No more war!

22 posts / 0 new

That’s the message the American people are sending as approval for the Afghanistan war has now dropped to an all-time low. A new AP poll shows that only 27% of Americans support the war – that’s a ten-point drop from one year ago. On the flip-side two-thirds of Americans are opposed to the war – and 40% say they are “strongly opposed” to the war.

So far – 1,834 U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan – and the conditions don’t seem to be getting much better over there. French President-Elect Francois Hollande has promised to remove all troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. I think it’s time we do the same.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

Well, then, as conspiracy-theorizing as it may seem to be, it's time for another 'terrorist attack' on home soil....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Well, then, as conspiracy-theorizing as it may seem to be, it's time for another 'terrorist attack' on home soil....

Ah, the old "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" argument. Why don't we just attack the Chinese too, so we can be sure they never attack us?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

It's true we have had enough. We have did what we went there to do. We killed or captured nearly every man who was involved in 911. Tens of thousands of Al Qaeda and Taliban have been martyred. We have already defeated the 911 killers. Our mission was not to turn Afghanistan into a nice place to live. When we leave the tyranny and executions will resume. Women will be shot, stoned or beheaded for any perceived "crime" or merely for the entertainment of the Mullahs. Sad but true. But it's not our problem.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

It really has nothing to do with getting the people who did 9/11. The reasons to go into Afghanistan were part of the same PNAC crap that made doing Iraq the goal apart from any 9/11 event giving it cover. Like a "new Pearl Harbor," for example.

Obama inherited the culture of these wars and their narratives and meanings. He was not in a position to confront all the beliefs and memes involved, so he proposed the"responsible" course for taking them at face value. I think it is tragic, but we do need to deal with the idiocy that got us there and not just with how to get out; and we have to get to telling those who got us there to shut up and learn something.

You might give up the Western prejudice against Afghanis too. What they do is not so completely different from what "we" do or would do under duress and invasion. If you want to help Afghani women, try ending the war and the political alienation of the Pashtuni. It will help de-radicalize Islam if they are not under attack.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:

It really has nothing to do with getting the people who did 9/11. The reasons to go into Afghanistan were part of the same PNAC crap that made doing Iraq the goal apart from any 9/11 event giving it cover. Like a "new Pearl Harbor," for example.

Obama inherited the culture of these wars and their narratives and meanings. He was not in a position to confront all the beliefs and memes involved, so he proposed the"responsible" course for taking them at face value. I think it is tragic, but we do need to deal with the idiocy that got us there and not just with how to get out; and we have to get to telling those who got us there to shut up and learn something.

You might give up the Western prejudice against Afghanis too. What they do is not so completely different from what "we" do or would do under duress and invasion. If you want to help Afghani women, try ending the war and the political alienation of the Pashtuni. It will help de-radicalize Islam if they are not under attack.

I would say yes, U.S. involvement in that area has little to do with getting those 911 perps (whether one believes they are the actual perps or not). But there are competing theories for the U.S being in Afghanistan -- essentially neoliberal (economic) and anti terrorist (war mongering), the latter of which I would attribute to the neoconservatives and their relationship with the Israeli Lobby.

But it's also important to recognize that there are several competing geopolitical strategies, and differing powerful groups that promote them in the halls of the policy and decision makers in Washington. Obama did not embrace the neoconservative (PNAC) pro Israel Lobby war mongering strategy. After all, McCain pretty much would have that wrapped up. He embraced the other powerful one, which stresses other kinds of strategies for controlling what, since The Carter Doctrine, has been called our "interests" in what some geopoliticians have identified as the geostrategic elipse -- basically the area where the oil is.

Obama did not walk in blind nor naive, and he obviously had his own notion of where to continue the imperialistic strategic policies, call them the U.S. foreign policies for a positive P.R. spin. And he made no bones about that direction being continuation of the military-related geopolitical strategies in Afghanistan.

The controversy over his policies goes all the way back to his naming Zbignew Brezinski as one of his earliest campaign advisers. Not surprisingly, Brezinski was against going into Iraq, and Brezinski is not considered "friendly" to the Israeli Lobby interests. However, his interest in Afghanistan goes way back to the Soviet Invasion and the U.S. involvement, (Afghanistan Mineral Deposits Was “Economic Prize” All Along — Brzezinski) which included helping to fund and create the Mujahadeen radicals, some of who would become Al Qaeda.

Everybody should know this by now, thus, Obama's pick of Brezinski as a key foreign policy adviser early on in his campaign was a pretty obvious statement. And I said as much on this board when he did so. It's clear to me that he would have to have known going into the campaign that he would have to sound like he knew what he was doing, that he had some ideas and positions, given he would have to confront the Republican nominee on the stage and in the headlines. So he picked the least discredited side at the time (the neocons were under severe criticism for the anything but positive shock and awe results of invading Iraq by 2007).

And the controversy at the time looks something like this:

Despite Criticism, Obama Stands By Adviser Brezinski

Mr. Obama's embrace of Mr. Brzezinski has angered some supporters of Israel put off by Mr. Brzezinski's criticism of the Jewish state in recent years and his praise for the authors of a book that condemns the influence of the "Israel lobby." Mr. Obama's campaign has disavowed the book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

Read the article and notice that Obama was attacked by Alan Dershowitz. Do a search: Alan Dershowitz Israel Lobby Neoconservative, and see what comes up.

Mearsheimer and Walt are self defined international relations theorists with solid academic credentials, and their 2006 essay then book (The Israel Lobby) was extremely controversial during the Bush Administration. The attacks on them by the right were ruthless, relentless but fruitless, as far as drumming them out of academia (unlike those like the less solidly credentialed Ward Churchill whose attacks on the Administration were no where near as sophisticated). Theirs was anything but standard conspiracy theory.

The critical point is Obama had to have some idea of what that's all about if he disavowed their book, which implies he disavowed their criticism of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. He merely picked a highly credentialed side but also tried to maintain a friendly stance towards the Israelis by dismissing Walt and Mearsheimer. Not atypical for Obama's version of politics. He was already making his choices that are contrary to any sense of long term peace, and very much for defending U.S. "interests" in the region, which, I'm sorry to say, are essentially transnational corporate interests primarily.

Brezinski Gives Obama High Marks on Foreign Policy Sun. May 6, 2012

Can't say I'd give him high marks for his at home policies. What evidence is there Obama ever wanted to confront or change anything? I think he wanted to be president.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

The Russians must be having a good laugh seeing how we have repeated their mistake.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am
Quote lovecraft:

The Russians must be having a good laugh seeing how we have repeated their mistake.

We didn't repeat their mistake. An attack was launched on us from Afghanistan. We went to Afghanistan to kill the people who did it. We suceeded.Time to come home. We won.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote lovecraft:

The Russians must be having a good laugh seeing how we have repeated their mistake.

We didn't repeat their mistake. An attack was launched on us from Afghanistan. We went to Afghanistan to kill the people who did it. We suceeded.Time to come home. We won.

I thought the 911 attackers were Saudi's. If you are saying that it was more about the network involved we have not succeeded. They are still around. We were successful in destroying all of those WMDs in Iraq as well. (sarcasm)

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:
Quote lovecraft:

The Russians must be having a good laugh seeing how we have repeated their mistake.

We didn't repeat their mistake. An attack was launched on us from Afghanistan. We went to Afghanistan to kill the people who did it. We suceeded.Time to come home. We won.

I thought the 911 attackers were Saudi's. If you are saying that it was more about the network involved we have not succeeded. They are still around. We were successful in destroying all of those WMDs in Iraq as well. (sarcasm)

You thought right. They were Saudis. And some were not. A little history lesson. They were in Afghanistan, protected by the Taliban. And we did give the Taliban every opportunity to give them up. They refused. We could have attacked Saudi Arabia, but why? If you want to kill Al Qaeda doesn't it make more sense to go where Al Qaeda is? I'm just sayin. We went there, we killed em. Time to come home. We won. (sarcasm not required)

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

10 years of deaths and budget busting?

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am
Quote lovecraft:

10 years of deaths and budget busting?

Deaths? The American people wanted Al Qaeda dead. So we killed em. I wish we had killed more, but we did send many of them off to Allah.

Budget? What budget? We don't need no stinkin budget. Since when do liberals care about spending? What are you a tea partier? Check the link below.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

In just a few seconds, your precious government has devoured every penny I have ever earned. And the insatiable beast only demands more.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Uh.... I meant American deaths. I believe it was that most Liberal Prez called Bush who started 2 wars and kept them off budget. I believe it was the same liberal who signed medicare Part D without a payment mechanism-he wouldn't be trying to BK Medicare would he? Liberals may spend-but not so much on war.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am

Liberals were tax and spend, so no deficit. Republicans spend even more but don't want to pay, just borrow and spend, thus record deficits and debt. The debt always went down under democrats. The deficit went down last month, because the rate of growth was less.

One other reason for Afghanistan under Obama was the instability of Pakistan, who because of Reagan now have nukes. The reason for Afghanistan under bush was because they killed the planned oil pipeline for unocal. When the oil mafia barks, the bush family jumps.

The taliban said they would turn them over when proof of their responsiblity was shown. Iran offered to be an intermediary as well. Iran offered their airspace if needed, too. They were both snubbed. A million Afghanis and Iraqis were killed, and neither country attcked the US, and neither country posed a risk.

Gulf l was launched and Iraq was no threat. Kuwait was given the new US horizontal drill rigs, and was sucking Iraq's oil, and sadam got pissed. Oil mafia barks and bush jumps. Wars are supposed to keep republicans in office, as long as they are still going during the election year. Papa Bush ended his too soon and w wasn't going to let that happen.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote lovecraft:

The Russians must be having a good laugh seeing how we have repeated their mistake.

We didn't repeat their mistake. An attack was launched on us from Afghanistan. We went to Afghanistan to kill the people who did it. We suceeded.Time to come home. We won.

So after 10 years, you will define the goals now, and conveniently place the goal post 3 inches to guaruntee our victory. How convenient. We went to Afghanistan to fight a GWOT, TM, and play at Shock and Awe, Shake and Bake.

The only goal at the begining was to find justification to seize Iraq's oil and secure the right of way for a pipeline out of central Asia to screw the Russians.

By killing OBL Pres. Obama removed the last visible reason to be there for the masses.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote lovecraft:

Uh.... I meant American deaths. I believe it was that most Liberal Prez called Bush who started 2 wars and kept them off budget. I believe it was the same liberal who signed medicare Part D without a payment mechanism-he wouldn't be trying to BK Medicare would he? Liberals may spend-but not so much on war.

Iraq is over. We won. It was won by the Bush/McCain surge. Everybody knows that. Afghanistan is Obama's war. He has been fighting it for nearly four years. That is plenty of time to assume ownership. His original campaign promise was an "immediate withdrawl". Since he did not live up to his promise, it is his war. Who's war was Lybya?We spent a fortune dropping bombs on Libya. Who is sending special forces to Africa? Bombing Yemen? Is George Bush doing it from his couch? Liberals are spending a boat load on war. Time to stop living in the past.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-11/iraq-oil-output-beating-iran-ends-saddam-legacy.html

"Iraq, seeking to more than double oil output by 2015, is poised to overtake Iran as OPEC’s second- largest producer by the end of the year as sanctions hobble crude production in its Persian Gulf neighbor.

Iraq is pumping at the highest rate since Saddam Hussein seized power in 1979, supported by foreign investors such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP Plc (BP/) that are developing new fields and reworking older deposits. The country produced 3.03 million barrels a day in April, 7.7 percent more than in March, while Iranian production declined to 3.2 million barrels a day, according to an OPEC monthly report yesterday. Iraq’s output last exceeded Iran’s in 1988, when the countries ended their eight-year war, statistics compiled by BP show.

Since Hussein’s ouster, the government has awarded 15 oil and gas licenses to foreign companies, and 47 potential bidders have signed up for its next auction of exploration rights scheduled for May 30."

I'm so glad American troops died so Exxon and B/P could get oil. I sleep well at night knowing that those oil companies are paying their fair share of taxes to support the military incursions to provide their oil.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am

Anyone who voted for Obama the first time and plans to vote for him again, HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!

He ESCALLATED and EXPANDED OUR UNJUST WARS AND OCCUPATIONS, he escallated the unjust war on drugs, He LIED about closing Quantomano bay, HE LIED about ending those illegal WARS, our "freedoms" continue to decline under his rule, the POLICE STATE is still GROWING, HE EXPANDED FREE TRADE costing us even more jobs, the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT PRISON COMPLEX continues to grow putting more NON-CRIMINALS in prison, our infrastructure continues to crumble, The deficit continues to grow thanks to his extension of the BUSH tax cuts for the rich, and those DAM WARS AND OCCUPATIONS, he continues to rule AGAINST THE WILL OF WE THE WORKING PEOPLE, he does not deserve another term in the white house.

He is a very erudite and acomplished speaker and he fooled many people but I saw through his facade and put my worthless "vote" elsewhere. I will again not cast my "vote" for Obama and if there is NO progressive to vote FOR, I will not waste my "vote" on anyone.

I long ago stopped holding my nose and vote for the "lesser" of the two EVILS, your still voting for EVIL and I'm through with that.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson "

Our tree of "liberty" has been long ago cut down and burned, it's time to overthrow this corrupt government and the unsustainable, unjust capatilist system. One way or another, this corrupt, unjust,WARMONGERING country is doomed to collapse, it's just a matter of time.

Live free or die trying.

sheilach2's picture
sheilach2
Joined:
Sep. 28, 2010 10:34 am

Exactly Sheilach. The libs seem to want to focus on Iraq as if they can do somehting to change a war that is already over. Pointless. It's a done deal.

Afganistan Is Obama's was and the progressives are giving him a pass. (As you knew they would)

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Sheilach, do you think that Mittens Rmoney would be better, or worse?

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
Quote rigel1:

Exactly Sheilach. The libs seem to want to focus on Iraq as if they can do somehting to change a war that is already over. Pointless. It's a done deal.

Afganistan Is Obama's was and the progressives are giving him a pass. (As you knew they would)

Bull shit.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote lovecraft:

The Russians must be having a good laugh seeing how we have repeated their mistake.

We didn't repeat their mistake. An attack was launched on us from Afghanistan. We went to Afghanistan to kill the people who did it. We suceeded.Time to come home. We won.

How do you go somewhere to kill the people who attacked us when they blew themselves up? The Afghans did not attack us. We have a terrorist training camp in GA. The trainees went and commited genocide against the Guatemalan indigenous people, some also went on to slaughter nuns and priests in El Salvador, then next came Nicaragua. So did we kill them, did reagan commit genocide? Should shock and awe on GA be supported?

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The other way we're subsidizing Walmart...

Most of us know how taxpayers subsidize Walmart's low wages with billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, and other financial assistance for workers. But, did you know that we're also subsidizing the retail giant by paying the cost of their environmental destruction.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system