Why is Obama expanding the war?

**barnesfoto** · February-24-10, 09:17 PM

I can't speak for the rest of the anti-war crowd, but most of us were against Eye-Rack, and were skeptical whether A-stan would work.

The Janitor, [[Barack Obama) who unlike Reagan has spent no significant time in Los Angeles [[other than frosh year at Occidental College, which is Eagle Rock, not Hollywood) and who has never appeared in bad movies or prostituted himself for tobacco companies, unlike Ray-Gun) never stated that he was against A-stan, only Eye-Rack.

There are good arguments for staying in A-stan for a bit longer, there are good arguments for getting out. Personally, I'd like everyone to come home tomorrow, except there's one little problem: Where are all those people going to work?

Many of us attended numerous rallies against the invasion of Iraq, we don't recall seeing many of you back then. Which anti-war rallies did you attend? Or were some of you attending pro-war rallies a few years ago?

if some of you are unsatisfied with the speed of our exit, there are a number of things that you can do:

Organize a new anti war march on Washington.
Picket a military recruiting office
Demand that you local pols support cuts in military spending.
Refuse to pay your taxes
Immolate yourselves in a public place as the monks in Vietnam did in the early 60's

If none of those choices float your boat, I'd encourage you all to support some sort of federal jobs program like the CCC or WPA, because when all these vets come back, many of them are going to have PTSD and other mental issues, and if they're no jobs for them, [[which seems to be a nationwide problem) there is sure as hell going to be trouble.

Or you could just go on typing on internet forums.
Keep us posted.

**oladub** · February-24-10, 10:41 PM

I can't speak for the rest of the anti-war crowd either. Like you, I have participated in an anti-war event or two. Since my candidate was, and still is, antiwar, you could say I continue to protest these wars among other things. This thread, however, is about why has Obama expanded the war. The ironic thing is who is supporting the expansion if these wars on this website.

Some of our troops could be stationed to defend our own borders, some would cycle out, some are in the guard in their third tour and would be glad to resume their lives. But you are right about some needing help to readjust upon their return. All the same, wars are not very good job programs. Trying to get the unemployment numbers down is a lousy reason to keep our troops in Afghanistan.

**Hermod** · February-24-10, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

I can't speak for the rest of the anti-war crowd either. Like you, I have participated in an anti-war event or two. Since my candidate was, and still is, antiwar, you could say I continue to protest these wars among other things. This thread, however, is about why has Obama expanded the war. The ironic thing is who is supporting the expansion if these wars on this website.

Some of our troops could be stationed to defend our own borders, some would cycle out, some are in the guard in their third tour and would be glad to resume their lives. But you are right about some needing help to readjust upon their return. All the same, wars are not very good job programs. Trying to get the unemployment numbers down is a lousy reason to keep our troops in Afghanistan.

The armed services have expanded very little since the 9/11. They have been meeting Iraq and Afghanistan commitments by giving the active army back-to-back tours and repeated calls on the national guard and reserve. If we bring all of our troops home from overseas, there still won't be a massive demobilization such as there was after WWI, WWII, and Vietnam.

**barnesfoto** · February-25-10, 12:46 AM

Since my candidate was, and still is, antiwar, you could say I continue to protest these wars among other things. This thread, however, is about why has Obama expanded the war. The ironic thing is who is supporting the expansion if these wars on this website.

Your words are vague and misleading.
Which war are you discussing? There are two going on. Who is supporting the expansion of which wars?

We could say that since your candidate had zero chance of winning, you didn't really do much.

There were two candidates that had a chance of winning the last election: One candidate proposed a blank check for endless war, the proposed putting the brakes on one war and focusing war efforts on Afghanistan. I voted for the second candidate with the idea that he at least had a few proposals that I agreed with [[including addressing the needs of people who are priced out of health care) and would do less harm than the first candidate, who had almost no proposals that I agreed with.

You can't seem to grasp the reality that Barack Obama did not promise to disengage from all wars, from the start he stated that the case that Afghanistan was a valid war, and that Iraq was not.

So I have a president who says that 2/3 of the troops will be out of Iraq by August. I'd rather have all of them out by August. But I'll take 2/3.

Would McCain's scenario have been better?

Please don't tell me what Ron Paul or Dennis Kuchinich's scenario would have been. I respect them both, and neither had the slightest chance of winning anything.

As for A-Stan, it seemed that for most of the last 8 years, that war was not given much thought or direction by Bush-Cheney. So now of course, you are going to see an expanded effort in A-stan.

It seems like a bad idea, and if it doesn't work, maybe the next election will give us a candidate who actually proposes massive cuts in defense spending and also is capable of winning an election.

Again, I have listed a number of things that you as a citizen can do if you are unhappy with the present situation. And I will add a couple more:

You could go on a hunger strike, or refuse to cut your hair until the war ends.

Of course war is not a good substitute for real jobs, but we know that it has been for the last 8 years.

Therefore, do you agree that this country needs some sort of federal jobs program? Something other than trying to recreate the Berlin Wall?

**Zacha341** · February-25-10, 06:18 AM

Well stated, when president Obama promised he'd bring the troops home that was campaign jargon absent of understanding the true complexities of why we are there in the first place withstanding partisan politics. In in any event, he is somewhat "bound". If he applies too much force he seen as acting "Bushy" and warmongering like them "republicans". If he is too ambiguous -- doing "nice" and soft to those who respond not, we are perceived as weak and indecisive as a nation, to those who culturally view that approach as WEAK.

And since he's preemptively received the Nobel handcuffs, uh I mean "prize" relative to how we are to respond militarily [[at many levels, including our own safety) he is made all the more indecisive [[and bound) with added pressure to not come off as a war president, yet he said Afghanistan was were we should be... etc., it goes forth. Indeed how are we perceived... it cannot be good..... on so many levels.

Originally Posted by johnsmith

Nope, no confusion here. President Magazine Cover a.k.a. President Photo-Op is our current Community-Organizer-In-Chief. I think you are confused, Reagan hasn't been president for 20+ years.

Back on topic, why again is Obummer expanding the war? Has he said anything that is true yet? I think his goal in life was to be famous, and nothing more ---> President Hollywood.

**Zacha341** · February-25-10, 06:39 AM

Good points. President Obama, desiring to not respond as his predecessor and his own worldview of what America should be [[now that he's president), is "bound" between application of an effective response, yet not come off as a war-monger to his constituents, some who'd decry no-war no matter the situation. It's very complex and an reflexive "anti-war" [[don't act like the republicans) response is not sufficient.

Originally Posted by Hermod

The problem that Obama has is that to show he was "strong on defense", he and many other Democrats pushed the meme that "Iraq was the wrong war" and that Bush took his eye off the "real war" in Afghanistan. Now that he is in office, this position means that he "owns" the Afghan war since he "bought it" with his mouth. That course of action has the lunatic fringes of his party going nuts with anger at his "war mongering" in Afghanistan. Politically, he can bail out on Iraq and blame it on Bush. In Afghanistan, he needs either a victory or a settlement that he can spin as a "solution".

**oladub** · February-25-10, 10:41 AM

barnesfoto wrote, "Your words are vague and misleading.
Which war are you discussing? There are two going on. Who is supporting the expansion of which wars?"

Obama and his supporters are supporting an expansion of the mideast war.

Obama has expanded the Afghanistan war and the bombing of Pakistan. He has also involved the US in Yemen. The Iraqi parliament voted that the US has to be out by the end of 2011. I don't know if that will happen but I'm not about to give Obama credit for an Iraqi demand. I have twice linked to a video of Obama vowing to get the troops out ASAP after becoming President.

He also campaigned to-

keep 50,000 "non-combat' troops in Iraq.
increase the number of troops in Afghanistan
increase the size of the military by 92,000.
keep US troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan.
double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012.
involve us in Darfur.
include Georgia in NATO
take actions in Pakistan if Musharraf wouldn't.
and "said the military option is "on the table" for dealing with Iran's nuclear program". ""I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear" weapon," he said, repeating himself for emphasis, "everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear, everything.
-also, â€œWe cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that weâ€™ve set,â€ he said Wednesday. â€œWeâ€™ve got to have a civilian national security force thatâ€™s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.â€

One thing I have been doing is arguing with you Obama hawks. What's the difference if I go to a big rally in Washington to hold a sign or address you here?

McCain would probably have been a little worse. For instance, he was talking about leaving a 70,000 man non-combat force in Iraq compared with Obama's 50,000 suggestion.

I might have voted for Obama to keep McCain out if my state was a toss-up. However, Obama had a 17% lead in the polls so there was no need to waste my vote on him and give any support to his slightly less bad agenda. I voted third party but I can understand people who stayed home rather than vote for the lessor of two evils. I think its a good idea to shore up third party candidates with good ideas so that the Republicrats have to keep looking over their shoulder and eventualy are forced to include better ideas. Affirming corporate pre-approved choices isn't my thing.

What are we doing in Afghanistan now by the way? Are we still looking into caves to find Bin Laden? That is why we went in. When did our mission change? Where is the required congressional declaration of war? You make the same arguments as President Johnson. Why if we don't stop the Commies [[Muslim terrorists) in a foreign jungle [[or desert), we will have to fight them here.

This thread isn't about job programs but I accept challenges. The vets should be treated well. If we weren't spending so much bombing villagers and re-building their villages, there would be more money in the military's budget to treat and train returning vets. If the individual states want to have job programs for non-veterans, that is ok too. The Federal government however has no authority to do so as much as I appreciate the dams and some other things Roosevelt built. Obama's first stab at a job program was unfortunately squandered. There will be no recovery until bad debt is allowed to default no matter what the government does.

**barnesfoto** · February-25-10, 11:24 AM

.

"Obama and his supporters are supporting an expansion of the mideast war

Which supporters? Are you referring to people on the board? What do you mean by "you hawks"?
Do you mean us people who voted for him? And which war?

Afghanistan is in Asia, not in the mideast. You sound like somebody who is spending too much time on the internet...

We've been giving billions to nasty regimes in Pakistan, Egypt and Israel for years. Did you really expect that to change? I didn't. Would any other candidate in the White House be able to single handedly change that without support in congress or the senate?

There was a recent attack on the US that had origins in Yemen. There are no proposed invasions that I know of,and I don't like giving a corrupt regime more money, but if the president does nothing he'll have every conservocrite and every radio pundit shrieking "soft on terrorism!" in the next election.

And the next two elections is where perhaps something will happen, or perhaps it won't.

Again, if you don't like the policies, follow the example of the left from a few years back. organize a demonstration against the warS and invite everyone. Maybe the people you keep calling "you hawks" will show up.

Otherwise you're just another typist.

**oladub** · February-25-10, 12:40 PM

barnesfoto asks,[[1) "Which supporters? Are you referring to people on the board? What do you mean by "you hawks"? Do you mean us people who voted for him? [[2)And which war?
[[3)Afghanistan is in Asia, not in the mideast. You sound like somebody who is spending too much time on the internet..."

[[1) Hawks: Politicians who expand illegal and unnecessary wars for a starter. Bush, McCain, or Obama - take your pick and their supporters for about the third time. [[2)The middle eastern war with Muslims. [[3) Eurasia is one land mass. Mid-east is more specific than Asia. It can be considered culturally separate or geographically a part of the middle east. Where one draws the line is optional depending on such variables as culture or geographic features. Afghanistan is culturally mid-eastern and is not, for the most part either culturally either East Asian or Indic. Afghanis, for the most part, speak Indo-European languages. Consider how the mid-west is defined. Some definitions include Oklahoma. Some don't.

Is Afghanistan a Middle Eastern country?
Yes, it is a landlocked country in SW-central Asia.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Afghani...astern_country

We've been giving billions to nasty regimes in Pakistan, Egypt and Israel for years. Did you really expect that to change? I didn't. Would any other candidate in the White House be able to single handedly change that without support in congress or the senate?

Every President should follow his/her Constitutional oath to obey the entire Constitution whether or not Congress chooses to. Congress would then have override his/her veto to fund illegal wars for one thing. You don't expect much. You even give the President a pass on kow-towing to neocons because if he didn't , they might call him names.

-Another Typist

**gibran** · February-25-10, 04:09 PM

follow the monies in Congress and their trips and you will realize why the log jam in the muddled east...neocon has ties to the Likud and the AIPAC has ties to the likud ...it all goes round and round...only hope is a nuetral stance and empowering people that put human rights before political stances...while peace camps are getting hammered in Palestine and Israel they are truly the real answer...same for the regimes in Egypt and pakistan...moderates lose out to the hawks until there is no other alternatives....peace with dignity and viablity is the only solution, until people who profit from war are called out, they will be the power brokers.

**Papasito** · February-26-10, 09:54 AM

We need to all change the situation over there. Can't just put the Middle East's problems all on our country's shoulders. We have Palestine playing kid's shows with Mickey Mouse and Bunny Rabbits killing Jews and teaching hate from the moment kids are toddlers, we have the West's paranoia of a Muslim infiltration and takeover of the world, we have Darfur genocide, murders and rampant fearmongering of one religious group versus another from Yemen to Egypt to India, it's going to take a complete re-education of the world, and stern action against those who continue to promote hate and violence.
It's like a swirling toilet bowl of crap that's been clogged and wont flush so the clean water can come in and wash all the trash away...

**gibran** · February-26-10, 11:10 AM

When we value all children equally is when we will have action to support change [[so I agree 50% w/Papa)...Palestine is not Hamas, and Israel is not the settlers, although their actions is what we generally see in the west...we don’t see the brave Palestinians [[who are arrested along with their Jewish brothers) in the peace camps, peaceful protests and children’s peace camps...a cartoon makes for good drama [[and propaganda)...but what we don't realize that although small, the people fighting for peace is a growing voice on both sides of the wall...and the powers control the children on both sides [[Israel in teaching their children to be soldiers and hate Arabs …and Hamas teaching hate through cartoons)

I do agree hundred percent with papa and the re-education aspect...but that starts with education of us; individually...

to understand violence and conflicts understand the roots, with out taking the easy way [[well they have been fighting forever) is to adopt blanket sayings and generalization…but conflict has roots…The Sudan is off the charts in misery, the people in dictatorships have their voices silenced: in Libya and Egypt. The whole world may be watching but we aren’t getting the facts… I really suggest we read papers, blogs and journals and talk to the sides in conflict to really understand each other. Iran is a prime example of if we talk war like we will fuel their regime [[of stupidity) …but if we help their voices of freedom we can make the region safer for Israel, Jordan and other moderate countries…solve Israel/Palestine and you will solve much of the issues that are being manipulated.

**gibran** · February-26-10, 11:55 AM

As long as there are brave Israeli's fighing for a equal and sustainable peace there will be brave palestinians;

**Papasito** · February-26-10, 01:03 PM

One thing is for sure - Iran is not helping

**Sstashmoo** · February-26-10, 01:51 PM

Quote: "We have Palestine playing kid's shows with Mickey Mouse and Bunny Rabbits killing Jews and teaching hate from the moment kids are toddlers,"

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80445755/

**gibran** · February-26-10, 03:53 PM

http://www.menassat.com/?q=en/news-a...on-mocks-arabs

this is when rational people say enough is enough...when you demonize one you can do just about everything to another...both are wrong and both need another dose of humanity

**oladub** · February-27-10, 08:06 PM

1 minute YouTube of Dennis Kucinich addressing the Afghanistan War. He plans to introduce legislation to end that war next week. How his proposal is handled will be interesting.

AND FOR WHAT! Dennis Kucinich

**stasu1213** · February-28-10, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Lorax

Obama is making a mistake.

You'll never hear our friends on the Reich ever say Bush made a mistake, especially when he was in office. Hell, even Bush couldn't think of one when pressed for an example. I could have offered a few, starting with his mother's insistence on not having an abortion.

The wars are both mistakes, were from the start, and shows he's unwilling to stand up to our military-industrial complex, which probably is behind many of the threats to his life, so he's giving in.

There is no national security purpose to staying, no economic reasoning to staying, and there is only the contracting, and the wealth powers behind the military insisting on continuing this.

Pulling out the troops last January was what should have been done, starting immediately. He probably would have been assassinated, though.

No president wants to spend his time in office walking a tightrope. This is not of his choosing- his presidency will be determined by others, not himself.

He would be a one term president if he chose to really show us some change we could believe in. He's taken the course of least resistance, and constant equivocation as opposed to bold, transformative change.

The banks should be nationalized if things were done correctly. A single payer health care plan based on Medicare for all is the only way to providing coverage for all at affordable rates. And the list goes on.

He should had known what he was getting into before he ran. He is not the one in charge

**johnsmith** · March-01-10, 08:13 AM

Not only is Obama not ending the wars, he even extended the war on the american people by extending the "Patriot Act." Now when is the "change" coming?

**barnesfoto** · March-02-10, 01:17 AM

Fear not, patrioits! Both Johnsmith and Lyndon Larouche are on this thing:

More about extension of the patriot act here:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...tary_exec.html

Ola's link does not give us a specific video, but rather takes us to Youtube. com.

Here's a link that works. Great comments by Dennis Kucinich, especially on Immigration.
"Human beings are not illegal" eh Ola?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWWBwf2wHE

**oladub** · March-02-10, 02:46 AM

barnesphoto, There was something wrong with that link. It only worked for me about 1/3 of the time. The link below, I had to go through a another site, seems to work. For some reason, the actual http address won't copy.
"Human beings are not illegal" is off topic and is a meaningless cliche meant to dance around the fact that illegal aliens are guilty of misdemeanors for violating various immigration laws.

1. http://www.youtube.com/user/MoxNewsDotCom
2. copy and paste " AND FOR WHAT! " in the search box

**Jimaz** · March-02-10, 03:43 PM

oladub's link failed because the DetroitYES censorbot replaced the three characters "yankee-underscore-tango" with "~~~" in the URL.

I used http://tinyurl.com/ to produce this link: AND FOR WHAT! Dennis Kucinich.

**oladub** · March-02-10, 08:19 PM

Jimaz, Could you explain what went on? I tried four different things and tested it a couple of times before that link finally worked. I didn't/don't understand why that link would in any way be blocked. I also noted that there were only 892 hits on that sight the last I checked and thought that low for the the content of the video. I assumed something funny was going on at the YouTube end of the pipe. Congratulations on making it work.

**barnesfoto** · March-02-10, 10:49 PM

An optimist says that a link works 1/3 of the time; a pessimist says that it does not work 2/3rd of the time, and my link to the Kuch works all of the time, but apparently we're only supposed to discuss Dennis Kucinich that Ola likes, and not the Kucinich that Barnesfoto likes...

**Jimaz** · March-03-10, 12:52 AM

Jimaz, Could you explain what went on?

Well, I thought I did. The "yankee-underscore-tango" reference was automatically misinterpretted by the DetroitYES censorbot as a racial slur. The censorbot should be corrected to avoid censoring that type of thing when encountered within URLs. It's purely a technical problem -- not political at all.