ah, so it's your assumption? this explains everything.
is it even remotely possible that he was referring to 'war on terror' in general, drug war sense? in the sense that he espouses a comprehensive policy designed to reduce terrorism through prevention, security, eliminating the policies that encourage it, etc? that even if he is in favor of more action in afghanistan (aka cleaning up the mess we left when we left those people hanging and finding the guy we were supposed to be getting 7 years ago), that it does not mean he wants more war, but rather to get out of the ridiculous one we are in in iraq, avoid future unnecessary wars in iran or elsewhere, finish the war we started in afghan, and the nature of the war on terror to something that might actually work?
Where did I say he wouldn't avoid future unnecessary wars? You just agreed with me. I said ONE thing, and that was Afghanistan. Whether you want to call it "finish the war" in Afghanistan or "continue it" it's the same fucking thing.
And God forbid we leave those poor defenseless Afghanis alone. It's enough we already killed many of their people, we have to return and finish the job now!
Of course it's what I'm doing. I'm taking the fact that he said "continue the war on terrorism" and changing it to... what exactly? As far as I know, continuing a war doesn't mean having a barbecue... and I haven't "changed" anything he said or taken anything out of context. He's been talking about Afghanistan for ages.
by your implication, changing it to mean that obama is looking to invade any country he doesnt like and triple military action around the globe. he's been talking about afghan as a contrast to iraq... a country that truly did harbor and support terrorism that we forgot about becos we were distracted by iraq. continuing the war on terror means we dont start stupid wars that have nothing to do with terror (iraq) becos it means that when we are confronted with terror (afghan) we aren't equipped to do anything about it (what ever happened to bin laden?).
you are casting the fact that obama thinks we dropped the ball on afghan as evidence that he is napoleon. don't be absurd.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
Where did I say he wouldn't avoid future unnecessary wars? You just agreed with me. I said ONE thing, and that was Afghanistan. Whether you want to call it "finish the war" in Afghanistan or "continue it" it's the same fucking thing.
And God forbid we leave those poor defenseless Afghanis alone. It's enough we already killed many of their people, we have to return and finish the job now!
:rolleyes:
better us than the warlords that currently run the place by charging money to terrorist training camps. we made their mess in the 1970's, we owe it to them to give them their country back. at least we aren't targeting civilians and will build them a city hall when something goes awry. certainly beats what the warlords we armed and funded are doing to them.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
by your implication, changing it to mean that obama is looking to invade any country he doesnt like and triple military action around the globe. he's been talking about afghan as a contrast to iraq... a country that truly did harbor and support terrorism that we forgot about becos we were distracted by iraq. continuing the war on terror means we dont start stupid wars that have nothing to do with terror (iraq) becos it means that when we are confronted with terror (afghan) we aren't equipped to do anything about it (what ever happened to bin laden?).
Uhh...
what are you talking about? I never said anything about invading any country. I said this:
we ought to just nuke the whole [Middle East] and tell the christians, jews, and muslims to suck it up and find holy places in their own strongholds and stop fucking up the world becos 900 years ago somebody supposedly took a shit somewhere and marked it as holy.
better us than the warlords that currently run the place by charging money to terrorist training camps. we made their mess in the 1970's, we owe it to them to give them their country back. at least we aren't targeting civilians and will build them a city hall when something goes awry. certainly beats what the warlords we armed and funded are doing to them.
We also weren't "targeting civilians" in Iraq. I wonder, what happened to those 1 million Iraqis who were killed? Maybe the world just opened up and swallowed them.
We also weren't "targeting civilians" in Iraq. I wonder, what happened to those 1 million Iraqis who were killed? Maybe the world just opened up and swallowed them.
maybe we shouldn't have been there in the first place. that's the point. iraq and afrghanistan are two totally different situations.
but you prove my point. this is exactly why i didnt believe you were "only talking about afghan." your type always have the second line there... that all wars are the same and eventually it will always come back to iraq.
you claim that obama's quote was obviously about afghanistan, becos he has talked about afghanistan in the past. but you show no proof that is what he was talking about, and then when challenged you start talking about iraq.
let's stop the smokescreens. the reason this comment bothers you is becos you take it as evidence that he's just like dubya and has no problem starting wars when and where he pleases. you've been hooked and sunk like everyone else. iraq was a mistake and anyone who denies it is a moron. but that doesn't mean any exercise of military force is per se wrong, evil, misguided, or hawkishness. we were in afghan long before iraq and rightly so. obama talking about afghan is simply showing that he understands the difference between necessary and unnecessary conflicts and he wants to get our military back to focusing on real terrorism, not settling old scores or making oil-rich land grabs.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
iraq and afrghanistan are two totally different situations.
Question....are they? if so....how so?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
maybe we shouldn't have been there in the first place. that's the point. iraq and afrghanistan are two totally different situations.
but you prove my point. this is exactly why i didnt believe you were "only talking about afghan." your type always have the second line there... that all wars are the same and eventually it will always come back to iraq.
My type? what are you talking about? How is any war different from the other? Just because you think it's a "necessary" war in Afghanistan, thousands and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians won't die?
you claim that obama's quote was obviously about afghanistan, becos he has talked about afghanistan in the past. but you show no proof that is what he was talking about, and then when challenged you start talking about iraq.
When challenged I talk about Iraq...
have you even read my posts? I didn't claim it was OBVIOUSLY about Afghanistan. I said:
Well, of course I could be wrong. Still, I don't think my assumption that he was talking about Afghanistan - saying the same thing he's been saying the whole time - is far off.
And I brought up Iraq to mention the innocent civilians that always die in these wars. Obama has repeatedly said the EXACT same statements of "continuing the war on terror" IN AFGHANISTAN. My assumption is probably so close to home, it's not even funny.
let's stop the smokescreens. the reason this comment bothers you is becos you take it as evidence that he's just like dubya and has no problem starting wars when and where he pleases. you've been hooked and sunk like everyone else. iraq was a mistake and anyone who denies it is a moron. but that doesn't mean any exercise of military force is per se wrong, evil, misguided, or hawkishness.
why do people always just come off and tell me what I think? he's not just like Bush, and I never said he has no problem starting wars. He has said he doesn't have a problem keeping military options on the table, and that upsets me. And he said he would continue the war in Afghanistan and that upsets me.
we were in afghan long before iraq and rightly so. obama talking about afghan is simply showing that he understands the difference between necessary and unnecessary conflicts and he wants to get our military back to focusing on real terrorism, not settling old scores or making oil-rich land grabs.
You're always ignoring civilians living in these areas. And what's hypocritical is that 9/11 is a tragedy here, but the war on Afghanistan is "necessary"...
EDIT: oh, also, smart job ignoring my previous post.
Iraq at one point was experiencing a 9/11 *per day* of life lost for months and months.
That was necessary yet inadequate levels of death apparently.
It seems 9/11 will never be vindicated....only further justified.....
What is it 1000 lives for every person who died in the WTC towers?
I dunno....a 1000.... Is that a high enough number to feel better about it? to "win"?
Maybe 10,000 lives per person will compensate?
maybe it's never enough.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Maybe it'll always be about the ugliness and violence that goes denied in the human heart, and that as we deny it, we project it blindly outward onto others....
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
well what's the current exchange rate per american? 1 America male = 6.000 Iraqi male.. 23 children, a puppy and some hummus....I think
Or 1 Big Mac = a small iraqi or afghan Village.
Oh c'mon at least throw in a small fry on the Afghan village thing.
LOL...a puppy...and some humus...
oh man...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
My type? what are you talking about? How is any war different from the other? Just because you think it's a "necessary" war in Afghanistan, thousands and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians won't die?.
becos afghan had direct clear ties to terrorist activity. the war was fairly presented to and supported by the american people AND the international community as a legitimate effort to capture and hold accountable those responsible for 9/11 and other acts of terrorism around the globe. it did have some potential to disturb international terrorist networks and break their hold on the country's government.
iraq was and always has been a straw man. it was sold to the american people based on deception and misinformation. nobody seems to know what the goal or purpose of the invasion was and it changes based on the political backlash. iraq had no serious ties to terrorism and the war was never subject to serious analysis of motives and possible outcome.
let's be real here and see if you can give me a straight answer to this question without dodging things. if you were Pres for a day and were given congressional approval to end one of the two wars tomorrow, which would it be? iraq or afghan?
And I brought up Iraq to mention the innocent civilians that always die in these wars. Obama has repeatedly said the EXACT same statements of "continuing the war on terror" IN AFGHANISTAN. My assumption is probably so close to home, it's not even funny.
He has said he doesn't have a problem keeping military options on the table, and that upsets me. And he said he would continue the war in Afghanistan and that upsets me..
i have no idea what point you're trying to make. you claim you're not saying obama's pro-war, then talk about how upset you are that he's willing to wage war. you claim you know his comments were only about afghan, but all your comments and fears and evidence revolve around him keeping war on the table generally or the general badness of war as shown by citizen deaths in iraq.
this leads me to believe i was spot on, and that the reason this comment bothers you is becos obama is willing to consider all options, including war. it has nothing to do with these particular comments and is all about the fact that you dislike anyone who is willing to wage war ever. the only reason this particular comment spawned a thread is becos, taken out of context, it makes a really good alarmist subject to paint obama as pro-war.
becos afghan had direct clear ties to terrorist activity. the war was fairly presented to and supported by the american people AND the international community as a legitimate effort to capture and hold accountable those responsible for 9/11 and other acts of terrorism around the globe. it did have some potential to disturb international terrorist networks and break their hold on the country's government.
iraq was and always has been a straw man. it was sold to the american people based on deception and misinformation. nobody seems to know what the goal or purpose of the invasion was and it changes based on the political backlash. iraq had no serious ties to terrorism and the war was never subject to serious analysis of motives and possible outcome.
let's be real here and see if you can give me a straight answer to this question without dodging things. if you were Pres for a day and were given congressional approval to end one of the two wars tomorrow, which would it be? iraq or afghan?
You have 2 paragraphs that are just history lessons I already know, with a biased point of view obviously. Unrelated. Still, why is it that Obama can only end 1 war? Why can't he end 2?
i have no idea what point you're trying to make. you claim you're not saying obama's pro-war, then talk about how upset you are that he's willing to wage war.
I love it when an Obama supporter dissects his speeches so much, but completely ignores how anyone else says anything. I'm not saying Obama is going to start wars just cause he feels like it (as you insinuated I did), but I'm upset that he's keeping MILITARY OPTIONS on the table, such as with Iran.
you claim you know his comments were only about afghan, but all your comments and fears and evidence revolve around him keeping war on the table generally or the general badness of war as shown by citizen deaths in iraq.
I made an assumption, I didn't claim to know anything. I even said I could be wrong. Why is it so hard for you to understand that?
Yes, I'm against war, which includes the war in Afghanistan. You act like they're unrelated.
this leads me to believe i was spot on, and that the reason this comment bothers you is becos obama is willing to consider all options, including war.
He's not considering all options here, clearly. He's simply continuing the war. Not only that, but yes, I am angry that he lives military options on the table when:
1) we are not in a right state to be going to more wars.
2) we are threatening countries with war, who either don't threaten us back, or can be dealt with in a diplomatic way with NO military option.
it has nothing to do with these particular comments and is all about the fact that you dislike anyone who is willing to wage war ever. the only reason this particular comment spawned a thread is becos, taken out of context, it makes a really good alarmist subject to paint obama as pro-war.
No one painted Obama as pro-war. You have made no logical points in all your posts. The only thing you do is accuse people who don't like Obama with ridiculous statements. This comment can't be taken out of context. Continuing a war is continuing a war whether you like it or not.
i answered any legitimate point you made in that post. unless you were hoping for a pissing match over my comments on a totally unrelated topic.
you seem to just ignore my quote where all I mentioned was the war in Afghanistan and that I said I don't think my assumption is far off, but I could be wrong. However, I'm pretty sure Obama is referring to the war in Afghanistan, and I disagree with it. Why can't you get that?
At the least, this strategic demonizing of some, and the effective manipulation of people, into polarized camps against the "evil" out there, to the benefit of some, and at potential and actual cost to very, very many, is nefarious and will reap consequences for many years to come. It opens the door to the justification of...well, almost anything.
Which brings me back to the psychological principle of the foot in the door. When we get people to agree to small steps in one direction, it opens the door to getting them totally on board with large and ludicrous steps they'd never ever have agreed with upfront. It's a conditioning of sorts. And the people follow along as .. expected. It's human nature. Just as it's human nature for a minority to notice this as it plays out....
Or if you wanted to look at it another way - a for more conspiracy theorist way - you could look at it as the door in the face technique. The way the race is presented... On one hand, we can give you JOHN MCCAIN - war hero, war-mongering and Bush-suckling Republican... or on the other hand, BARRACK OBAMA, who's very similar, just slightly more polite about it.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Or if you wanted to look at it another way - a for more conspiracy theorist way - you could look at it as the door in the face technique. The way the race is presented... On one hand, we can give you JOHN MCCAIN - war hero, war-mongering and Bush-suckling Republican... or on the other hand, BARRACK OBAMA, who's very similar, just slightly more polite about it.
Yes. And politeness can carry one far....even if one is ... very similar to a Bush-suckling war-monger.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
At the least, this strategic demonizing of some, and the effective manipulation of people, into polarized camps against the "evil" out there, to the benefit of some, and at potential and actual cost to very, very many, is nefarious and will reap consequences for many years to come. It opens the door to the justification of...well, almost anything.
Which brings me back to the psychological principle of the foot in the door. When we get people to agree to small steps in one direction, it opens the door to getting them totally on board with large and ludicrous steps they'd never ever have agreed with upfront. It's a conditioning of sorts. And the people follow along as .. expected. It's human nature. Just as it's human nature for a minority to notice this as it plays out....
fighting and killing are also human nature, and no amount of hippy psychobabble about being enlightened is going to stop it. but im happy for you being in that elite minority that is so much more perceptive than the rest of us. got to be good for the ego.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
You have 2 paragraphs that are just history lessons I already know, with a biased point of view obviously. Unrelated. Still, why is it that Obama can only end 1 war? Why can't he end 2?
I love it when an Obama supporter dissects his speeches so much, but completely ignores how anyone else says anything. I'm not saying Obama is going to start wars just cause he feels like it (as you insinuated I did), but I'm upset that he's keeping MILITARY OPTIONS on the table, such as with Iran.
I made an assumption, I didn't claim to know anything. I even said I could be wrong. Why is it so hard for you to understand that?
Yes, I'm against war, which includes the war in Afghanistan. You act like they're unrelated.
He's not considering all options here, clearly. He's simply continuing the war. Not only that, but yes, I am angry that he lives military options on the table when:
1) we are not in a right state to be going to more wars.
2) we are threatening countries with war, who either don't threaten us back, or can be dealt with in a diplomatic way with NO military option.
No one painted Obama as pro-war. You have made no logical points in all your posts. The only thing you do is accuse people who don't like Obama with ridiculous statements. This comment can't be taken out of context. Continuing a war is continuing a war whether you like it or not.
you seem to just ignore my quote where all I mentioned was the war in Afghanistan and that I said I don't think my assumption is far off, but I could be wrong. However, I'm pretty sure Obama is referring to the war in Afghanistan, and I disagree with it. Why can't you get that?
i think i owe you an apology. i just now realized you didnt start this thread and someone else did. and i was more reacting to your comments as related to the original post.
let my folly be a lesson to all about the importance of... you guess it... understanding context.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
fighting and killing are also human nature, and no amount of hippy psychobabble about being enlightened is going to stop it. but im happy for you being in that elite minority that is so much more perceptive than the rest of us. got to be good for the ego.
If you consider the minority that sees beyond the chaos to be elite, so be it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
And God forbid we leave those poor defenseless Afghanis alone. It's enough we already killed many of their people, we have to return and finish the job now!
:rolleyes:
by your implication, changing it to mean that obama is looking to invade any country he doesnt like and triple military action around the globe. he's been talking about afghan as a contrast to iraq... a country that truly did harbor and support terrorism that we forgot about becos we were distracted by iraq. continuing the war on terror means we dont start stupid wars that have nothing to do with terror (iraq) becos it means that when we are confronted with terror (afghan) we aren't equipped to do anything about it (what ever happened to bin laden?).
you are casting the fact that obama thinks we dropped the ball on afghan as evidence that he is napoleon. don't be absurd.
Denny Crane!
better us than the warlords that currently run the place by charging money to terrorist training camps. we made their mess in the 1970's, we owe it to them to give them their country back. at least we aren't targeting civilians and will build them a city hall when something goes awry. certainly beats what the warlords we armed and funded are doing to them.
Denny Crane!
what are you talking about? I never said anything about invading any country. I said this:
Although.... I don't know why I'm debating with someone who says things like:
:rolleyes:
I can't help it, I was born this way.
maybe we shouldn't have been there in the first place. that's the point. iraq and afrghanistan are two totally different situations.
but you prove my point. this is exactly why i didnt believe you were "only talking about afghan." your type always have the second line there... that all wars are the same and eventually it will always come back to iraq.
you claim that obama's quote was obviously about afghanistan, becos he has talked about afghanistan in the past. but you show no proof that is what he was talking about, and then when challenged you start talking about iraq.
let's stop the smokescreens. the reason this comment bothers you is becos you take it as evidence that he's just like dubya and has no problem starting wars when and where he pleases. you've been hooked and sunk like everyone else. iraq was a mistake and anyone who denies it is a moron. but that doesn't mean any exercise of military force is per se wrong, evil, misguided, or hawkishness. we were in afghan long before iraq and rightly so. obama talking about afghan is simply showing that he understands the difference between necessary and unnecessary conflicts and he wants to get our military back to focusing on real terrorism, not settling old scores or making oil-rich land grabs.
Denny Crane!
Question....are they? if so....how so?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
When challenged I talk about Iraq...
have you even read my posts? I didn't claim it was OBVIOUSLY about Afghanistan. I said: And I brought up Iraq to mention the innocent civilians that always die in these wars. Obama has repeatedly said the EXACT same statements of "continuing the war on terror" IN AFGHANISTAN. My assumption is probably so close to home, it's not even funny.
why do people always just come off and tell me what I think? he's not just like Bush, and I never said he has no problem starting wars. He has said he doesn't have a problem keeping military options on the table, and that upsets me. And he said he would continue the war in Afghanistan and that upsets me.
You're always ignoring civilians living in these areas. And what's hypocritical is that 9/11 is a tragedy here, but the war on Afghanistan is "necessary"...
EDIT: oh, also, smart job ignoring my previous post.
That was necessary yet inadequate levels of death apparently.
It seems 9/11 will never be vindicated....only further justified.....
What is it 1000 lives for every person who died in the WTC towers?
I dunno....a 1000.... Is that a high enough number to feel better about it? to "win"?
Maybe 10,000 lives per person will compensate?
maybe it's never enough.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well what's the current exchange rate per american? 1 America male = 6.000 Iraqi male.. 23 children, a puppy and some hummus....I think
Or 1 Big Mac = a small iraqi or afghan Village.
Oh c'mon at least throw in a small fry on the Afghan village thing.
LOL...a puppy...and some humus...
oh man...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
.....:D
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
becos afghan had direct clear ties to terrorist activity. the war was fairly presented to and supported by the american people AND the international community as a legitimate effort to capture and hold accountable those responsible for 9/11 and other acts of terrorism around the globe. it did have some potential to disturb international terrorist networks and break their hold on the country's government.
iraq was and always has been a straw man. it was sold to the american people based on deception and misinformation. nobody seems to know what the goal or purpose of the invasion was and it changes based on the political backlash. iraq had no serious ties to terrorism and the war was never subject to serious analysis of motives and possible outcome.
let's be real here and see if you can give me a straight answer to this question without dodging things. if you were Pres for a day and were given congressional approval to end one of the two wars tomorrow, which would it be? iraq or afghan?
i have no idea what point you're trying to make. you claim you're not saying obama's pro-war, then talk about how upset you are that he's willing to wage war. you claim you know his comments were only about afghan, but all your comments and fears and evidence revolve around him keeping war on the table generally or the general badness of war as shown by citizen deaths in iraq.
this leads me to believe i was spot on, and that the reason this comment bothers you is becos obama is willing to consider all options, including war. it has nothing to do with these particular comments and is all about the fact that you dislike anyone who is willing to wage war ever. the only reason this particular comment spawned a thread is becos, taken out of context, it makes a really good alarmist subject to paint obama as pro-war.
i answered any legitimate point you made in that post. unless you were hoping for a pissing match over my comments on a totally unrelated topic.
Denny Crane!
I love it when an Obama supporter dissects his speeches so much, but completely ignores how anyone else says anything. I'm not saying Obama is going to start wars just cause he feels like it (as you insinuated I did), but I'm upset that he's keeping MILITARY OPTIONS on the table, such as with Iran.
I made an assumption, I didn't claim to know anything. I even said I could be wrong. Why is it so hard for you to understand that?
Yes, I'm against war, which includes the war in Afghanistan. You act like they're unrelated.
He's not considering all options here, clearly. He's simply continuing the war. Not only that, but yes, I am angry that he lives military options on the table when:
1) we are not in a right state to be going to more wars.
2) we are threatening countries with war, who either don't threaten us back, or can be dealt with in a diplomatic way with NO military option.
No one painted Obama as pro-war. You have made no logical points in all your posts. The only thing you do is accuse people who don't like Obama with ridiculous statements. This comment can't be taken out of context. Continuing a war is continuing a war whether you like it or not.
you seem to just ignore my quote where all I mentioned was the war in Afghanistan and that I said I don't think my assumption is far off, but I could be wrong. However, I'm pretty sure Obama is referring to the war in Afghanistan, and I disagree with it. Why can't you get that?
and still no source, nor link and/or full statement surrounding said comment.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
fighting and killing are also human nature, and no amount of hippy psychobabble about being enlightened is going to stop it. but im happy for you being in that elite minority that is so much more perceptive than the rest of us. got to be good for the ego.
Denny Crane!
i think i owe you an apology. i just now realized you didnt start this thread and someone else did. and i was more reacting to your comments as related to the original post.
let my folly be a lesson to all about the importance of... you guess it... understanding context.
Denny Crane!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!