Why is Obama expanding the war?

[Lorax]

LOL!!!

I had a similar thought!

Right wing KoolAid drinkers still believe Saddam kicked out the inspectors- LOL!!

It was NATO at the insistence of the Tush Administration that wanted to shut down inspections so they could start sucking the oil out of the ground. Funny how you never saw anarchy anywhere near the oil fields, hmmm.... security where it's needed most, first.

Corporate criminals such as Halliburton, Bechtel, KBR, and all the oil companies have been suckling at the teat of Iraq for 8 years now, and that gravy train ain't ending anytime soon.

All that oil ends up on the open market, and never benefitted us, or the cost of the war one cent. It was a fascist Tush Administration lie of the highest degree. The Rethuglicans and the Democrats sat on their hands and allowed this illegal attack and occupation of a sovereign nation to go ahead unabated.

[Sstashmoo]

This persons rebuttals are so preposterous, I don't even know where to start.

A product of Rupert Murdoch and his lie machine.

Quote: "Your main problem is you can't get laid."

Right to the bone.

[oladub]

You are trying to solidify that dumb left wing argument about the Iraq wr being illegal.

It is not. Your arguments and the arguments of the left regarding Iraq have no standing other than he lied to ramp up a war that has already been in progress for years.

Congress must declare wars. Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war. Congress never did so with regards to the Iraq war. Instead, Congress handed over its authority to President Bush to do as he pleased. Bad idea. That wasn't the same as declaring war. Congress can't give away any of its powers any more than the Supreme Court can allow the President to decide a case. The last time Congress declared war was when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Congress can also write a Letter of Marque which is sort of what they did when they went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

[Jman]

Unbelievable, this thread is about Obama expanding the war and everyone is still accusing/defending Bush. That was yesterday. We lost many fine young men/women yesterday and we can't change that but what about tomorrow? We have a President who is sending additional troops to Afghanistan for no apparent reason. I have always thought that when we sent our fine young men/women to battle, it was to win that battle. Now we are sending 30,000 men and women to fight until July, 2011 and then come home. Can anyone tell me why? I have not heard of any talk of victory or defeat. Has someone changed the rules and I didn't hear about it?

As this is my first and probably my last post on non-Detroit, I would appreciate it if your answer wasn't filled with belittlement or trying to pigeonhole me as a right or left wing loon.

[elganned]

Jman, it's like this:

We went into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. To do that, we had to beat the Taliban first. We did that, but we let Bin Laden get away. We should have left then, since our sole interest in that place had been obviated.

Somehow, somewhere along the way, the mission morphed from "get the guy who hit us" to "nation building". So, more troops are required, and will be for an indefinite period. The 2011 "deadline" is just a smokescreen; when that date comes around, we will suddenly discover that the "conditions on the ground" won't allow us to leave.

"Victory" and "defeat" are words that only have meaning if you know what winning and/or losing looks like. Right now we don't have a clue. Eventually we will just get tired of pouring our treasure and our people down the rathole, and will just leave like we did in Vietnam. When that will happen I can't guess.

The Russians learned the hard way. I guess we will, too.

[dharma4313]

Non sequitur.

The Nazis had a modern, mechanized nation behind them, with GDP and tanks and planes and 5 million men under arms.

Oooooh, I'm scared! Save me from the Big Bad Islamic Terrorists! They're going to conquer the world!

You're right, when it comes down to it, nobody whips ass like us, and that's the way it should be. But remember, those Afghans showed the Rooskies the door, just like the Vietnamese did to us. So, it's not about who is the toughest [[we are, no question), it's about who has the focus and determination. And if we are going to be led by panty-waist liberal schmuck-sticks, we're going to lose too. There's such a thing as f**king up a wet dream, and Obama is just the dill-whistle to do it.

[Lorax]

Jman, to elaborate on what Elganned mentioned, which is all facts, BTW, is that when the mission morphed from catching OBL to nation building, the reason for that is money- and the pipeline issue.

Wars create opportunities for making money- the tacit agreements between the war profiteers and the Tush Administration have yet to run their course, and adding troops protects the interests of those tasked with nation building, using money from our treasury in the process, just as in Iraq.

Both wars are purely economics- in Iraq it's oil and nation building, in Afghanistan it's nation building, and the oil pipeline.

We are paying in blood and treasure to protect the interests of wealthy American corporations, nothing more. Any other issues, whether "the war on terror" "catching Osama bin Laden" "protecting freedom" or "bringing democracy to the middle east" are simply incidental, and designed to placate the American voting population. Not doing a very good job at hiding it, and we seem to fall for it time and again.

Obama is making a gargantuan mistake in my view, and since we have paid the price as a nation with our homes, our soldiers, and our future financial wellbeing, I'll be looking for my bailout next, so the government had better start writing the check now.

[Bobl]

We are in the war....you leave when you have accomplished victory. Before that, is a loss and this is not a game.

I agree that this is not a game.

How is "victory" defined, in this case?
Do we then play "whack a mole" and go to Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Iran.....?

Did congress declare war?

It appears to me that the past seven years have accomplished nothing, and the prospects for the next several years do not look bright, based on an observation of the history of "Afghanistan".

[ejames01]

What exactly do we have to gain by "whipping ass" on a bunch of backwards tribesmen? And why is killing people a "wet dream" to you?

You're right, when it comes down to it, nobody whips ass like us, and that's the way it should be. But remember, those Afghans showed the Rooskies the door, just like the Vietnamese did to us. So, it's not about who is the toughest [[we are, no question), it's about who has the focus and determination. And if we are going to be led by panty-waist liberal schmuck-sticks, we're going to lose too. There's such a thing as f**king up a wet dream, and Obama is just the dill-whistle to do it.

[Lorax]

What exactly do we have to gain by "whipping ass" on a bunch of backwards tribesmen? And why is killing people a "wet dream" to you?

I think Dharma is missing Greg.

[1KielsonDrive]

For what it's worth

Thanks. I learn something new every day. I'm not much into texting and abbreviating, so these acronyms are foreign to me. I should've asked my grandkids.

[1KielsonDrive]

Cooperating? Is that what u call constantly kicking out inspectors, not allowing them access, cutting off talks with the un and oh yea, those pesky missiles he kept lobbing at our pilots and un pilots as we patrolled the skies to keep him from invading Kuwait.

Yea, bang up job there boys. Saddam was the picture of peace and cooperation.

Yup dfc, just carry it to the opposite extreme using hyperbole to describe Saddam in other's names and words, and we'll all be in agreement. You know, we all just loved Saddam. Why else would we suggest this whole Iraq War thing was a farce? If he'd only been left in power, we'd all be so warm and fuzzy. Sarcasm intended.

[1KielsonDrive]

You're right, when it comes down to it, nobody whips ass like us, and that's the way it should be. But remember, those Afghans showed the Rooskies the door, just like the Vietnamese did to us. So, it's not about who is the toughest [[we are, no question), it's about who has the focus and determination. And if we are going to be led by panty-waist liberal schmuck-sticks, we're going to lose too. There's such a thing as f**king up a wet dream, and Obama is just the dill-whistle to do it.

Ooooohhhh, scary! You talk so tough and manly. I like it! Whaddya say Big Boy, we go out and kick some fags asses some time, hey?

[Jimaz]

I haven't noticed anyone discussing the possibility that Obama may eventually capture Osama bin Laden. Why is that? If that were to happen, how would it play out?

[Sstashmoo]

Jimaz, there is probably no such person.

[Lorax]

They may get their hands on his corpse, since he's been dead for several years now. Don't know of too many 6 foot 5 arabs rolling a dialysis machine around the caves of Pakistan that haven't been accounted for already.

[Jimaz]

If that were to happen, how would it play out?

[ccbatson]

Gulp, I partially agree with Lorax...OBL is likely dead and buried.

[dfunkycity]

Gulp, I partially agree with Lorax...OBL is likely dead and buried.

Dude, I feel your pain in that deep gulp and lump in your throat.

Whenever I end up in agreement with a liberal I end up nauseous and I vomit for days from the nightmares it brings.

[elganned]

There's lots of medical marijuana available in Humboldt County in California; they say it's good for nausea. You should try it.

[dharma4313]

Ooooohhhh, scary! You talk so tough and manly. I like it! Whaddya say Big Boy, we go out and kick some fags asses some time, hey?

Who said anything about "fags" my dear friend? I'm a huge fan of the Pet Shop Boys. Connect the dots for me, what does a hyper-sensitivity about homosexuality have to do with the national interests of the good ol' USA? Let me have it.

[dharma4313]

I think Dharma is missing Greg.

Come on Lorax, I hate it when people crap on you, you have real street-cred. But who's Greg? I don't know him from the man-on-the-moon.

[d.mcc]

Dude, I feel your pain in that deep gulp and lump in your throat.

Whenever I end up in agreement with a liberal I end up nauseous and I vomit for days from the nightmares it brings.

That's the reason and logic trying to get out

[ejames01]

Where do these trolls come from?

Dude, I feel your pain in that deep gulp and lump in your throat.

Whenever I end up in agreement with a liberal I end up nauseous and I vomit for days from the nightmares it brings.

[dfunkycity]

Oh, I do think that's what they are trying to do. I also think they are hopelessly stupid if they think that's gonna happen. The only thing they've managed to do is scare the piss out of some ball-less conservatives by blowing up one building.Suicide bombers cannot take over a single nation, much less the world. Pull your head out of your ass and look around.If illegal immigration is the criteria for political overthrow, then we're in more danger from the Mexicans than we are from the Muslims. So why aren't you preaching a crusade against Mexico?

As for the rest of your vituperative diatribe, it's sheer Xenophobia masquerading as concern. You just don't like foreigners. We get it.

You wouldn't by chance be part of the Aryan Nation, would you? I hear tell they don't like furrners much, either.

Sigh, yea, Im in the skinhead, noi, kkk, nazi, bpp, laraza movements etc etc

And I guess u meant to say foreigners? Instead I assume you misspelled it or actually meant it in a demeaning manner as if to infer that people who speak with these sort of poorer southern accents are in someway racist.

But hey, thats just my guess

Hey wait a sec. You sneaky little liberal you.
Was that a liberal tactic to try and flip the tables on a totally legitimate point and try to shut down the conversation by cleverly calling me racist?

[[slappin my knee and laughin like crazy)
You crazy liberals are always pulling peoples legs like that.