Why doesn't Obama just end the war?

otterotter Posts: 769
edited December 2009 in A Moving Train
He could bring everybody home tomorrow :?:
I found my place......and it's alright
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    because money mongrels want war and they decide everything
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    probably the same reason bush didn't. why would you expect obama to end the war? he never said he would.
  • philthehipphilthehip Posts: 2,084
    America and Britain caused all the shit that is happening now so they got to stay and sort it out. Im against aggression in all forms but they have a moral obligation to stay.
  • Better DanBetter Dan Posts: 5,684
    philthehip wrote:
    America and Britain caused all the shit that is happening now so they got to stay and sort it out. Im against aggression in all forms but they have a moral obligation to stay.

    This. Obama won't/can't just pull out and let everything go to hell over there.
    2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
  • probably the same reason bush didn't. why would you expect obama to end the war? he never said he would.

    this as well
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Who exactly is it that is being fought over there?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • DeLukinDeLukin Posts: 2,757
    The power vacuum that pulling out creates will be filled by the Taliban, and Obama doesn't want to risk the perception that America is less safe now than when Bush was in office. He's playing it safe because he knows the Republicans would eat that up during the next election. I hate politics.
    I smile, but who am I kidding...
  • the main reason is that obama fundamentally agrees with Bush, cheney, rumsfeld and everyone else who started the war. He may not have agreed with the torture tactics and the secretive stuff, but obama has always openly supported the idea that there are people in the world who want to kill us, and that we need to hunt them down and kill them. I have said it probably 20 times on this board, but in 2002, on CSPAN, obama was interviewed, and he said, "I am not a pacifist, and I see North Korea and Syria and Iran as threats".

    Obama has plainly stated multiple times that he believes that the war on terror though flawed, is a worthwhile cause. He feels that his job or his mission is to "continue the war on terror with vigor", thats a direct quote from a newsweek interview.

    Obama believes just as bush did, that terrorism can be eradicated and erased and gotten rid of. He believes that bombs and bullets can end terrorism.

    So, obama wont just end the war. He never was going to.

    People hallucinate and project their own feelings onto politicians and thats sad. The main reason I didnt get caught up in the Obama fervor, was because I knew he was just another politician, and that far from being what we needed to balance out a radical right winger like Bush, Obama was not a radical left winger. In fact he isnt even radical or left wing at all. He is a centrist at best, maybe even a conservative democrat ala Bill Clinton.

    The bottom line is, Obama is under the impression, and its something he truly believes whole heartedly, that sending 18 year old poor kids, to die in some foreign land, is a worthwhile and justified cause and action.
  • philthehip wrote:
    America and Britain caused all the shit that is happening now so they got to stay and sort it out. Im against aggression in all forms but they have a moral obligation to stay.


    this is the same insane statement used in vietnam, and every other war since. Its this idea that, the war was wrong, and pointless and stupid, and its a quagmire, but, since we have this mythical "moral obligation" we need to stay, and get more of our soldiers killed, kill more iraqi civilians, and waste more money on a war that obviously is never going to be won, and is already lost. Thats the height of insanity.

    We have no moral obligation to the middle east. Each minute we stay there we lose more soldiers and kill more civilians. The moral obligation is to our soldiers. They belong with their families, in their own beds, safe and sound, not scared out of their minds in Iraq.

    The old statement about vietnam fits iraq as well, "how do we get out of Iraq?"...... well, we leave "on boats"
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    People hallucinate and project their own feelings onto politicians and thats sad. The main reason I didnt get caught up in the Obama fervor, was because I knew he was just another politician, and that far from being what we needed to balance out a radical right winger like Bush, Obama was not a radical left winger. In fact he isnt even radical or left wing at all. He is a centrist at best, maybe even a conservative democrat ala Bill Clinton.

    i would say that obama personally probably leans left of centre a bit ... but america is a corporation and the shareholders (ie the big corporations) like war so, there's not a whole lot he can do ... he's gotta act on behalf of those shareholders ...
  • polaris_x wrote:
    People hallucinate and project their own feelings onto politicians and thats sad. The main reason I didnt get caught up in the Obama fervor, was because I knew he was just another politician, and that far from being what we needed to balance out a radical right winger like Bush, Obama was not a radical left winger. In fact he isnt even radical or left wing at all. He is a centrist at best, maybe even a conservative democrat ala Bill Clinton.

    i would say that obama personally probably leans left of centre a bit ... but america is a corporation and the shareholders (ie the big corporations) like war so, there's not a whole lot he can do ... he's gotta act on behalf of those shareholders ...


    Left of center? Bailouts to multi billion dollar corporations. A foreign policy that views Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan as central fronts on the war on terrorism making him just as, if not more, militaristic than Bush, little to nothing done to help the common citizen in this economic depression, and little to nothing done about ending torture tactics or closing of gitmo, little to nothing done about race relations in the country, obama has not addressed race in a real way ala The Wire, and he has not engaged in serious discussion about the major actions needed to address global warming. Obama agrees with every right winger, in that, yes we may sometimes have trouble, or may lose our job, but we all need to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. How about abortion, or welfare?

    So, yeah.... I'm not seeing the left of center part. What I just described may fit for every other democrat in office currently, but that doesnt mean that these policies are in anyway left wing.
  • otterotter Posts: 769
    He did it! Obama just ended this War! He could have brought everybody back first maybe.

    That's it; it's over.

    9-11 was not an act of war it was American murder I guess.

    This is really something I think :!:
    I found my place......and it's alright
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    otter wrote:
    He did it! Obama just ended this War! He could have brought everybody back first maybe.

    That's it; it's over.

    9-11 was not an act of war it was American murder I guess.

    This is really something I think :!:
    ...
    Which one of our two wars are you talking about?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    otter wrote:
    He did it! Obama just ended this War! He could have brought everybody back first maybe.

    That's it; it's over.

    9-11 was not an act of war it was American murder I guess.

    This is really something I think :!:


    erm....ok...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    we trade a militant capitalist for a militant capitalist on election day....we don't change foreign policy. hasn't changed in 60 years.
  • philthehipphilthehip Posts: 2,084
    philthehip wrote:
    America and Britain caused all the shit that is happening now so they got to stay and sort it out. Im against aggression in all forms but they have a moral obligation to stay.


    this is the same insane statement used in vietnam, and every other war since. Its this idea that, the war was wrong, and pointless and stupid, and its a quagmire, but, since we have this mythical "moral obligation" we need to stay, and get more of our soldiers killed, kill more iraqi civilians, and waste more money on a war that obviously is never going to be won, and is already lost. Thats the height of insanity.

    We have no moral obligation to the middle east. Each minute we stay there we lose more soldiers and kill more civilians. The moral obligation is to our soldiers. They belong with their families, in their own beds, safe and sound, not scared out of their minds in Iraq.

    The old statement about vietnam fits iraq as well, "how do we get out of Iraq?"...... well, we leave "on boats"

    You could not be more wrong. The war was infact wrong but we do need to stay. We have a massive obbligation to the Middle East whether you accept it or not. Just for the record, I am a life long member of CND and just to further clarify, I lost my Brother in the first Gulf war so Im in no way a supporter of war. If we just leave now it will cost us big time in the future. The mess that America created in the 70s in Afghanistan came back to haunt them.

    I may upset a few people with this next statement but America needs to get a backbone and finish what they start instead of looking to get out once they have lost a few more men than they are comfortable with. America goes in and unbalances countries and then you think they should just leave and allow a corrupt power to take over. You are a terrorist nations wet dream...
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    philthehip wrote:
    philthehip wrote:
    America and Britain caused all the shit that is happening now so they got to stay and sort it out. Im against aggression in all forms but they have a moral obligation to stay.


    this is the same insane statement used in vietnam, and every other war since. Its this idea that, the war was wrong, and pointless and stupid, and its a quagmire, but, since we have this mythical "moral obligation" we need to stay, and get more of our soldiers killed, kill more iraqi civilians, and waste more money on a war that obviously is never going to be won, and is already lost. Thats the height of insanity.

    We have no moral obligation to the middle east. Each minute we stay there we lose more soldiers and kill more civilians. The moral obligation is to our soldiers. They belong with their families, in their own beds, safe and sound, not scared out of their minds in Iraq.

    The old statement about vietnam fits iraq as well, "how do we get out of Iraq?"...... well, we leave "on boats"

    You could not be more wrong. The war was infact wrong but we do need to stay. We have a massive obbligation to the Middle East whether you accept it or not. Just for the record, I am a life long member of CND and just to further clarify, I lost my Brother in the first Gulf war so Im in no way a supporter of war. If we just leave now it will cost us big time in the future. The mess that America created in the 70s in Afghanistan came back to haunt them.

    I may upset a few people with this next statement but America needs to get a backbone and finish what they start instead of looking to get out once they have lost a few more men than they are comfortable with. America goes in and unbalances countries and then you think they should just leave and allow a corrupt power to take over. You are a terrorist nations wet dream...

    i cant imagine losing a brother to any of this madness. i don't know what i'd do and i feel for you.


    its not as simple as saying fuck iraq, but we have killed tens of thousands of their people, (some say hundreds of thousnamds, some say millions) why the fuck is it up to us to decide the future of their country?


    shouldn't it be up to them?
  • philthehipphilthehip Posts: 2,084
    this is the same insane statement used in vietnam, and every other war since. Its this idea that, the war was wrong, and pointless and stupid, and its a quagmire, but, since we have this mythical "moral obligation" we need to stay, and get more of our soldiers killed, kill more iraqi civilians, and waste more money on a war that obviously is never going to be won, and is already lost. Thats the height of insanity.

    We have no moral obligation to the middle east. Each minute we stay there we lose more soldiers and kill more civilians. The moral obligation is to our soldiers. They belong with their families, in their own beds, safe and sound, not scared out of their minds in Iraq.

    The old statement about vietnam fits iraq as well, "how do we get out of Iraq?"...... well, we leave "on boats"[/quote]

    You could not be more wrong. The war was infact wrong but we do need to stay. We have a massive obbligation to the Middle East whether you accept it or not. Just for the record, I am a life long member of CND and just to further clarify, I lost my Brother in the first Gulf war so Im in no way a supporter of war. If we just leave now it will cost us big time in the future. The mess that America created in the 70s in Afghanistan came back to haunt them.

    I may upset a few people with this next statement but America needs to get a backbone and finish what they start instead of looking to get out once they have lost a few more men than they are comfortable with. America goes in and unbalances countries and then you think they should just leave and allow a corrupt power to take over. You are a terrorist nations wet dream...[/quote]

    i cant imagine losing a brother to any of this madness. i don't know what i'd do and i feel for you.


    its not as simple as saying fuck iraq, but we have killed tens of thousands of their people, (some say hundreds of thousnamds, some say millions) why the fuck is it up to us to decide the future of their country?


    shouldn't it be up to them?[/quote]

    You are totally right about it being upto them how to run Iraq, but we did not give them that option. If we pulled out now it not be long before some horrible tyrent took over. Can I please just step down slightly and say Im sorry for what sounded anti the USA. I love America and you guys on here are awsome. I was talking more about politics of both our countries and I should have made that clear.
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    polaris_x wrote:
    People hallucinate and project their own feelings onto politicians and thats sad. The main reason I didnt get caught up in the Obama fervor, was because I knew he was just another politician, and that far from being what we needed to balance out a radical right winger like Bush, Obama was not a radical left winger. In fact he isnt even radical or left wing at all. He is a centrist at best, maybe even a conservative democrat ala Bill Clinton.

    i would say that obama personally probably leans left of centre a bit ... but america is a corporation and the shareholders (ie the big corporations) like war so, there's not a whole lot he can do ... he's gotta act on behalf of those shareholders ...


    Left of center? Bailouts to multi billion dollar corporations. A foreign policy that views Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan as central fronts on the war on terrorism making him just as, if not more, militaristic than Bush, little to nothing done to help the common citizen in this economic depression, and little to nothing done about ending torture tactics or closing of gitmo, little to nothing done about race relations in the country, obama has not addressed race in a real way ala The Wire, and he has not engaged in serious discussion about the major actions needed to address global warming. Obama agrees with every right winger, in that, yes we may sometimes have trouble, or may lose our job, but we all need to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. How about abortion, or welfare?

    So, yeah.... I'm not seeing the left of center part. What I just described may fit for every other democrat in office currently, but that doesnt mean that these policies are in anyway left wing.


    i would say there have been positives made like funding to SCHIP, stem cell research....there are some more and while i don't think those as a whole come close to the hype of change we were told we could believe in in comparison to what he has given in on or done absolutely nothing towards i'd say that is left of center, some i'd say is not left/right but just common sense.

    so yeah, when you take into all his actions or inactions i'd say he's a centrist but on certain things he would be left of that

    can we really say being militaristic is a mentality of the right anymore? seems like an awful lot of what we call the left thinks the same way. as Polaris said, regardless of party they need to use their power and influence to repay their shareholders and investors; the corporations
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    DeLukin wrote:
    The power vacuum that pulling out creates will be filled by the Taliban, and Obama doesn't want to risk the perception that America is less safe now than when Bush was in office. He's playing it safe because he knows the Republicans would eat that up during the next election. I hate politics.


    why do people automatically equate pulling our troops out as abandoning Iraq?

    HR508 the Bring Our Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act
    authored by Congresswomen Lee, Waters and Woolsey

    -a FULLY FUNDED withdrawal of our forces within 6 months of enactment (i bolded the fully funded part to avoid the cries of 'throwing our troops under the bus')
    -accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces (because clearly they weren't ready)
    -create an international stabilization force which would stay for ONLY 2 years and ONLY at the request of the Iraqi government
    -provide funding and resources for a safe withdrawal and whatever the troops need to get home but nothing towards prolonging or escalating the war
    -humanitarian aid and investments in it's physical and economic infrastructure because "pulling our troops out of Iraq does not mean abandoning Iraq."
    -no military bases built
    -gives up claim to Iraqi oil, Iraq belongs to the Iraqis as does their resources
    -full health care funding, including mental health benefits, for US soldiers who fought in these or any wars
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    polaris_x wrote:
    People hallucinate and project their own feelings onto politicians and thats sad. The main reason I didnt get caught up in the Obama fervor, was because I knew he was just another politician, and that far from being what we needed to balance out a radical right winger like Bush, Obama was not a radical left winger. In fact he isnt even radical or left wing at all. He is a centrist at best, maybe even a conservative democrat ala Bill Clinton.

    i would say that obama personally probably leans left of centre a bit ... but america is a corporation and the shareholders (ie the big corporations) like war so, there's not a whole lot he can do ... he's gotta act on behalf of those shareholders ...

    sorry, but leans left of center a bit? :lol:
  • tinkerbelltinkerbell New Zealand Posts: 2,161
    why do people automatically equate pulling our troops out as abandoning Iraq?

    HR508 the Bring Our Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act
    authored by Congresswomen Lee, Waters and Woolsey

    -a FULLY FUNDED withdrawal of our forces within 6 months of enactment (i bolded the fully funded part to avoid the cries of 'throwing our troops under the bus')
    -accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces (because clearly they weren't ready)
    -create an international stabilization force which would stay for ONLY 2 years and ONLY at the request of the Iraqi government
    -provide funding and resources for a safe withdrawal and whatever the troops need to get home but nothing towards prolonging or escalating the war
    -humanitarian aid and investments in it's physical and economic infrastructure because "pulling our troops out of Iraq does not mean abandoning Iraq."
    -no military bases built
    -gives up claim to Iraqi oil, Iraq belongs to the Iraqis as does their resources
    -full health care funding, including mental health benefits, for US soldiers who fought in these or any wars

    :clap::clap:


    How many billions or is it trillions of dollars have been spent on liberating the Iraqi and Afgani people when as the largest first world country the USA has hugely high levels of poverty and a below par health and education system!!!
    all you need is love, love is all you need
  • polaris_x wrote:
    People hallucinate and project their own feelings onto politicians and thats sad. The main reason I didnt get caught up in the Obama fervor, was because I knew he was just another politician, and that far from being what we needed to balance out a radical right winger like Bush, Obama was not a radical left winger. In fact he isnt even radical or left wing at all. He is a centrist at best, maybe even a conservative democrat ala Bill Clinton.

    i would say that obama personally probably leans left of centre a bit ... but america is a corporation and the shareholders (ie the big corporations) like war so, there's not a whole lot he can do ... he's gotta act on behalf of those shareholders ...

    I agree. I will take it a step further though. The World is a business that tries to be our puppetmasters. It is an illusion to think that Obama or any president could just end this war or start one for that matter. There is too much money to be made. We are getting screwed by politics and it sickens me. The biggest problems in Washington are Democrats and Republicans. They make us feel as if we have a choice on matters. Yes, we can vote for whomever we choose. But who do we have to choose from? And how much do we agree with the candidate we vote for? It sucks to choose somebody just because they are the least of the worst possible candidates. We are boxed in everywhere we look. These big shots don't give a hoot about anybody but their inner circles and their own interests. Obama has never and it looks as though will never be any different.
    TDR
  • philthehip wrote:
    America and Britain caused all the shit that is happening now so they got to stay and sort it out. Im against aggression in all forms but they have a moral obligation to stay.

    Whatever. Those areas were a disaster before this war. If the people don't want to be liberated, we must leave. We can support and aid them in other ways. I say leave now. Just do it. We can't change the past.
    TDR
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    otter wrote:
    He could bring everybody home tomorrow :?:
    answer: temporizing

    (see Machiavelli Discourses of Livy Book 1 Chapter 33)

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Discourse ... rs_XXXI-XL
  • philthehipphilthehip Posts: 2,084
    philthehip wrote:
    America and Britain caused all the shit that is happening now so they got to stay and sort it out. Im against aggression in all forms but they have a moral obligation to stay.

    Whatever. Those areas were a disaster before this war. If the people don't want to be liberated, we must leave. We can support and aid them in other ways. I say leave now. Just do it. We can't change the past.

    We have helped over the course of the last 50 years to destroy the Middle East. We are as much to blame for it as those countries themselves.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    Whatever. Those areas were a disaster before this war. If the people don't want to be liberated, we must leave. We can support and aid them in other ways. I say leave now. Just do it. We can't change the past.
    who said they don't want to be liberated?



    they've been resisting foreign occupation since the invasion.
  • couse people help him to take the chair want the war to continue
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • Is the gas or oil line built yet? Oh that is why the troops aren't home yet. If money won't allow an uniterupted flow of liquid, the powers that be must think that man power can.

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • The fact remains that every single United States president since WWI with the exception of Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson subscribes to the theory of Realism. They believe that other governments that hate us are dangerous and that the world is a ruthless scene to rule a state. In Obama's mind if we leave Afghanistan then we leave and give way to a government who hates us, treats its people poorly, and may either attack us or support terrorists who will attack us. Also if America leaves Iraq we will be throwing off the most important principle in the eyes of a Realist, Balance of Power Politics. With U.S. withdrawal the Middle East balance of power could shift in a way that is very unfavorable to the United States if nations like Iran and Afghanistan got their ways. This would lead to security problems for Israel and most importantly cause the greatest economic problem that the United States could face, shortage or expensive oil. If oil was not made available to the United States, or was made available at very high costs the U.S. economy would collapse, the whole system would collapse because oil is what makes the system go. Now say what you will that the Bush fought this war for oil, but lets keep in mind that Obama is too, they both subscribe to Realism and that is concerned with the balance of power that keeps the U.S. on top, and in the end oil is what is king for our economy. So that is one line of thinking, and one that i am more than confident goes through Obama's mind, of why not to just end the war.


    *Edited to fix a spelling error or two*
    "Change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks"
Sign In or Register to comment.