So, shoot me---I'm anti-war.

I posted a question last night---http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x425735---that got a lot of good people upset with me. I had hoped for a spirited discussion of truth in politics. What I got was DUers telling me that I was either very stupid, anti-Obama or "a five year old".

Some folks suggested that I was simply a chronic complainer while a DU stalwart gave me the option of EITHER "supporting Democrats" or "posting divisive stuff".

However, the only person who questioned the truth of what I said stated that I had been too easy on the president. No one else disputed the accuracy of what I said in my OP. But, they were nearly unanimous that I shouldn't have suggested that we tell the truth about the Iraq war and the Bush administration's criminal involvement in it.

When Bush justified the invasion of Iraq with lie after lie and we dared to disagree, John Ashcroft ominously told us to "watch what we say". And, in general, we were urged to withhold any criticism of Bush. In fact, we were assured that it was "unAmerican" to say anything against the war effort, no matter how misguided (or criminal) we thought it was.

I thought then and I think now that people are a lot smarter than most politicians give them credit for. I believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree that what I suggested in my OP as the reason we just ended our combat effort in Iraq is essentially true. I understand that there would be political consequences of making that statement, but that doesn't alter its character as the truth.

Is it not possible that a leader with the oratorical skills of Barack Obama could actually speak the truth that is already known to nearly all who hear him and use that to "change" the way we expect our leaders to speak to us? The Teapublicans are going to criticize anything the president says, so why should that be a factor?

Go ahead, pile on again.

:)

to ensure that the bang is in jest..

Not just leave Iraq, but EVERYWHERE we have bases not in the US.

Germany is never going to attack us...Neither is Scotland

Iraq won't either

This Empire is costing a pretty penny

Can you imagine what we could do with the money we're spending all over the world. For what?? There are so many immediate needs here. :mad:

Invalid Input Parameter

The information you requested cannot be displayed one or more input parameters has invalid syntax.
If you have any questions, please contact the site administrator.
Click here to go back to previous page.

I got it also

there is an odd "-that" tacked to the end of the OP link

came from, but when I deleted it, the link works fine.

My bad.

If you screw up big time, do you: 1) meander about until you can pretend everything worked out, or 2) tell the truth and fix the problem.

From that perspective, the issue is framed all too clearly.

"...gained the authority, as commander-in-chief, to stop the war against Iraq, and how many will die in Afghanistan? What did they die for?"

I can't think of any good reason for even ONE death once Obama's watch began, EXCEPT that he wanted them to die for whatever purpose he envisioned those wars serving, or he agreed with Cheney and Bush about their objectives.

I will NEVER forgive Obama for that. NEVER.

If he'd just pulled everyone out, without so much as a by your leave?

It's not like it's all-in or all-out.

See their next reply...

...power vacuum in a mangled country chaos, for which AMERICAN actions were responsible, but that withdrawing with all possible dispatch was still the best way to minimize the loss of life and transfer of wealth to the MIC.

First and foremost though, it would have been the right thing to do no matter what the effect. That war was and is illegal and immoral. It's a war of aggression-- a crime against humanity by international law and U.S. treaty. The present occupation bears every bit of that stain, still.

NOTHING justifies continuing a crime of that magnitude. Nothing. No political, practical, or any other outcome, including avoidance of looking really, really bad. A president with moral courage would understand that. Obama apparently does not.

on edit: Someone on the BBC World Service last night pointed out after Obama's speech that his actions are not much more than compliance with the Status of Forces agreement that the Bush administration coerced from the Iraqi puppet gov't before the 2008 election. At that time many here said "He's just trying to hamstring the next president's options for withdrawal." It's ironic that Bush's success in that regard is so widely described now as "Obama is winding down the war just like he promised." Fact is, Obama is still largely following the Bush and Cheney agenda and timetable, IMO.

We're talking about Obama keeping a promise... which he did. "Largely" following doesn't give Bush any credit at all, imho. There was no Bush/Cheney timetable... there was no exit strategy either.

I feel that we did the Iraqi people great harm... and they deserved our careful extraction from their country. They deserved all of the training, and they deserve the helping hand while they get up to speed.

Leaving them would have been a cheap trick... and a bloody mess. They didn't ask for any of this. We owed them something.

Sorry. I just don't buy any of it. The war against Iraq is a crime EVERY DAY IT GOES ON. Each day we continue, we're all criminals because we lend it the authority of our names. That's the way I look at what Obama has done. He is keeping the rape going in some mistaken urge to ultimately "do right" by the poor dear whose neck his boots are on. The first step toward making things right is ALWAYS to stop the crime. THEN you find out what the victim needs, and who is best able to provide it. That is certainly not the U.S. military.

Let's be clear too-- the war against Iraq is STILL on-going. It has not ended by any means. I suspect it won't really even end next year, because I don't believe that all American troops will be withdrawn EVER unless the U.S. has some other means of oppressing Iraqis.

What a crock of absolute fertilizer you spew.

I agree- that's pretty fucked up.

It's a crime, JL. It's always been a crime, and it's still a crime. Why do you deny that so strenuously?

Is that really the best you can do?

Your need for violence is obvious in your choice of words, so it is no wonder you defend war.

been the "Decider." We are in an infinitely better situation with President Obama. Permanent war was and is their idea of how to run the country.

That said, I can't help recalling the searing question asked by young John Kerry testifying before Congress back in 1971 about a prior war: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?".

I don't believe he ever got an answer to that question. I don't think there is one.

I understand that the Iraqi people did not deserve this war. Neither did we. Prosecuting---or impeaching---Bush and Cheney would have been the best apology we could have made. We certainly would have owed them reparations, but those would have been a bargain compared the the---what?---$374 billion?---we've spent so far on this war.

Our people could use that money.

Impeachment and a prompt withdrawal would have meant less lives lost(ours and theirs), less billions spent and less motivation for young muslims to sacrifice their lives to strike at "the Great Satan".

But it's "woulda coulda shoulda" at this point.

Neither peoples deserved this war, but we are still responsible. We broke their country.

You might have a point about Afghanistan, but come on.

What do you think, it's a simple matter of sending a bunch of helicopters over there, hopping on board, and getting the fuck outa dodge? He STOPPED the war as soon as he got into office. It took a couple of years to pull the troops out RESPONSIBLY.

You REALLY think Obama WANTED them to die? REALLY?

Sometimes I wonder about people here.

Do you normally agree that crimes should go on for as long as it's convenient for the criminals? I agree-- it would have been hard to stop sooner. That doesn't make continuing the crime any less criminal.

The right thing to do would have been to end the war with all possible dispatch. American forces could have stood down immediately after the election and conducted an orderly withdrawal. Personally, if it were up to me I would have ordered their immediate SURRENDER to Iraqi authorities and negotiated their release via reparations for war crimes, but that's just my notion of justice being more important than politics.

I am unable to click your link since it doesn't work, but will bet dollars to donuts it's not your argument against war, but the way you presented it that people took issue with. That's just my guess...

I mean really. It doesn't matter if everyone at DU looks at things the way you do or not. It would not make you a more valuable human being if you were elected Messiah by 100% of DU members.

Nobody is going to agree with you all the way down the line on anything.

I understand(believe it or not)the arguments being made against me and I appreciate passion.

I also appreciate those who are willing to stick their neck out when they believe in something.

Thanks for your response.

I'm anti-war, too, and agree we need someone in power to articulate our cause for us. God knows, that dipshit Bush wasn't able to articulate crap and yet he was able to get us stuck in two devastating wars.

There are still a few of us around, though it's pretty discouraging when you find Ron Paul to be the only one on your ballot who is also anti-war. *sigh*

Certainly I opposed Aghanistan and Iraq because they were not wars we should have been involved in. I also served during Vietnam and was against it. However, my dad and my adoptive father that I grew up with served in WW2 with my natural father being wounded 2 times suffered from what is now known as PTSD and eventually help to cause the adoption. Fortunately, I did get reunited with my natural family after I became an adult and the knowledge of my adoptive fathers views and feelings of WW2. I am convinced from my study of history and their remarks I heard from my adoptive father and the remarks I am told of my natural father, that we really tried to stay out of WW2 and we weren't allowed to. I am convinced that we did it right then and such a circumstance I feel I would support that war or a war that would be waged here.

Today we are at war on our own soil. We have an element that will attack innocent people because they are the wrong color, religion, or here without documentation regardless of why they are. I shudder to think but wonder if we are headed to a war among our own people because of these extremist. I would certainly then be forced to a hot war even though I hope it never happens.

So to say I am anti-war no, to say I am anti-useless-war, yes

America tried to stay out of WW2 and did until finally Japan hit Pearl Harbor and even the most anti-war people conceded the need to enter. So with that what should we have done at that time?

so we COULD get into the war - just like 9/11. And I see this post being deleted in 3... 2... 1...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate

http://reason.com/archives/2006/06/06/how-the-fbi-let-9-11-happen

you know, those who are raking it in whether we win or lose & no matter who dies

these republicans and especially the tea baggers think they are so in tune with the founding fathers, but in George Washington's farewell address, he made the point that America needs to stay out of other peoples business, which includes making war and making treaties with other countries. I tend to agree with Washington, but we all know war is good but business and Republicans like money.

To hell with those who refuse to stand up to warmongers.