. K&R

I dont think you will get a lot of recruits here though, lots of chickenhawks though.

[jgraz]

53. I wonder how many of the UnRec-ers sent something similar to a Republican over the last 8 years

Sucks when the chickenhawk is you, don't it?

[SIMPLYB1980]

56. None or few it was a stupid argument that didn't work when they

were in control, and it's a stupid argument now and will not work with Obama in control. Couldn't resist now I'm out. Ya'll have fun now.

[jgraz]

58. Wrong again.

and again. and again.

From your posts, you clearly don't have a decent sense of hypocrisy, so let me explain it to you: if you're willing to support a war, but you're not willing to fight yourself, you're a hypocrite and a coward. End of story.

[SIMPLYB1980]

61. Keep telling yourself that. I was right about the

escalating long before you started bitching about it. Also can you explain to me just what it accomplished? Oh that's right our troops are sill in Iraq and Afghanistan. The anti all war "movement" has been pathetic. It just so happened that it corresponded with those of us that agreed on Iraq, but not Afghanistan. So we used the anti all war people to our advantage. Funny thing is you knew we were doing it and didn't do a single thing to stop it during the primaries.

[jgraz]

69. Seriously, you need to start living in the real world

Between Hillary and Obama, whom should I have supported in the primaries? One was worse than the next.

Once Kucinich left the race, should all the progressives just abandoned the Democrats? Is that your suggestion?

[SIMPLYB1980]

73. You need to take your own advice.

Stop expecting things you were never going to get.

[jgraz]

75. You should also stop expecting things you're never going to get

Like progressive support for your pro-war, pro-corporate center-right candidate in 2012.

[SIMPLYB1980]

80. I don't give a shit what you think I should do.

Isn't that obvious? :shrug:

[jgraz]

82. Man, losing an argument makes you grumpy

Don't be so hard on yourself. You were punching above your weight class.

[SIMPLYB1980]

99. I haven't lost.

Last I checked the escalation and eventual withdrawal are underway. You seem very bitter that Obama didn't call all the troops home yesterday.

[jgraz]

112. Now you're doing a touchdown dance because you got the war you wanted

Damn, did I just step on to Free Republic? Seriously, enlist your chickenhawk ass or shut the fuck up.

[jgraz]

87. And by the way, you never answered the question

Would you prefer that progressives had voted for someone else in 2008?

[billh58]

101. Do you claim to

speak for ALL "Progressives?" How about Liberal Democrats, and those Middle Americans who are NOT radicalized?

[jgraz]

111. It's a simple question

Would you rather progressives *who are complaining now about Obama's war agenda* had not supported him at all? Why is that so hard to understand (aside from the obvious possibility)?

[billh58]

119. Why should I answer

your question, when you won't answer mine. Do you presume to represent ALL "Progressives?" Or, are you only asking a meaningless, rhetorical question, much like your "what if we just shot your son in the head" bullshit?

You won't hear anymore from me, as I just placed you on "virtual ignore" right up there with David Swanson, and Dave Lindorff, soon to joined by others from the rabid Far Left. No sense wasting time and energy on those radicals who refuse to engage in reasonable debate.

Ciao bubba...

[jgraz]

122. Yes, I represent ALL progressives. Now answer the question.

Looks like I'm in good company on your "virtual ignore" list (in the bizarro world where anyone cares who's on your list). You may want to place a few more people there before some facts slip into your wittle bwain.

[beachmom]

154. The fact that you don't get the difference is incredible.

The Republicans advocated invading a country that did not attack us and posed no threat to us. Then they said they wanted to bomb Iran next. All imperial aims and neoconservatism. The key thinkers of that movement did not serve in Vietnam yet advocated endless war. The younger advocates overwhelmingly did not sign up for to help fight in Iraq. Therefore ... the chickenhawk meme was born.

Now here is the difference: Afghanistan was the base of al Qaeda operations in 2001. Guess what? They attacked us!!!

The reason why we went in was self defense. Are you against defense of this country?

Al Qaeda is currently in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan is unstable and has nuclear weapons. That is Pres. Obama's worry. I would have no problem at all having a debate on what is the best way to deal with these problems, but since you have decided to smear and insult your fellow Democrats, I guess that won't happen.

[billh58]

60. Sounds a lot

like the "love it or leave it" mantra of the "you're either with us, or you're with the enemy" crowd. There is a difference between a well-planned exit-strategy, and fucking up a country and just saying, "oh well, we're outta here and you're on your own now. Sorry about what the Neoconservatives did to you, but we pacifists are in charge now. Good luck with re-building your country and holding honest elections before the Taliban kills you for trying, and invades Pakistan in the process. However, we're depending on you to prevent the entire Middle East from blowing up."

Reasonable Liberal Democrats can see the potential ramifications of a "cut and run" strategy, while ideologues and radicals can only see in absolute black and white: you either agree with us, or you are a "dispicable war monger and a baby killer."

[jgraz]

71. It actually sounds a lot

like what we used to tell the Republican chickenhawks. Can you explain the difference between a Republican supporting a war they won't fight in and a Democrat supporting a war they won't fight in? :shrug:

[billh58]

78. If you will

notice, President Obama's approach is not "supporting a war," but rather he is formulating a well thought out exit-strategy, with real goals and way-points toward getting there. Had this approach been taken seven years ago, we would not be having this conversation.

No thinking person (and President Obama IS a thinking person) "supports" war, and that is just rhetorical bullshit by those who accuse other Liberal Democrats of being "war mongers." The Republican "chicken-hawks" engaged the United States (ALL of us) in the dual wars in the Middle East without any planning, or goals whatsoever.

For those who believe that immediately quitting the battlefield and abandoning those whose infrastructure, power base, and political apparatus we have destroyed is either feasible, or morally correct, I call bullshit. That is tunnel-visioned, single-minded, selfish thinking at its worst. We, as a nation, are obligated to clean up the mess left to us, and the peoples of the Middle East, by the Neoconservative PNAC war-mongers-for-profit. If we don't achieve at least a few basic goals of replacing what we broke, we will be involved in a much bigger, and nastier war in the Middle East at some point in the future.

So please reconsider your "with us, or against us" black and white thinking, or at least direct it toward those who actually started these wars (one of them illegally, and one of them justified), and who placed us in the terrible lose-lose position we find ourselves in today. President Obama and the majority of Americans want the job finished as quickly, as humanely, and as safely as possible.

And fwiw, I am a combat veteran from the Viet Nam era, so the advice of your OP sounds a little too pompous to me.

[jgraz]

85. It's not advice. It's a simple test

It's easy to talk big about "quitting the battlefield and abandoning those whose infrastructure, power base, and political apparatus we have destroyed", but the acid test is this: would you be willing to join the 30,000 shipping out to Afghanistan? Would you want your son or daughter to join?

If you can't answer "Hell yes!" to those questions, you have no business asking other people to fight for your "moral correctness".

[billh58]

92. Well the short answer is

I already gave in Viet Nam, so I could do little good for them now, but "Hell Yes!" I would be willing to do my part, and help in any way that I could. My son has served in the military as well. Helping President Obama to complete this horrible war in an ordered and safe (for our troops on the ground, AND the civilian population) manner would be a noble calling for ALL Americans, and does not necessarily include direct combat as many on the Far Left assume.

Cutting and running would be disastrous for the people of Afghanistan, and even more so for the people of Pakistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have already made their intentions clear, and if you truly want to take the chance of a bigger, and possibly nuclear, war at some point in the future, thank goodness you are not in a position to call the shots.

I have no argument with your peaceful desires, and I agree with your goals for the most part. As a combat vet, I too detest war. It is the method and time-table of achieving those peaceful goals where we disagree, given the real-world situation(s) we face. Getting out of these conflicts without adequate planning and forethought would actually be worse (for the world in general) than the Neoconservative method of getting us into them without planning and definite goals.

I will continue to give President Obama my support and confidence as long as he keeps his eyes on the prize: the safety of our troops while formulating and executing an orderly withdrawal (same tactic as the withdrawal from Iraq which is now in progress). I realize that this process is not fast enough for some, but thankfully cooler, and more thoughtful heads will prevail.

Peace...;-)

[Fire1]

129. I wish I could rec your post. Outstanding and bookmarked. n/t

[uponit7771]

79. Good point

[Techn0Girl]

83. The best way to protect our security ....is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops

New York Times... Obama puts forth a plan to remove ALL troops by end of 2008 .

“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops,” Mr. Obama said. “Not in six months or one year — now.”


What a difference a year or so makes...

[jgraz]

84. Well, in fairness, he IS removing our combat troops from Iraq right now

Oh wait...

[otohara]

86. Too Disabled, But Thanks

for thinking of me.

[jgraz]

88. Kids? Brothers? Sisters? Neighbor?

Which one of them would you like to see come home in a box for your President's war effort?

[otohara]

91. My Neighbors?

are all fairly old.

My family consists of 3 people - me, my immigrant husband and one son.

Mother - dead
Father - dead
Sister - dead
Nephew - was a cop and in the reserves, until he lost one of his legs.

My son can sign up if he wants, his decision.

[jgraz]

93. I think you're missing the point

How about this: instead of sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, we've discovered that we can achieve the same goals by coming to your house and shooting your son in the head. Would you still support the President's policies in that case?

[billh58]

94. What in the Hell

kind of an insane analogy is that? Advocating for peace is a noble calling, but bullshit arguments and over-the-top strawman statements that imply that President Obama wants to kill Americans is despicable.

We ALL "got the point" of your OP, and are well aware that we have a volunteer military, and yes there are many who will sign up to support President Obama's troop increase. Those of you on the extreme Far Left, however, do nothing for your "anti-war," "anti-military" movement by using the ugly and cowardly tactics of the Far Right.

[jgraz]

97. So none of the 30,000 troops will die in Afghanistan?

Nobody ever said Obama wanted anyone to die, but let's not pretend that he didn't just make a decision that will kill many people's sons and daughters. And that's just the Americans.

[billh58]

100. Yes, you implied

that President Obama does not care if Americans die as a result of his decision. Soldiers and civilians die in ALL wars, and Afghanistan is no different. My guess is that President Obama cares very deeply about those he orders into harm's way, and agonized long and hard over the need to send them at all.

The bigger question is, are you prepared to accept the consequences of a possible nuclear holocaust and large scale death if the Taliban gets their hands on Pakistan's nuclear armory, or if general turmoil in the Middle East leads to an attack on Iran by other than US Forces at some point? Do you have the slightest understanding of President Obama's Neoconservative-caused dilemma, and why he took so long to make an informed and intelligent decision?

As I have stated, the desire for immediate peace and instant troop withdrawals is a noble goal, but it is not practical in the real-world situation that we are facing. It may become practical to begin a gradual pullout in a year, or two, and that is what President Obama and his advisers are aiming for.

Using hyperbole and attacking those who agree with your goals, but disagree with your demands for impractical actions, and instant gratification, would appear to be beneath your obvious intellect. Surely you can at least fathom that there IS another valid side to argument -- can't you? You don't have to agree with it, but to ignore that there is ANY valid position other than that of the Far Left is so stubbornly Rightish...;-)

[jgraz]

102. I implied no such thing

If I had thought we were electing another sociopath, I'd have been in DC protesting the inauguration. My disappointment is that we seem to have elected another weak-willed centrist

Oh, and how did you work out accusing me of hyperbole two paragraphs after waving the "nukular holocaust" flag? Maybe you can explain to me how 30,000 more troops will prevent the Taliban from ever getting their hands on a nuke.

[billh58]

107. I can't answer the

question, but neither can you tell me how cutting and running will insure that the Taliban don't "get their hands" on Pakistan's nuclear cache. I wasn't waving any flag, "nukular" {sic} or otherwise, but just stating the obvious: zero troops = zero insurance, while 70,000 troops = some insurance, and a possible change in the tactical status of the Taliban AND their potential threat to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

As I see it, the troop surge has a lot more to do with securing Pakistan's government and borders against the Taliban than it does with non-nuclear Afghanistan, but then again I wasn't invited to the briefings requested by President Obama. I can only go by what he said during his campaign (he often mentioned "Pakistan") and what he has hinted at in recent speeches.

Where you, and other "anti-war" protesters, got the idea that President Obama's main mission in Afghanistan is to wage eternal war against the people of Afghanistan, and to be the primary cause of their death and destruction, is a mystery to those of us on the side of reason.

The bottom line is, that the USA legally, rightfully, and with moral justification invaded Afghanistan after their illegitimate government aided and abetted an attack on our soil, and killed thousands of our people. The Neoconservative Dubya administration used an otherwise righteous cause for an excuse to illegally invade a nation that posed absolutely no threat to us, and badly neglected our justified mission in Afghanistan. President Obama is attempting to end both of those fuckups in a reasonable and safe manner for all involved, and has set exit-strategies with timetables for the execution of these initiatives.

I will concede to your obvious superior knowledge and wisdom now, and the spokes-people for the Far Left can have the last word. While the foregoing statement is obviously facetious, I sincerely apologize for disagreeing with you on your own OP, and I wish you well in your endeavors to secure peace for all mankind.

[jgraz]

109. That makes no sense

I can't answer the question, but neither can you tell me how cutting and running will insure that the Taliban don't "get their hands" on Pakistan's nuclear cache. I wasn't waving any flag, "nukular" {sic} or otherwise, but just stating the obvious: zero troops = zero insurance, while 70,000 troops = some insurance, and a possible change in the tactical status of the Taliban AND their potential threat to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

So you have no idea how the extra troops achieves the objective you want, but you're willing to throw them into this clusterfuck anyway. That's some fine logic there. :eyes:

Try this instead:

zero troops = zero provocation of more terror attacks
70,000 troops = a LOT of provocation for terror attacks

And, btw, calling it "cutting and running" after 9 years is pure war hawk jingoism. After the Bush disasters, it would be leaving a bad situation before we -- almost assuredly -- make it worse.


The bottom line is, that the USA legally, rightfully, and with moral justification invaded Afghanistan after their illegitimate government aided and abetted an attack on our soil, and killed thousands of our people.

And your evidence for that is ...? Because Dick Cheney said so?

[billh58]

117. Sigh...

You're right. Far Left jingoism makes so much more sense than the facts, or the full truth (as opposed to half-truths), or especially reasoned debate.

Can't say I didn't try though...;-)

Ciao,
Bill

[jgraz]

146. There's no such thing as "Far Left Jingoism"

That makes about as much sense as "Socialist Fascism".

[billh58]

147. You're correct, and

I got carried away. Mea culpa...

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

142. Your strategic use of ALL CAPS has convinced me

that you're either drunk or insane.

Either that, or you have no response to logic other than to scream like an idiot.

[27inCali]

103. will you go over to help dig the graves

of all the innocent Afghans who would be killed by the violence of a power vacuum that would inevitably oresult if we just suddenly left?

yeah, kinda damned if we do damned if we don't aren't we?

but you guys got ALL the answers, any one that thinks different is a war monger right?

[AllentownJake]

105. Are you going to go over to dig the graves of the ones we are already killing nt

[jgraz]

120. Beat me to it.

Could there possibly be a dumber post than the one you responded to?

[Fire1]

131. YEAH! Yours. n/t

[jgraz]

144. Congratulations on your mastery of the Rubber/Glue technique

Now the adults need to talk. Run along.

[ClarkUSA]

106. Another cheap ploy from the Counterpunch crowd? FYI, Pres. Obama is ending the war in 2011.

In fact, he's ending both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by the end of his first term. Too bad the 24/7 anti-Obama crowd
can't acknowledge these facts but would rather escalate their rhetoric in favor of cheap ploys like the OP.

[billh58]

108. +100 n/t

[jgraz]

110. Let's see here: clumsy language... antagonistic jingoism... cowardly refusal deal with the subject..

Yep, you wrote this one yourself. Y'know, I think I like it better when you plagiarize. :hi:

[ClarkUSA]

115. Demonizing with dishonest rhetoric is an easy way to ignore the facts of what I've said, isn't it?

Thanks for illustrating my points so clearly. Since you're so predictable, I'll leave you the last word so you can prove my point further
by denying what I've said so you can insult me again because your patented anti-Obama MO is to ignore the facts and attack the
messenger.

:nopity:

[jgraz]

116. You should look up the word "demonizing". I'm doing no such thing.

What I'm doing is flat-out ridicule of someone I can no longer take even a little bit seriously. Learn the difference.

[ClarkUSA]

128. Uh huh.

:nopity:

[jgraz]

136. Wow, you can't even get smileys right

:rofl:

[freddie mertz]

153. Your friend C-USA has absolutely no sense of humor...

And no ability to understand or to use subtle or nuanced writing modes.

Thus "mockery" is something he cannot even register.

It must be the "outrage" of "Demonization", or else it is invisible.

[jgraz]

156. You could have omitted those last two words with no loss of accuracy

[uberllama42]

113. I've actually brought this point up to a couple of vets I've known

Both were confused by it. Neither could understand why I would oppose the war merely because I am unwilling to fight in it. A good friend of mine is in Afghanistan right now, and though I've never expressed this sentiment in conversation with him, I don't think he would see where I'm coming from either.

None of the military men I've known have the same attitude I do. In my mind, if the war is just, you go fight in it. If not, you oppose it. I'm not going to ask some kid who never got the chances I got to go off and risk his life if I'm not willing to do it.

[Zodiak]

114. Not really helpful

...and also not very respectful.

And I am against this escalation.

Just sayin' that there is no reason for us liberals to devolve to sound-bytes for the sake of snark. Fine if you want to use it on a freeper wrapped deep into his flag.

But these aren't freepers.

Argue the escalation on its merits/faults. Do not turn this into an attack on those with whom you disagree.

[jgraz]

118. I couldn't disagree more

We did this to the chickenhawk Repukes for 8 years and everyone thought it was right and proper. Why should it be different when it's Democrats cheering on their president's war agenda?

If you're not willing to do the fighting, what right do you have to ask others to do it for you? :shrug:

[Zodiak]

123. Republicans are not on this site

These are Democrats.

These are also not Democrats who call you unpatriotic swine for questioning the commander in chief while wrapped in an American flag. Yes, they call you stupid, irrational, crazy, and every other name under the book, but they do not call you "traitor".

And THAT is why you do not use that sound-byte unless you want to be seen as being disruptive and divisive. And this snark makes its way into the attitudes of your opponents, who now feel even more justified in calling you every name in the book. Then people like me who try to fashion a reasoned argument have to deal with twice as much snark...leading to the devolution of the entire reason for this forum being here....discussion.

It has got to end somewhere. It should start with our side.

I have followed your posts for some time. You are smarter than this. That is your sharpest dagger, and I suggest you use it. Leave the low-hanging fruit for those that cannot reach very high.

[jgraz]

125. It's getting harder to tell the difference.

I'll ask you the same thing I ask anyone who complains about this post: are you willing to die for your President's Afghanistan strategy? Are you willing to have your son/daughter/spouse die for your President's Afghanistan strategy?

[Zodiak]

126. As I told you, I am on your side

Of course I am not willing to die for his strategy, and I don't want anyone else to, either. My kids, your kids, or any body else's kids. I only believe in war for defense against invasion or to protect a very close ally from imminent invasion...that's it. This Afghanistan crap, to me, is a fool's adventure in a historically foolish place to wage war.

My argument is 100% purely about the tactic, not the position. On that we completely agree. I just want the more level heads to remain level because the snark meter is pegging today.

It's not doing any of us any good, and frankly, I enjoy the contrast of tactics between the sides. The high horse, albeit ridiculed by those that cannot ride on it, is still the best place from which to launch a rhetorical assault.

[billh58]

134. From the bottom

of my heart, thank you for interjecting reason and sanity into this "debate." Your point about those who do not agree with President Obama's decision to escalate not being labeled as "traitors," by those who do agree, is at the very center of this discussion. This is what sets us apart from the Teabaggers, Birthers, and Town Hallers.

Calling those who agree with President Obama's decision "war mongers," and "baby killers," is both disingenuous, and self-defeating for Liberal Democrats.

[Zodiak]

145. Agreed

As is all of this talk about "ponies", "purists", etc.

None of it is helpful, and frankly I find it unbecoming and demoralizing that those that I thought were more morally enlightened than this would devolve into such petty attacks on each other. And they do it with insistence and relish.

DU seriously needs to have a mirror held up to itself. Exceptions noted.

[jgraz]

135. That was my point. This was not a snarky post

I'm dead serious. I honestly think that before you voice support for the president's war agenda, you should go to that enlistment page and ask yourself if you, personally, are willing to die for a small chance at a slightly less horrible outcome in Afghanistan.

[Zodiak]

137. If you did not intend the snark, then it is unfortunate

Because it came off that way to me.

But you do have an excellent point about asking oneself these questions. Perhaps a more straight-forward way of communicating that would leave no room for confusion.

I certainly have been speaking today of the need to see invasion and occupation from the eyes of those that have to go as well as those that are the occupied. It was accomplished without snark (although I have gotten some really funny frothing at the mouth responses from a couple DUers, and earned the ignore list of another).

Also, some other DUer was running around all up in arms about the fact that a few DUers wanted others to enlist. That thread had some really horrible crap written in it. I ran into your thread a few minutes later. This thing is feeding on itself and cooler heads need to prevail.

You are normally a cooler head. I want you to prevail.

(and yes, I know I am a preachy bastard most of the time....it is my failing)

Also, I want to apologize in case you feel assaulted. It is not my intention.

[jgraz]

141. Well, you're wrong about one thing

You are normally a cooler head

No, I'm really not. Mostly, I'm a snarky asshole, even when I'm trying not to be.

I thought the simple, unadorned link conveyed my message pretty well, but YMMV. And hey, assault away. I give as good as I get, and I usually forget who I'm supposed to be fighting with after a couple of weeks.

[Zodiak]

143. LOL...okay

well, I am a self-admitted preachy bastard, so pleased to meet ya.

ON edit: please understand when I say cooler heads, I am comparing it to this exchange

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=34357&mesg_id=34480

Everything is relative. I at least didn't make your ignore list.

[WeDidIt]

121. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt

they won't take me any more because I'm too old.

[Hansel]

124. By this logic anyone who supports fighting crime shouldn't say so

unless they join the police force.

BTW, I have a step son who is in the Army, an Army niece who did 4 tours of duty in Iraq and a nephew who is in the National Guard. I'm too old to serve. My family has spent thousands of dollars to provide the troops in my niece's barracks with basic needs and goodies (toilet paper, razors, snacks, sugar, coffee creamer, socks, etc etc.) because our country won't. How much have you spent in this effort? Do you think they don't still need this stuff?

I was fully against both the Afghanistan War (before it was popular to be) and the war in Iraq. I think 911 was a crime not an act of war and should have been handle by Interpol and more stealth military operations. I still think that what Obama is doing makes more sense than packing up and leaving. He needs to turn the security of the country back over to the war lords. It's the Afghan culture and it's the right thing to do.

The Taliban is an extreme right wing religious insurgency funded by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan extremists and I believe Iran. They are not Afghan's. They need to go. And the security of the region is necessary because of the nuclear arms in Pakistan's possession. Whether or not you believe it, the chance's of these right wing nut job extremists getting into power and getting their hands on these nukes are now as good as 50/50. Especially after the f*cking mess Bush has created and the vast hatred of America he cultivated over his 8 years in office.

Obama owes it to Afghan, the troops and the region to give one last push to try to set this mess right. To try to tone down the anti-Americanism. What would do that more effectively than returning Afghanistan to its people, getting rid of the the right wing sickos that are the Taliban, and getting the hell out of there?

Those of us who support Obama's decision are not war mongers. Quite the opposite in many cases. We are thoughtful people who just simply disagree with your viewpoint and would likely take the same approach Obama is taking if in his shoes.

[ClarkUSA]

127. Excellent points. But then again, logic is not a factor when doling out cheap rhetoric.

:thumbsup:

[Fire1]

133. Not their strong suit. n/t

[jgraz]

140. Hey, at least it's original cheap rhetoric

I mean, it's not like I stole it off of some mainstream news site and passed it off as my own.

[mcablue]

138. Do you think the left was unfair in calling the neocons "chickenhawks" for not enlisting?

Back in the days when they beat the drums of war during the Bush years?

And are you on record somewhere defending the chickenhawks from such arguments?

[Hansel]

158. No.

Neocons cheer war like it is a football game. They did everything they could to attack a country that did nothing wrong so that they could use their country as a killing field. They knew that Iraq did nothing wrong, but they were so pant pissing afraid they might get bloody and so mentally screwed up over their fear of "terrorists" that they cheered the killing of 100s of thousands of innocent people to protect their own chicken asses.

As I've said before, I was against the invasion of Afghanistan (when over 90% were for it) because I did not believe that 911 was an act of war. It was a crime and it should have been approached as such. Police action and stealth military operations would have been a far more effective approach.

I was disgusted with congress for falling on their pathetic knees and voting to hand over national security issues to Bush allowing him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Now we have a mess on our hands. I agree with Obama that we are obligated to fix the mess. We need to give Afghanistan back to its tribal leaders and help them to become strong enough to secure it. We need to reverse the momentum of the Taliban before they become so strong that they end up being elected into power in Pakistan because of the vitriolic hatred the Pakistan people now have of American due to Bush's childish and brutal approach to 911. We need to make sure that the nukes that Pakistan has never get in the hands of any extreme right religious fanatics that are the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

We do this by giving a shit about the security Afghanistan's people by returning the reigns to tribal chief-tans and training the Afghanistan citizens to fight for their own protection and security. And by insisting that Pakistan wake up and stop the momentum of the Taliban/Al Qaeda symbiotic relationship. And then leaving.

What Obama is doing is escalating security in the region, not escalating war. The Taliban is not Afghanistan. They are an extremist insurgent funded by Saudi Arabia. The Afghani tribes and its people are Afghanistan and deserve to have their country back. That is what I heard Obama say in his speech that he is trying to do. And I believe him.

[jgraz]

139. Um, that thing you're using and calling logic? It's not.

Supporting crime prevention in the town I live in is nothing like holding the coats of others who are going 8000 miles away to die for some vague political goal. It was a nice try, but it needs another pass through the analogy mill.


How much have you spent in this effort?

Probably close to 5 grand, not counting political contributions and personal items I sent over (books, magazines, etc). And I don't know anyone who's serving (well, I didn't when I started). But... what does that have to do with anything?


Obama owes it to Afghan, the troops and the region to give one last push to try to set this mess right.

No, you can not be making this ridiculous argument. Obama owes it? What the hell is Obama paying with? Oh right... the lives of our citizens.


To try to tone down the anti-Americanism.

Try to tone down the freeperism. No one's buying that Glenn Beck bullshit on this site (well, except for a few on this thread).


Those of us who support Obama's decision are not war mongers. Quite the opposite in many cases. We are thoughtful people who just simply disagree with your viewpoint and would likely take the same approach Obama is taking if in his shoes.

Sorry, but "thoughtful people" don't make the kind of arguments you just made. You don't get to call me "anti-American" and then pretend you "simply disagree with my viewpoint".

[polichick]

132. "But, but, but..." (That's about all you'll get.) K&R

[Starry Messenger]

149. kick.

I expected more takers. :shrug:

[beachmom]

152. And a link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

[jgraz]

155. Mayor Giuliani, is that you?

Seriously, are you signing up? Are your kids old enough for you to encourage them to sign up? How many of your children are you willing to sacrifice to avenge the 9/11 attacks?