Why doesn't Obama just end the war?

OnTheEdge

polaris_x wrote:

musicismylife78 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?

tinkerbell

Pepe Silvia wrote:

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!!!

hollow bottle

polaris_x wrote:

musicismylife78 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.

hollow bottle

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.

fuck

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

philthehip

hollow bottle 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.

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.

Commy

hollow bottle wrote:

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.

dimitrispearljam

couse people help him to take the chair want the war to continue

even flow - question mark

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.

Dissident67

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*

Commy

Dissident67 wrote:

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*

The middle east and afghanistan pose no threat to the US or Israel, that's ridiculous. its a pretext, to hide their agendas.


they have resources.....iraq with its oil and afganistan with its its heroine, and they can cut an oil pipeline thru kandahar that will cut the iranians out of the european market. its going to destroy their economy.

these are strategic aquisitions in the game of empire.

OffHeGoes29

Dissident67 wrote:

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*

Good post

fuck

Dissident67 wrote:

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.

I'm going to stop your post here because you have no true grasp of what the theory of Realism actually is, and I base my assessment on the rest of your post which I have edited out.

Also, here is an article written by Professor John Mearsheimer who teaches at my school. He is the leading scholar on the theory of Realism, yet he writes that the US "should accept defeat and immediately withdraw from Afghanistan." Interesting how the leading scholar on Realism, by your logic, does not "subscribe to the theory of Realism."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/node/68820?page=full

Eliot Rosewater

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.

I could not disagree more. They have a moral obligation to leave. It's insane. Really. Insane. Study after study after study shows that BEING THERE is either A) The Problem or Increasing the problems. On top of that, these hostiles have TOLD US WHY THEY ARE HOSTILE! BECAUSE WE ARE THERE! Imagine that! It's that simple. Get the fuck out. Now. Today.

Obama won't get out because he is first and foremost a greedy, self-righteous, money-grubbing crook and sorry excuse of a human. Just like Bush, just like anyone else the idiotic American people elect. The standards of becoming a U.S. politician have become absolutely ridiculous. No morals, no character, no integrity, no human decency.

I've come to believe that you should have to pass a test to be able to vote. Maybe you have to get past the first question or two on Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader. Idiots vote in idiots and crooks. Just because you are 18 shouldn't give you the privilege of making such serious decisions. Some sort of logic and/or IQ test and/or common sense test should have to be passed in order to vote.

tinkerbell

Eliot Rosewater 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.

I could not disagree more. They have a moral obligation to leave. It's insane. Really. Insane. Study after study after study shows that BEING THERE is either A) The Problem or Increasing the problems. On top of that, these hostiles have TOLD US WHY THEY ARE HOSTILE! BECAUSE WE ARE THERE! Imagine that! It's that simple. Get the fuck out. Now. Today.

Obama won't get out because he is first and foremost a greedy, self-righteous, money-grubbing crook and sorry excuse of a human. Just like Bush, just like anyone else the idiotic American people elect. The standards of becoming a U.S. politician have become absolutely ridiculous. No morals, no character, no integrity, no human decency.

I've come to believe that you should have to pass a test to be able to vote. Maybe you have to get past the first question or two on Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader. Idiots vote in idiots and crooks. Just because you are 18 shouldn't give you the privilege of making such serious decisions. Some sort of logic and/or IQ test and/or common sense test should have to be passed in order to vote.

Seriously!!!! DEMOCRACY means all not just those that intellictual snobs think have high enough IQ's. Real education is the key. Limit the amount of advertising a politician is allowed so that those uneducated don't just vote for the face they have seen on TV. Have true debates that address all the issues not just the preassigned topics that have been pre-approved! I could go on for days... Unfortunately there will always be morons out there who don't understand the implications of voting for the popular or norm, but they do and should have the right to vote just as much as 'those smart college types'!!!!!

Eliot Rosewater

Yes, I agree, tink. Obviously my suggestion was extreme. And I think it would be much better if the end result were more educated voters rather than simply less voters. I've just kinda lost hope. Can I use that word still? Or has Obama already tainted it? Either way, he along with most all other politicians have tainted my hope in the Americans. It is beyond pathetic.

So yes, anyone and everyone should be allowed to run for office, regardless of campaign finances. Elections should be publicly funded ONLY. No private donations, no sleeping with killer food or drug companies. That much is obvious. Yet I'm sure there is someone out there with strong conviction that what I'm typing is crazy.

tinkerbell

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Yes, I agree, tink. Obviously my suggestion was extreme. And I think it would be much better if the end result were more educated voters rather than simply less voters. I've just kinda lost hope. Can I use that word still? Or has Obama already tainted it? Either way, he along with most all other politicians have tainted my hope in the Americans. It is beyond pathetic.

So yes, anyone and everyone should be allowed to run for office, regardless of campaign finances. Elections should be publicly funded ONLY. No private donations, no sleeping with killer food or drug companies. That much is obvious. Yet I'm sure there is someone out there with strong conviction that what I'm typing is crazy.

Thats more like it

Pepe Silvia

tinkerbell wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Yes, I agree, tink. Obviously my suggestion was extreme. And I think it would be much better if the end result were more educated voters rather than simply less voters. I've just kinda lost hope. Can I use that word still? Or has Obama already tainted it? Either way, he along with most all other politicians have tainted my hope in the Americans. It is beyond pathetic.

So yes, anyone and everyone should be allowed to run for office, regardless of campaign finances. Elections should be publicly funded ONLY. No private donations, no sleeping with killer food or drug companies. That much is obvious. Yet I'm sure there is someone out there with strong conviction that what I'm typing is crazy.

Thats more like it

not just less advertising and money in general being involved but there should be open and honest debates, especially in the presidential cycle. as it is now it's controlled by former chairs of the 2 parties and other partisan hacks, the debates are pretty much infomercials where the 2 parties and corporations influence and decide what is asked, who is allowed to participate, there's no real debate going on

Eliot Rosewater

Which brings us back to the OP's question.

And the answer? Because Obama is crooked as hell. Just like probably 99% of politicians.

dimitrispearljam

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Which brings us back to the OP's question.

And the answer? Because Obama is crooked as hell. Just like probably 99% of politicians.

exactly true