Lustig Andrei wrote:
Given the financial situation I'm in right now, there is nothig more important to me than improving the economy, Robert. But that's me; that's a selfish viewpoint.
Fair enough, you can't care about everything and have to pick your spots. But it's weird that the diffusion of responsibility allows this for most people (the economy is a bigger issue for most Americans) when nobody I know would ever accept this on an individual level.
If we had a friend who had a financial problem, a marital problem, a gambling problem, a drug addiction and a bit of a killing people problem, we would not even consider the prioritization of the problems a subject worth discussing.
I simply disagree with your analysis that Obama has made a "decision to start killing more people." I realize that you meant it mainly to be an attention-getter and conversation-starter.
No, I meant it as self-evident fact. It is a simple fact that Obama has escalated the killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan. These were strategic choices he approved. In the case of Pakistan he does not approve each individual strike but each and every one in Yemen must be approved by him personally.
But it's grossly unfair to the canidate. I don't see that Obama has much of a choice in this matter.
Well then you simply aren't paying any attention. He stated it as far back as his election campaign that he advocated an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and of course he has a choice.
It's not like the laws of nature dictate that we must keep killing people in Afghanistan a decade after 9/11. Americans keep doing it merely because they don't have any idea what their exit strategy is and nobody is willing to be bold enough to withdraw without some symbol of victory to point at. It's not coming, the sane thing was to start drawing this down immediately. Instead, Obama chose to increase the attacks. And whether you like the sound of it or not that means exactly what I said: Obama made a decision for our country to start killing more people.
He's pulling the troops out of Iraq; good.
No, he isn't
. He hasn't lifted a finger to get us out of Iraq one minute earlier than we are legally obligated to under an agreement Bush reached before he took office. The US is being kicked out of Iraq because Iraq refuses to grant US soldiers immunity from prosecution. The US is leaving on the last possible day and the Obama administration has been trying to negotiate an extension of this agreement.
So how exactly is that pulling out of Iraq? He did not make us leave Iraq one minute earlier than we were forced to by law and has been trying to get an extension. Iraq's winding down happened on its own, the reason you can't point at a single decision he took to make this happen any differently is because he didn't take any such decisions.
But do you seriously see any chance of him -- or any incumbent -- simply closing up shop in Afghanistan?
Of course. There is no point at all to be killing hundreds of young men in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If we stopped doing it what do you think would happen
We would not be in any more danger, I posit that we would be in less danger (because they tend to frown on us killing them).
But this isn't even what I'm criticizing Obama for. He never considered an abrupt exit, he escalated
the killing. Do you support increasing
the killing over there too? Why? Hundreds of people were killed with your tax money, in your name, this year. At the rate its going the CIA is days away from killing someone with a drone across the globe. Do you support the
Given the situation in Pakistan, there's no way we can simply pull all American troops out of Afghanistant and expect anything but immediate and absolute disaster. The Taliban, with Pakistani backing, would be back in power instantly. How long before another 9/11?
The biggest thing that limits whether or not a 9/11 happens is the limiting resource of people willing and able to give their lives in order to kill others. What is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan is only making America new generations of enemies.
Do you really think that dropping hundreds of thousands of bombs on other unrelated people is going to make another attack less likely? Do you even bother to explain to yourself, in the privacy of your own head, how that works? Do you think we are reducing the number of enemies by these killings (i.e. do you think we can kill them all)?
9/11 didn't happen because they "hate our freedom" it happens because they hate America killing people they sympathize with. If you want to be safer the best thing you can get your country to do is to stop killing Muslims. America has killed orders of magnitude more Muslims than Muslims have killed Americans.
If you don't want Muslims to kill Americans then you should consider the benefits of Americans ceasing to kill Muslims.
Ask yourself this: do you really believe that Ron Paul, once elected, would be able to keep that campaign promise of withdrawing the troops? I think he'd find himself in the same situation that Obama is in, viz., facing a siuation that has no other solution other than to be stabilized before scheduling a graual withdrawal.
I know that he wouldn't try to escalate
the extrajudicial killings and I can see that Obama has chosen to. That gives him enormous moral high ground over Obama in my book (if you can't tell, I'm just not a big fan of warmongers).