Do you agree with Obama's decision to start killing more people? Then why do you support him?

It was actually a request for you to elucidate what you would have done differently. But you didn't take her up on it, preferring instead to hurl slings and arrows. Was greater enlightenment achieved by this?

I'm not sure where you got this notion. Obama is allowed to say whatever the **** he wants to. I, in turn, am free to say I don't want him to be the next president.

I can live with failing to convince you.

I will give you a slight nod to your cherry picking accusation but not for the reasons you say so (the real cherry picking I am guilty of is deliberately excluding recently deposed despots like Gaddafi to try to get the figure to the Occupy's 1%) and I will agree with you that in the course of the last 50 years he is not much of a warmonger at all.

But like I said to you earlier, I think that the term has little meaning without being relative to current context.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It was actually a request for you to elucidate what you would have done differently. But you didn't take her up on it, preferring instead to hurl slings and arrows. Was greater enlightenment achieved by this?

Hopefully she learned one stupid way not to argue in the future, but I wouldn't count on it. If she wanted to know what I am advocating be done differently she can read the many times I have said what I advocate to be done differently within the last 24 hours in this thread.

The only alternative is to put in place someone who is infinitely more likely to pursue actual warfare than Obama is. You profess to be against this, but want to put people in charge who actively state that this is what they want to do - repeatedly.

Who do you think you ARE convincing?

Well, you're clearly wrong about that.

You know what, you've convinced me. "Warmonger" is an overstatement and the vapid logomachy we are engaged in is a bit of evidence in your favor, arguing the meaning of the word is not as edifying as arguing the validity of his degree of militarism (regardless of the way it is couched). So I retract that particular term and wish to replace it with the more emotionally neutral "inordinately militaristic."

If you accept my capitulation about being wrong to use the word I would be interested in hearing what you actually have to say about the actual substance of my criticisms.

Civilian and overall casualties (2009)


Victims of the Narang night raid that killed at least 10 Afghan civilians, including eight schoolchildren.
2009 was again the most lethal year for Afghan civilians in the American-led war since the fall of the Taliban government in late 2001. According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), 2,412 civilians were killed by the war in 2009, a jump of 14% over the number that lost their lives in 2008. An additional 3,566 Afghan civilians were wounded as a result of the war in 2009.[23][24]
Of these, UNAMA attributed two-thirds, or 1,630, of the deaths to the action of anti-government forces, around a quarter, 596, of the deaths to action by American-led military forces, and was not able to clearly attribute another 186 civilian deaths to any one side. Airstrikes continued to be the main cause of civilian deaths resulting from US-led military action, with 359 Afghan civilians killed by US/NATO airstrikes in 2009.[24]

You invariably mistake pithiness for wisdom.

Obama chose to refocus on AQ/Taliban and other insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I have read back through some of the post and as much as I can gather, you think he should have negotiated with the Taliban rather than going after militants in Afghanistan/Pakistan and brought all the troops home rather than escalating number of troops and drones and raids.

My point is that by going into Iraq, the US bascially ignored AQ and supporters in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Before Obama was elected, he said he would refocus on the terrorist in those areas. He kept that promise.

At the same time there has been talk and negotiations with some Taliban and a cease in drone attacks. They are not too keen on returning the favor.

Obama reaches out to Mullah Omar, Mullah Omar reaches out for more destruction

Do you believe that if we get out of Afghanistan that militants, Taliban and AQ will not have any interest in bombing western interest?

Frank Apisa wrote:
Secondly, I do not think he is a warmonger. I think that you are using that term gratuitously to scorn those who will choose to vote for Obama despite the fact that he has not been perfect in office.


I disagree both with the notion that he is not a warmonger as well as the risible notion that I say that he is just to scorn Obama voters (whom I don't give a flying **** about one way or the other).

For what it is worth, I think your perspective is going to prevail. I think Obama will lose…and lose big. The nominee of the Republican Party, in my estimation, will prevail.

1) I think it's safe to say that Obama has accomplished this very well. I'm not a big fan of drone strikes or special forces assassinating people, but I take a 'least worst option' look on this issue. IF Obama is serious about taking out AQ bases and leaders in Pak/Afgh - which it seems he clearly is - THEN, what is the least destructive way to do this? Which method causes the least social unrest in the ME and here at home? The least loss of life? Keep in mind that the govt's of these regions will provide no help (and in large part actually assisted AQ in hiding from us!).

From a personal viewpoint, I am very anti-AQ and think that taking out Bin Laden was essential for the US to move on from this last decade. Without doing that, we would have always had this dude hanging around out there, either causing trouble or at the very least being used by actual warmongers to start further trouble. I don't believe history will judge Obama all that poorly for his decision to do this.

2) Iraq has been wound down on schedule, which is fine with me. Obama didn't do much to facilitate an earlier leave of the country, but he also ceased actual combat operations for the last year leading up to the withdrawal. But we've really fucked that country, no two ways around it; I have a friend who is over there right now trying to help get all the Depleted Uranium that we left there cleaned up and she says the place is still pretty wrecked and will be for a long time. Not much talk about that in the media.

Re: Afghanistan, this is one of my biggest gripes with Obama: the 'surge' there was politically motivated and ineffective. I wish Obama had worked harder in 2009 to reject the advice of his military leaders (Echoed by the GOP) and had instead announced that we were leaving soon, and - if we ever have to come back - we won't be so kind next time as to not level everything, so please, police your own citizens appropriately.

Instead, they decided to give it 'one last shot,' which did apparently nothing at all. At least Obama and Pannetta have been talking about wrapping the whole thing up in 2013 for good, we'll have to see what happens.

3) This is both an interesting and tough one, in the face of the recent revolutions and uprisings we've seen in the ME. How much support should the US give to countries' rebels? Should we provide active military support in Syria the way we did in Libya? Does our pursuit of objective 1 mean that we won't be able to accomplish objective 3? What about the belligerence from our ally Israel, how do we handle this?

Obama (and some other nations) chose to intercede in Libya, and I had great reservations about that (I'm sure you saw them here on A2K), but luckily for him it turned out pretty well for the 'good guys.' But, the real game in the ME is Iran, and everyone knows it... I think Obama has to carefully avoid provoking a larger conflict with Iran while maintaining a tough posture, which is why you see statements on his part that sound tough.

These statements are just as politically motivated as the ones the GOP contenders throw out; but, Obama's actions have shown him time and time again turning away from possible points of contention with Iran. When the Iranian uprising occurred in 2009, Obama did not support them, other than with the blandest of encouragement.

When Israel repeatedly (per leaks from Wikileaks and reports from the media) asked the US to green-light attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the US refused each time.

Obama has been vocal about the fact that our own ally is engaging in actions (further settlements in the west bank) that enrage their enemies and set the peace process back.

Our Navy has been ignoring Iranian aggression in the Straits of Hormuz and even has spent a significant amount of time saving their ships from pirates.

In each of the above cases, ACTUAL warmongers on the right-wing (and some Jewish Dems) were calling for open warfare with Iran - a first-strike, and immediately. They criticized Obama's criticism of our allies' actions. I see a dude who is trying to maintain a peaceful balance - not someone who is pushing for more war.

The real test for Obama will be to see if the drone attacks ramp down. If not, I'll probably start to agree with you a lot more than I do now.

As I remember it, you didn’t resort to the name calling and petty insults that are the norm in the forum.

For what it is worth, I think your perspective is going to prevail. I think Obama will lose…and lose big. The nominee of the Republican Party, in my estimation, will prevail.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Secondly, I do not think he is a warmonger. I think that you are using that term gratuitously to scorn those who will choose to vote for Obama despite the fact that he has not been perfect in office.


I disagree both with the notion that he is not a warmonger as well as the risible notion that I say that he is just to scorn Obama voters (whom I don't give a flying **** about one way or the other).

....................................................................................
Anyway, do your best to damage Obama as you see fit.
....................

.......The inaccurate assigning of the reason for the 2007 Iraq surge’s success has profound implications for our current war in Afghanistan and doubly so for the surge forces ordered by the President in late 2009. Had the President known the truth of what really happened in 2007 Iraq it is unlikely he would not have made the decision he did in November/December 2009. In any case, the situation demonstrates a growing and expanding willingness on the part of our country’s senior military leaders to use “Information Operations” even on domestic audiences to manipulate the system in order to get what they want.

I agree that the use of drones is one of the best ways to minimize loss of life while prosecuting this war but disagree about it being the best way to minimize social unrest.