Anti-war groups fizzle under Obama

[Jdarg]

Well, if your team hadn't taken their eye off the ball.

Exactly.

 

[BeachSiO2]

IMO, there was never any doubt that to win the wars in Afghanistan, many more Americans will have to sacrifice their lives. The bigger question to me is what number is too great. The current administration has their "eye on the ball" but it sure is slippery as hell with all that American blood. Btw, I am with SJ on this one. Anyone who paid attention knew it was going to be bad. I just feel for the moms, dads, wifes, children and siblings of every service person who loses their life. This isn't a game of dodgeball to them.

 

[Bob]

Yes, our non-partisan media stopped reporting the deaths after Obama was elected. They know your stupid and if they stop reporting it you'll forget about it or worse think things are going better. The deaths continue to mount...

This was reported 8/3/2010 in the Lakeland Times not to be confused with the unbiased NY Times.

"The count is mounting under the Obama administration. In the 18 months Obama has been president, 557 Americans have died. That compares to 655 U.S. deaths in the eight years of the Bush administration.

Compared another way, an average of 6.8 deaths occurred per month during the Bush years; the monthly average during Obama's tenure is 30.9, more than four times higher.

What's more, the count does not include hundreds of contractor deaths in the country. As Kristina Wong of ABC News reported last week, 521 contractors have been killed, 332 of those in the last year, an increase over the previous year of 175 percent.

6-7 deaths a month, that's an occupation for the m/i complex feast. war? not quite. how many contractors died at antietam?

 

[beachFool]

I guess Chemical weapons aren't a concern to you. The guy was killing thousands of his own people. You should count your blessings you weren't born there.

We provided him the chemcial weapons.

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

 

[AndrewG]

Buzz,

The issue is the fact that he was using them against his own people. He was an evil man with much bigger ambitions. If someone is murdering your family one by one would you prefer we just sit back and watch while you beg for help because we sold that person a gun? Should we have provided them chemical weapons? Absolutely not but what was done is done and we should be trying to make the World a better place.

 

[beachFool]

>>>what was done is done and we should be trying to make the World a better place. <<<

By taking out Saddam & Iraq the United States has currently emboldened and streghthened Iraq's enemy-Iran.

I hope I am wrong but do not believe invading Iraq made "the World a better place".

 

[Jdarg]

IMO, there was never any doubt that to win the wars in Afghanistan, many more Americans will have to sacrifice their lives. The bigger question to me is what number is too great. The current administration has their "eye on the ball" but it sure is slippery as hell with all that American blood. Btw, I am with SJ on this one. Anyone who paid attention knew it was going to be bad. I just feel for the moms, dads, wifes, children and siblings of every service person who loses their life. This isn't a game of dodgeball to them.

I will always wonder if it would have been as bad if we had stayed focused on Afghanistan after 9/11, as it was the real home of real terrorists and a known threat, instead of jumping up and heading to Iraq and an unknown focus of why we were there.

I think we were right to go to Afghanistan after 9/11, but we were wrong to back off, and now it may be too late to be effective against enemies that have grown stronger in numbers and power while we have been focusing on Iraq.

 

[AndrewG]

>>>what was done is done and we should be trying to make the World a better place. <<<

By taking out Saddam & Iraq the United States has currently emboldened and streghthened Iraq's enemy-Iran.

I hope I am wrong but do not believe invading Iraq made "the World a better place".

You now have made the jump from Iraq to Iran. If Iran is killing innocent people we should do something. I can't sit back and watch ruthless people kill the vulnerable. Can you?

 

[BeachSiO2]

So, I don't disagree that it should have been handled differently, but my question remains do we agree with the way it has been handled the past 18 months and the plans for the future? How long is too long? How many American lives are we willing to lose?

 

[Lake View Too]

So, I don't disagree that it should have been handled differently, but my question remains do we agree with the way it has been handled the past 18 months and the plans for the future? How long is too long? How many American lives are we willing to lose?

The reason we are still in Afghanistan has everything to do with Pakistan. We cannot simply pull-out and leave Pakistan unable and/or unwilling to contain Al Queada. If Pakistan becomes much more unstable and Muslim radical fundamentalist get their hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapon, it's all over. Obama inherited this war. He knows we have to stay there. If anyone remembers, or gives a damn, Obama was one of the few congressmen who voted against the war in Iraq. None of the blame for this whole situation should be attributed to him.