# So is Afghan now Obamas war?



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Since the announcement of the escalation of troops to afghanistan - has President Obama now claimed the war as his own?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

*So is Afgan now Obama's War?*​
No, I think it's something you throw over yourself when you want to take a nap in ther middle of the day.​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

You goof!!

War, Victory and Terror have been stricken from the dialog.

Get your Newspeak on!!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> *So is Afgan now Obama's War?*​
> No, I think it's something you throw over yourself when you want to take a nap in ther middle of the day.​


If I were a drummer, Peak would get an official rim shot for that pun!!! (Nice work!)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Haven't you been listening? Secretary of State Billary, when asked that question, has already said, "Well, you know, we were left with such a terrible mess in Afghanistan...!"


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

why is trying to stir up trouble so much hard work? jeeze......LOL


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> Haven't you been listening? Secretary of State Billary, when asked that question, has already said, "Well, you know, we were left with such a terrible mess in Afghanistan...!"


Are you saying they weren't left with a mess?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Are you saying they weren't left with a mess?


The mess Members of Congress have been approving and funding for the last 9 years??

The same ones who are now SOS, VP and POTUS??

Yeah, that mess!!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

He escalated the war once already, didn't he?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> He escalated the war once already, didn't he?


Obama isn't a "decider" like his predecessor, he's an "escalator!!"


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The mess Members of Congress have been approving and funding for the last 9 years??
> 
> The same ones who are now SOS, VP and POTUS??
> 
> Yeah, that mess!!


So that is a* YES*


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> He escalated the war once already, didn't he?


Escalated a war that was left by the side of the road to die, yes.

I think Obama owns this war now. But to suggest that it was going well in any way, shape or form before he took office is just being dishonest.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Obama fought very hard to acquire the sole, ultimate responsibility for all sorts of things, including the conduct of this latest illegal, undeclared war. 

If there's anything less attractive or appropriate in a so-called leader, it's bitching, moaning, and blaming others. Even when he doesn't do this himself, but through proxies, those supporters do not do their dear leader any service by engaging in said bitching, moaning and blame-casting on his behalf. 

Leadership is lonely, and often unfair. If he doesn't like it, he could always go back to being a community organizer.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Phinn said:


> If there's anything less attractive or appropriate in a so-called leader, it's bitching, moaning, and blaming others. Even when he doesn't do this himself, but through proxies, those supporters do not do their dear leader any service by engaging in said bitching, moaning and blame-casting on his behalf.


Whiners whine.

I don't expect them to change that once they get in power.

It's what they do!!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Whiners whine.
> 
> I don't expect them to change that once they get in power.
> 
> It's what they do!!


pikers compared to the old guard now out of power, they all could take lessons from the former VP


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> pikers compared to the old guard now out of power, they all could take lessons from the former VP


See??


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Whatever "his war" means, it's been his war since we was sworn in as President. It's not like W had the war secretly ready to go and between Obama being elected and sworn in they started a war. 

He had full disclosure going in and he spoke about the war in the campaign. At the latest it was "his war" after March 27th speech when he announced his first new strategy.

I don't think putting it on any one person is the point. It's "our war" and we need to realize that IMHO.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I don't think putting it on any one person is the point. It's "our war" and we need to realize that IMHO.


Completely agree.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

young guy said:


> why is trying to stir up trouble so much hard work? jeeze......LOL


So let me get this straight. You started this thread just to make trouble?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Jovan said:


> So let me get this straight. You started this thread just to make trouble?


for me LOL = just joking


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I don't think putting it on any one person is the point. It's "our war" and we need to realize that IMHO.


Agreed. Even in a pretend democracy the ultimate responsibility lies with those who allow this kind of thing to continue, and that's us.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

He'll never win a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE by escalating a war. Oh, wait.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

harvey_birdman said:


> Agreed. Even in a pretend democracy the ultimate responsibility lies with those who allow this kind of thing to continue, and that's us.


Why would you think the U.S. is a democracy - pretend, or otherwise? I assume you were trying to sound cynical and wise, but I think most people know that the U.S. is not, and was not, intended to be a democracy - not even a pretend democracy.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

ksinc said:


> I don't think putting it on any one person is the point. It's "our war" and we need to realize that IMHO.


I agree as well. I didn't vote for Obama, but I'm not going to take cheap political shots at the guy on this issue. Arguing that a "surge" will work as it allegedly did in Iraq stirkes me as naive - but time will tell. I also don't consider it "whining" for them to lay some blame at the Bush administration and to remind people who started this situation. We are in a bad situation there and the Bush administration did seem to neglect Afghanistan - although I tend to vote Republican, there's no sense in allowing the Republicans to hang this whole potential morass on Obama - he has inherited a difficult position.

That being said, I think Obama will soon prove himself to be "criminally" liable in his handling of economic matters.......


----------



## SeptemberSun (Aug 19, 2009)

Epaminondas said:


> Why would you think the U.S. is a democracy - pretend, or otherwise? I assume you were trying to sound cynical and wise, but I think most people know that the U.S. is not, and was not, intended to be a democracy - not even a pretend democracy.


True. The U.S. was and is a perceived polyarchy, several levels of development away from a polyarchy, eons away from representative democracy.

Any conflict where U.S. men and women are on the ground is _our _war.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

SeptemberSun said:


> True. The U.S. was and is a perceived polyarchy, several levels of development away from a polyarchy, eons away from representative democracy.
> 
> Any conflict where U.S. men and women are on the ground is _our _war.


Uh, since the term "polyarchy" wasn't conceived of at the time of the founding and was obviously developed by some impotent PhD soiling himself for a way to get published, it's doubtful the U.S. "was...[a] polyarchy" and it certainly wasn't intended to be, given that the assinine concept hadn't been developed yet- why don't you indulge me and give a working definition?

I always thought the U.S. was a Republic and that there was never an intent to make it a representative democracy - thank G_d.


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*bless you, sir!*



Peak and Pine said:


> *So is Afgan now Obama's War?*​ No, I think it's something you throw over yourself when you want to take a nap in ther middle of the day.​


26 million two-legged Afghans say thanks!

Parenthetically, when I lived in Peshawar, Pakistan in the 1980s, a local book dealer who tried to stock everything in print on the region ended up with a cellarful of paperbacks on knitting, entitled 'living with afghans.'


----------



## Maelwys (Feb 8, 2008)

For the OP: I agree that any war in which we are involved is OUR war, and is not exclusive to the President. We elected the person in office, whether you voted for him/her or not. Regardless of whether you believe in the policies of whomever holds the office, the office itself still deserves respect. I think we've long since lost sight of that.



Epaminondas said:


> I always thought the U.S. was a Republic and that there was never an intent to make it a representative democracy - thank G_d.


I think now you're simply getting caught into an argument of semantics and ignoring the slow but steady evolution that our society has taken over the last two centuries. In terms of semantics, a representative democracy is a form of republic. Republic simply means we have elected leadership. The people as a whole don't have to elect that leadership: when women and African Americans couldn't vote it was still a republic. Back when the colonies were held together by the Articles of Confederation it was definitely a republic - power was held and kept by a relative few. The Constitution paved the way for more people to become voting-class, and in time, our society has allowed more and more people to join that select group: Voting and Civil Rights Acts in 1964, and the Twenty Fourth and Twenty Sixth Amendments which removed poll taxes and lowered the voting age. Now, the voting pool is about as large as it can be without lowering the legal age further and we, as a people, elect nearly all government representatives. That, by definition, means we have, for better or worse, become a representative democracy, whether you believe you have been represented or not. To say what we were supposed to be is to ignore what we have become, which, in my opinion, is better than where we started in many ways.

Edit: The real argument against representative democracy isn't that we should be a republic, it's that the votes of the majority aren't really used to elect our officials. Given the amount of money that goes into campaigns and the widely varied feelings for or against voting related conspiracies, there is plenty of fodder here. But it's another argument altogether, and one that I'm not willing to tackle.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

turban1 said:


> 26 million two-legged Afghans say thanks!
> 
> Parenthetically, when I lived in Peshawar, Pakistan in the 1980s, a local book dealer who tried to stock everything in print on the region ended up with a cellarful of paperbacks on knitting, entitled 'living with afghans.'


LOL...now that really is funny! Thanks for sharing your experience with us.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I don't think putting it on any one person is the point.


Afghanistan is a war that had popular support, so I agree there. The quagmire in Iraq will always be known as Bush's War to me. Nobody was asking for that pointless war before that administration began with their prolonged campaign of misdirection and hysteria.

I'd say that if there is a bear on your property, eating your food, it's not your bear. Actively choose to feed the bear and it is now your bear, and you're stuck with it. Obama chose to feed the bear, so now it's his war. Sucker.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Afghanistan is a war that had popular support, so I agree there. The quagmire in Iraq will always be known as Bush's War to me. Nobody was asking for that pointless war before that administration began with their prolonged campaign of misdirection and hysteria.
> 
> I'd say that if there is a bear on your property, eating your food, it's not your bear. Actively choose to feed the bear and it is now your bear, and you're stuck with it. Obama chose to feed the bear, so now it's his war. Sucker.


That sounds like the good advice to "never get off the boat." :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Unfortunately, it's been his ever since he said that it was the "Good War" that we needed to be in, as opposed to the "Bad War" in Iraq.

Unfortunately for him, Bush won the "Bad War," and he's now stuck with the "Good War."

Let's see what Obama does with the "Good War," and whether he wins it or makes it into another Vietnam. 

Certainly, at this point he's in an utter quagmire and is looking rather feckless. Plus, he's lost that sense of gravitas.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I think Cheney is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. They left Afghanistan and went to Iraq for a reason (perhaps not the stated one) ... win-ability seems to be lower in afghanistan. No wonder they told Bush to declare "mission accomplished" as soon as the Taliban fell and move on to Saddam.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Afghanistan is a war that had popular support, so I agree there. The quagmire in Iraq will always be known as Bush's War to me. Nobody was asking for that pointless war before that administration began with their prolonged campaign of misdirection and hysteria.


I take it you've never seen the youtube videos documenting how manifestly false this is? Memories are so short these days.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*If Bush's ar was necessary, then up is down and black is white.*



PedanticTurkey said:


> I take it you've never seen the youtube videos documenting how manifestly false this is?


Balderdash. Ignoring the fact that anonymous vloggers are not the most reputable sources, I am unable to find such videos.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's freakin' video. Do you imagine that the voices are dubbed?


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

Beresford said:


> Unfortunately, it's been his ever since he said that it was the "Good War" that we needed to be in, as opposed to the "Bad War" in Iraq.
> 
> Unfortunately for him, Bush won the "Bad War," and he's now stuck with the "Good War."
> 
> ...


I am not sure what your intent is capitalizing "bad war" and good war, but I fully agree with the surface value of this post. Bush's war, Iraq, was widely derided, until nowadays, it scarcely makes the media. Iraq surely has its problems still, what with factionalism and insurgency, but by and large, violence is down, and more and more, electricity is up. Obama could not take credit for this war, and having pledged America to crushing those that attacked us, he could hardly play the role of the liberal pansy and flee Afghanistan using Iraq as an example. I wish another ten thousand went to Afghanistan, simply because I trust generals more than politicians when it comes to talking straight about what they want, but I feel with a 5000 troop pledge from NATO, 30,000 from America, _may_ get the job done.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Beresford said:


> Unfortunately for him, Bush won the "Bad War,"


If you think Bush won ANYTHING in Iraq, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I think Cheney is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. They left Afghanistan and went to Iraq for a reason (perhaps not the stated one) ... win-ability seems to be lower in afghanistan. No wonder they told Bush to declare "mission accomplished" as soon as the Taliban fell and move on to Saddam.


Your cronology is incorrect. Mission accomplished was declared_ after_ the invasion of Iraq, if you're referring to the infamous use of the phrase. Further clarification is needed also with your use of the pronoun _they_; it needs an antecedent, maybe two different ones. I'm not understanding your post; what is it meant to convey?​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Henry346 said:


> Iraq surely has its problems...but by and large, violence is down, and more and more, electricity is up.


Gee. Hadn't realized that. But you're right, violence actually _is_ down... compared to the previous years in which we blew up the country, killed ten of thousands of it's population, it's leader, it's economy and 4,000+ of our own. Still, electricity is up.
​


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Gee. Hadn't realized that. But you're right, violence actually _is_ down... compared to the previous years in which we *entered the country with high public support in both America and Iraq*, *watched ten of thousands of it's population* *kill each other attempting to kill us while protecting Iraqis and Americans alike*, *executed a notorious war criminal*, *(it's probably the case that Democratic economies work well in the long run)* and 4,000+ of our own *volunteer citizen soldiers (the sacrifice of which will be remembered in the future)*. Still, electricity *(an obvious symbol for infrastructure and reconstruction)* is up.
> ​


Fixed it for you


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Maybe so, but that public support eroded as the war progressed far past "mission accomplished" and the original reason we went started to get intentionally buried behind a lot of other "reasons." You can dress it up however you want, but the fact is that we strayed heavily from our objective of catching the 9/11 terrorists and have none of those much-talked-about WMDs to show for it.

Look, I know Saddam was a war criminal. He was as vile and disgusting as they come. But we can't play world police all the time. It just doesn't work.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> Haven't you been listening? Secretary of State Billary, when asked that question, has already said, "Well, you know, we were left with such a terrible mess in Afghanistan...!"


Yes, Obama and other high-ranking members of his administration have frequently mentioned the mess left by the previous administration.

Winston Churchill was left an even bigger mess by the Neville Chamberlain administration, but I don't recall hearing that Churchill spent 1940 complaining about it. He just got on with things.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Henry346 said:


> _Gee. Hadn't realized that. But you're right, violence actually is down... compared to the previous years in which we *entered the country with high public support in both America and Iraq*, *watched ten of thousands of it's population* *kill each other attempting to kill us while protecting Iraqis and Americans alike*, *executed a notorious war criminal*, *(it's probably the case that Democratic economies work well in the long run)* and 4,000+ of our own *volunteer citizen soldiers (the sacrifice of which will be remembered in the future)*. Still, electricity *(an obvious symbol for infrastructure and reconstruction)* is up_





> Fixed it for you


There really should be a rule against what you just did. I don't think it's funny and I don't think it's clever and I'm hoping a moderator or two will think likewise. Purposely destroying another's post is literary criminality. If you can't come up with a fresh post of your own, consider just shutting up. Spraying graffiti all over mine should not be an option. Even in the most vicious of exchanges I've had with other right wingers, we have never done that to each other. ​


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

If it doesn't go well for Obama he can always blame Fox News. LOL


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

rojo said:


> Yes, Obama and other high-ranking members of his administration have frequently mentioned the mess left by the previous administration.
> 
> Winston Churchill was left an even bigger mess by the Neville Chamberlain administration, but I don't recall hearing that Churchill spent 1940 complaining about it. He just got on with things.


I'm not sure you can compare the two. Churchill realized the nature of Nazism 10 years prior to becoming PM and spoke out against Hitler. Churchill also was dealing with Britain's survival against great odds, so bitching and moaning about Chamberlain would have been ridiculous. The US dilemma has not reached such proportions.

But just for the record, I am for the prosecution of the war.


----------

