12
   

Where did all the war potesters go?

 
 
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 10:56 am
So, war in Afghanistan is increasing the number of deaths of our young service men and women, we still have a rather large contingent of forces in Iraq, still spread thin, still using Reserves and National Guard members... As far as I can see, the amount of war that the US is involved in has not changed a bit with the election of Obama. Yet, for some strange reason I can not quite fathom, all the war protesters have all but disappeared. Isn't that odd?

Tell me, where have all them gone to?

 
Robert Gentel
 
  7  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:03 am
@McGentrix,
This is really silly McG, the war in Iraq is being responsibly wound down. That is the war most were protesting (and most of the protesting happened about the decision to start it).

Do you really think this is odd? If so, why?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:09 am
@Robert Gentel,
I, among some others, are quite seriously concerned re policy towards Afghanistan/Iran/Pakistan/Israel.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:25 am
@Robert Gentel,
I find it odd because it gives the appearance that protesting war is nothing more then just another political ploy. The war in Iraq is being drawn down, but hardly meeting the one year deadline set by candidate Obama.

Mostly, I am just drawing attention to the fact that very little has changed, militarily, since the transition from Bush to Obama, yet the protesters, largely liberal in nature, have been quite silent. I, for one, feel the Obama's war policy has been good in so far as he has not tucked tail and run as I expected.
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:27 am
@McGentrix,
there has been no constant war rhetoric from the white house to combat with protest.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  4  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:29 am
I was always against the war in Iraq and feel at least we are seriously trying to get out of there now. It's a mess and will be so for a long time. I think if Obama could get us out faster he would, but such a disaster cannot be fixed quickly. On the other hand, I had no problem with us going into Afghanistan. Before 9/11 I saw a news program on what the Taliban was doing to the people of Afghanistan and I remember wanting to raise an army and go kick their asses myself. If Bush had focused our military energy there we would not have the horrible death toll and financial disaster we are still counting up today. Bush could have made a positive legacy out of Afghanistan, but he chose to chase oil rainbows in Iraq. Iraq will always be known as "Bush's War", but those who supported him must also bear the shame of the pointless sacrifice of our troops and the destruction of a country we had no right to invade. I hope Obama gives the forces in Afghanistan whatever they need to stabilize the country - it's the least we can do after abandoning them earlier.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:32 am
@McGentrix,
I don't know what you mean by political ploy. Are you suggesting that politics has no place in elections (because that would be silly).

Speaking as a liberal, Obama was my candidate. In spite of the fact that he is more centrist (i.e. conservative) than I had hoped, I am still glad he won.

I was at a health care protest-- does that count?

What's your point again?
0 Replies
 
George
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:40 am
I think it's a good question. I haven't seen many "We support our troops",
ribbons lately either. There are some on both sides of the issues who still
make noise, but for most folks, it's just fallen off their radar screen.
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:44 am
@McGentrix,
Simple Aristotelian logic good fellow, you know the basic equation of logic used in the West for say 2,400 years, where: if A is not B, A does not equal B.

You might be laboring under the illusion that most folks vocally opposed to the US invasion of Iraq were lying about the reason for their opposition, and were simply against war itself. Some were, most were not, so of course, once again you are wrong.

The next time you want to hump the leg of an anti-war protestor I direct you to a lower appendage of that ******* hippie, anti-war radical George Will, who wants the US to "cut and run" in Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:51 am
@Green Witch,
Quote:
I hope Obama gives the forces in Afghanistan whatever they need to stabilize the country - it's the least we can do after abandoning them earlier.
we (thr USA) does not have thre resources to begin begin to stabilize afghanistan remembering The USA won virtually ever battle in Vietnam and lost the war primarily becuse the Walter Cronkite brought down the curtain. Afghanistan is every bit as corrupt as was Vietnam.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:55 am
Long time passing
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:55 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
I find it odd because it gives the appearance that protesting war is nothing more then just another political ploy. The war in Iraq is being drawn down, but hardly meeting the one year deadline set by candidate Obama.


But it's the direction the war protesters wanted. There has been a big shift, largely due to Iraqis giving us the near-boot, and the situations aren't at all the same.

Quote:
Mostly, I am just drawing attention to the fact that very little has changed, militarily, since the transition from Bush to Obama, yet the protesters, largely liberal in nature, have been quite silent.


A lot has changed. And a lot of it began to change while Bush was in office, including the diminished protests.

This seems more to me like a weak attempt to try to portray the protesters as hypocritical while ignoring huge differences in the facts on the ground.

Quote:
I, for one, feel the Obama's war policy has been good in so far as he has not tucked tail and run as I expected.


If you are gullible enough to buy that kind of caricature it's natural that you'd be pleasantly surprised by reality.

Obama's hesitating to send more troops to Afghanistan, and one big reason is that there isn't a lot of political support for it. If he does, and a lot more Americans start dying I bet there will be more political protest. But not nearly as much as about the decision to invade Iraq. They aren't at all the same thing. Most Americans view one as a war of necessity and the other as a war of aggression. This is not a trivial difference.

I didn't want an Iraqi pullout until the Iraqis themselves demanded it, but I was very much against the war. You are failing to understand the difference between protesting a decision to wage an aggressive war with protesting how the war is prosecuted. My qualm was with the decision to go to war, not with the predictable casualties. I supported the surge, I argued against the call to withdraw (because of the "you broke it you fix it" reasoning, not the "tail between your legs" cartoon).

Is your view of these geopolitical events really that simplistic in nature? Does it really not smack of a cheap, partisan ploy to you?
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 12:08 pm
@dyslexia,
I don't doubt that
Quote:
Afghanistan is every bit as corrupt as was Vietnam.
, but America helped create the Taliban so the least we can do is try to defuse their power and give the people back their options. I know of people who are helping the girls of Afghanistan get a safe education and I know of doctors setting up clinics so the people can see to their own basic health needs. Other people have set up fair trade co-ops so women can earn money from their homes to support their children. These groups can only do their work under the protection of US forces. If our forces can protect organizations that help the next generation of Afghans, the county might actually have a future both the US and Afghans can be proud of.
George
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 01:13 pm
@Green Witch,
Quote:
If our forces can protect organizations that help the next generation of Afghans,
the county might actually have a future both the US and Afghans can be proud
of.

But sooner or later, the US will leave. I don't think it can stay long enough to
accomplish this. I'm not even sure that it is possible to accomplish this no
matter how long the US were to stay.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 01:33 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

So, war in Afghanistan is increasing the number of deaths of our young service men and women . . .
It is worthy of note
that we do not have militiary conscription. Every member of the Armed Forces is a volunteer.
The military personnel with whom I have spoken eagerly support the fight.

I supported overthrowing Saddam.
I also was very pleased to see the Taliban overthrown.

Our mission in Iraq has been successfully accomplished.
There is not much chance of Saddam nor his sons returning to power.
I see no reason for our forces to remain in Iraq,
unless this is necessary to secure American access to oil.

Neither W nor Obama has offered that as a rationale for continuing to fight.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 03:19 pm
Quote:
4,000 more troops to come home from Iraq

U.S. forces there will total about 120,000 over the next month

WASHINGTON - The top general in Iraq is sending home 4,000 more U.S. troops by the end of October as the American military winds down the six-year war.

Army Gen. Ray Odierno said in remarks prepared for a congressional hearing Wednesday that the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq will total about 120,000 over the next month.

He said that will mean about 4,000 fewer troops than are in Iraq now " about the size of an Army brigade.




source

Most of the anti-war protest were over going into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11; Afghanistan did have something to do with 9/11, no need to go into it all again as I think most everybody already knows. Apples and oranges kind of a thing.

Obama never said he was going to do it quickly or completely and he was elected and supported with that in mind by those who voted for him. (or at least it should have been in mind.)

Obama seems to be rethinking his war strategy in Afghanistan as well.



Obama's strategic war decision won't be just no troops or more troops
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 03:46 pm
@George,
There seems to be some confusion between soldiers and nannies - all those educational, social etc activities are irrelevant to the issue here, which is whether to deploy additional troops in Afghanistan, or even keep more than the barest minimum to guard the embassy and related buildings around that country. Tks for article by Will to Kuvasz; I agree with him completely:
Quote:
washingtonpost.com

Correction to This Article
George F. Will's Sept. 1 column quoted Adm. Mike Mullen's reference to the "culture of poverty" in Afghanistan. Mullen was referring to the inadequate resourcing of the U.S. effort there, not to the poverty of the Afghan people.
Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 1, 2009

"Yesterday," reads the e-mail from Allen, a Marine in Afghanistan, "I gave blood because a Marine, while out on patrol, stepped on a [mine's] pressure plate and lost both legs." Then "another Marine with a bullet wound to the head was brought in. Both Marines died this morning."

"I'm sorry about the drama," writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die "so that each of you may grow old." He says: "I put everything in God's hands." And: "Semper Fi!"

Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is "like walking through the Old Testament."

U.S. strategy -- protecting the population -- is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about "deteriorating" (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.

The U.S. strategy is "clear, hold and build." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime." Just 4,000 Marines are contesting control of Helmand province, which is the size of West Virginia. The New York Times reports a Helmand official saying he has only "police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for 'vacation.' " Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps?

Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections were called "crucial." To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American "success," whatever that might mean. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a "renewal of trust" of the Afghan people in the government, but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government -- his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker -- as so "inept, corrupt and predatory" that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, "who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai's lot."

Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan's "culture of poverty." But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many "accidental guerrillas" to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases -- evidently there are none now -- must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 05:26 pm
Were still here. If Obama becomes as big an ass as Bush you will be hearing from us.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 04:57 am
Where did all the chicken hawks go?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 05:05 am
@George,
I agree, and it's similar with other demonstrations, elsewhere, anywhere.

In the late 60's of last century I nearly was thrown out of school due to my protests against the German Emergency Acts. I haven't changed my opinion in all the 41 years it is in effect. But I don't demonstarte against it since ... 1969.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Where did all the war potesters go?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2021 at 10:40:25