"Continue the war against terrorism........

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What is it 1000 lives for every person who died in the WTC towers?

MrBrian wrote:

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.

clark_kent wrote:

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.

angelica wrote:

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....

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

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.

_outlaw wrote:

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?