The "DU Peace Movement" apparently thinks we're all idiots.

[Robb]

Don't tell me to change my avatar to a peace symbol. Don't show me pictures of the war dead. Don't tell me I'm an idiot just so you can argue with me.

What the hell good do you think that does, here on DU?

Because no one who "supports the war" ever lost a loved one in war? Wow, people die, thank god you told me because I hadn't considered that.

Kind of like the "go enlist" thread, that assumes no one who "supports the war" happened to already serve in one or two of them?

Or do you plan to say, later in the thread, "No, I just wanted to make sure everyone here remembers the cost of war..." etc. etc. etc. like we're all children and forgot about that.

Or that you speak for all the families of those who lost members... you do not. Just less than half of DU (by my last poll) "support the war," so you don't even speak for DU. Yet.

Or are you just lonely and looking for a fight? Sorry to hear it. But it ain't helping.

I won't unrec you, because your heart may be in the right place. But I'm still wondering what the peace movement equivalent is of "keyboard commando," because I'm seeing a lot of lip service around here lately, posts like these that insult DU intelligence and not much action.

Yes, action.

War is over if you want it. Not if you change your avatar to a peace symbol on some message board.

And with that, I will take the irony of posting a long rant on said message board to breakfast with me.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

24. But Afghanistan is NEVER going to be "safe".

We've been fighting the Hatfields & McCoys times 1000 - except they have AK47s & RPGs instead of flintlocks - and WE'RE LOSING! Because they know that at the end of the day, we don't want to stay there.

So, WHY STAY? All of our strategic objectives in Afghanistan have been met: al Qaeda has been broken, and the Taliban is out of power. And remember, the only reason we targeted the Taliban was because they provided a safe haven for al Qaeda. As long as they understand that we won't allow them to do that again in the future, we should we care if they creep back into power? If they try, we can always toss a few cruise missiles at them. We have no reason the stay.

[ixion]

35. just who is being dishonest?

"train and support and leave when it's safe"?

That is delusional. Don't accuse me, or other anti-empire folks of being dishonest just because we don't share your particular shade of spin.

[TornadoTN]

70. Lets talk about dishonesty - in your own statement

You said "train and support and leave when it's safe"

That's in direct opposition to the first administration statement that we were going to being a withdrawal in 2011.


Of course, they've already backtracked all over that in the past 24-48 hours, but it still stands because people are repeating it as fact.

So exactly who is being dishonest here?

[Dogtown]

159. Do you think "Vietnamization" worked?

Maybe we need to secure the "hearts and minds" of Afghanis?

We invaded the country as a side-show to the Neocon imperialist adventure in Iraq. They only did it because the logical fallacies they hoaxed us with required a token attempt to capture OBL. Now we're stuck continuing an occupation that made no sense to begin with.

Our military is in tatters. It's used up. I can't even imagine where they're going to find the troops to send. We sure as fuck can't keep deploying the same soldiers we've been using for all these years. The constant recruiting advertisements on TV are an indicator that we have few undamaged soldiers left. The only thing stopping a draft is the Republican knowledge that it will galvanize the populace against continuing these insane wars.

Time for the US to quit pretending we're the good guys. Time to quit propping up the lying excuses for conquest that took us there. Time to quit pretending we're *capable* of completing the "mission" in Afghanistan, or that we even know what that mission is.

There is only one solution left: admit to the world we fucked up. Ask the UN to supply peace keepers as we withdraw, ask them to begin repairing the country, and (like a rich drunk on the morning after) offer to pay for wrecking the joint.


BTW, dmallind, your snide and ugly reference to bisexuality, suggesting that even a man "crippled" by bisexuality can be a conqueror, is very telling. I'd suggest you edit that out since expressing your true sentiments like that blows your cover.

[RaleighNCDUer]

282. The UN does not, by policy, put peacekeepers into active war zones.

And NATO is represented there.

Two days ago Obama DID admit we fucked up - did you tune in late? He also announced HOW we are getting out.

Deal with it.

[Dogtown]

296. NATO does not equate to UN.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military force for mutual defense. (In this instance it's violating it's charter, because no NATO member was attacked by a foreign power.) It isn't and never will be a peace-keeping force. They are most certainly not a neutral entity, their charter *requires* partisanship. I can't even see what point you were trying to make with that.

Afghanistan is not a war-zone. It's an occupied nation. The UN has most certainly sent peace-keeping forces into areas much more violent and volatile. Besides, if we "abdicate", where's the opponent for "war"? War requires two antagonists. The "insurgents" are trying to make us leave. Once the occupying army has signaled a willingness to depart, they'll no longer have a reason to fight.

This is exactly what UN peace-keepers do, they supervise cessation of hostilities.


Obama *partially* admitted we fucked up. He did NOT speak the whole truth. We need to say, "We followed bad leaders into an irresponsible occupation and we realize now our continued presence is unwarranted, inhumane and untenable. We ask the UN to supply a transitional peace-keeping force to observe our withdrawal and supervise the transition of the region to self-rule."

"Deal with it?" That's a juvenile smart-ass rejoinder. Deal with this: there's no justification to continue this occupation, other than the political unwillingness to stand up to the republicans. For that, we're going to send our exhausted troops back into hostile territory.

[RaleighNCDUer]

299. The extra-national organization known as Al Queda DID attack

several NATO members. They were protected by the Taliban who, while not the recognized government of Afghanistan, were the dominant power there. Taliban/Al Queda were certainly a power and definitely foreign. It's not a huge stretch.

As for Afghanistan not being a war zone, tell that to the people dying there every day. And NO, the US does NOT send peacekeepers into active war zones. If there is any kind of peace, by agreement between the contending forces, then the UN will send troops to help maintain that peace, mostly by keeping to two sides separate.

When the UN sends in troops to active war zones, such as the UN forces in the Korean War, they are NOT peacekeepers. Peacekeeping is not the mission in that case.

[Dogtown]

338. Oh! I see.

You can't muster a coherent argument against the proposal, so you'll play semantics to waste my time.

Call the UN forces "UN Relief Forces Because America Is a Clumsy Bully" or whatever else you like.

:eyes:

[Bluenorthwest]

211. Wow. Homophobic and using slurs against the disabled

A bisexual midget?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I'm frankly outraged by those posting photos.

If anyone here is ACTUALLY cheering for war - getting excited over bloodshed, rather than soberly supporting the decision to escalate based on policy concerns - they should be banned immediately. But i have yet to see even one single post like that here on DU. You're absolutely right when you say they're insulting our collective intelligence.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beacho]

154. What does that picture have to do with U.S. politicy?

I don't even see any American service personnel. I see what looks like a poorly staged scene with one guy looking like he hit the surplus store before the photo shoot.

[ShortnFiery]

257. EVERYTHING! We're propping up a corrupt government who has direct ties to the NARCO- trade.

We are supporting Karzai, The Mayor of Kabul and his Nephew, one each, war lord AGAINST "only those" who they deem as ENEMIES.

We are propping up an illegitimate Leader who we are allowing to "pick and choose" which Taliban are GOOD and which are EVIL.

We need to let the NATIVE PEOPLES settle Afghanistan vial THEIR Civil War. There is no love lost between the local Taliban and al Qaeda. Well, UNLESS "the invaders" stay. Then it swings back to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Have we forgot the "lessons learned" (blow-back disasters decades later) from propping up thugs such as The Shah (Iran) and Saddam (Iraq)?

[Beacho]

305. Poorly formed and executed propaganda

You provide no context for that photo. When and where was it taken? Why is one guy in surplus store bought fatigues and the others are wearing traditional gear that looks like it was just picked up from the cleaners? Like I said it looks staged, by a community college drama department no less.

You do realize that there is probably some RW nut using the same damn picture with a "ZOMG MUZZIES R BARBARIANS! KILLZ DEM ALL" type blog post. The funny part is in this context challenged picture it would fit. In fact that's probably where you found it doing an image search

[Xenotime]

302. This is fucking disgusting..

The RW would be proud of you.

[treestar]

308. Freepers deserve that, but not DUers

Nobody here has a bloodlust for war like they do. They either consider it necessary soberly, or realize it has already been going on and that an exit strategy is needed, not just a pullout overnight.

So it's over the top and unconvincing.

[dionysus]

321. the only one apparently "getting high" on death here is YOU.

come to think of it, you're actually saying the afghan's lives mean nothing. what a fucking hero you are.

[yodoobo]

344. put a warning up before you post that sort of thing

your on ignore so I don't have to deal an ambush from you again.

[Duende azul]

46. To the dead it's completely irrelevant if the decision to send them

to their death appears to be soberly taken.

And I think it's absolutely necessary to see these images. How much outrage there was on DU about Bush trying to hide them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

224. Is it also necessary to show images of those who die as a result of wars not being fought?

Yes, people will die as a consequence of continuing the war in Afghanistan. But people will also die as a consequence of not doing so. The question is, which will have lower costs in the long run.

I think that displaying graphic images of the victims to make a point is only justifiable if you're going to do it both ways, not just one.

[Tailormyst]

92. Why would posting pictures of our soldiers funerals upset you?

It's just reality. People die in war. Families are destroyed in war. The pictures of the results of war on innocent civilians makes those pictures look like a party.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

108. It's using their suffering as a prop to support their position.

That's my problem with it. I have no problem with it if it's done SOLELY to honor the dead, but that's not what this thread is about at all.

[fascisthunter]

119. yes, because the death and destruction IS relevent

and should be the most relevent reason to either wage war or not wage war. People do need to see what war is really about, and not just watch hollywood movies and listen to talking heads glorify those who die for this government regardless of the reason.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

158. That has its own place, separate from a policy debate.

The most relevant reason for or against waging war should be a question of defending against the loss of life. Both soldiers and civilians factor into that.

In this case, there is a nuclear arsenal in Pakistan, a nation that's quickly destabilizing, within arms reach of the Taliban. In my opinion, the potential loss of life could be far greater if we do nothing. I don't take any pleasure in saying that whatsoever. I don't discount the lives of our men and women in the military in saying that either. Sometimes life is about picking the best of a series of horrible choices. In this case, whereas we have a timeline and clear goals for success, I believe this is the best choice. That does not make me a cheerleader for war.

[Orsino]

194. How clever of these troops to die...

...just to invalidate my anti-war position. I know when I've been outmaneuvered.

[fascisthunter]

266. oh brother

[closeupready]

160. TRUTH is NOT a prop.

n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

166. Yes, because you have the market cornered on "truth" these days, don't you?

And yes, using someone's pain and suffering for POLITICAL GAIN is always a prop and it is always vile.

[closeupready]

Photos of corpses are depictions of facts. Unless you claim people are staging them.

That is called TRUTH.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

That's really not what I'm referring to.

But I admit, I probably wasn't clear.

[closeupready]

199. No problem.

I'm taking issue, more or less, with Robb's complaint that he doesn't want to see pictures of what our bombs do.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

209. It's the context in which they're displayed that I oppose.

I have no problems with the reminders of the costs of war. We should all own up to that. But to use them as props in a discussion about whether or not the escalation is the proper course of action is degrading and immoral in my opinion. If you're engaged in a sober, legitimate discussion on this topic, which the vast majority of DU is in right now, resorting to these kinds of tactics are not only unnecessary, but it's just plain wrong.

My point is, there's a time and a place for that. Putting up a post that says "To all of you who support the escalation, tell it to these people" and then proceed to post horrific images of human suffering is utterly vile. Posting images of fallen troops and their families to honor their sacrifice and to recognize the costs of war in a somber, honorable manner is a much different notion altogether.

[closeupready]

217. There is a time and place for it, yes, as - the saying goes - there is for everything, I agree.

But I disagree with pro-escalation voices who cluck uncategorically, 'don't show me pictures of dead people.'

The most vivid memory I have of Vietnam is the photo of the dead Kent State student and his friend with her arms raised in grief and having been witness to it. I don't think it's stretching things to argue that this photo helped turn many Americans against Vietnam, and thank God it did.

[kiva]

208. Sort of like making a speech about war and using West

Point cadets as props?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

212. I didn't much approve of that either, frankly. (nt)

[kiva]

225. Thank you. It seems to me that no matter what you believe

about sending more troops, using West Point cadets is inappropriate and tone deaf.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

230. While I don't approve, I can see the case to defend it still.

It's a military action, therefore it's appropriate to hand down the orders directly to at least some of the people that will carry them out. Again, I don't agree with that line of thinking - and using sodium pentathol I doubt you'd get anyone in charge to actually say that - but I can at least see it.

[MNDemNY]

244. Yes, seeing as Cadets are direct reports to POTUS.

:rofl: Pure Bushism, plain and simple.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

295. Agreed

However you feel about Afghanistan, Obama used those cadets as props and as hard as it is for people to hear on here, and as worked up people get over it. Bush did the exact same thing in 2002 and it was dead wrong then.

[Divine Discontent]

248. Is this Barbara Bush?

[BeyondGeography]

3. Moral superiority default mode

It's hard for them to turn it off.

[alcibiades_mystery]

170. Morally superior claptrap never convinced anyone of anything

In fact, it strengthens the opposition. Will the high-horse Left never learn?

[Skittles]

345. maybe when all the soldiers are dead or disabled?

[BeyondGeography]

4. Dupe

[Odin2005]

5. K&R

[AllentownJake]

6. A different take on STFU

Originality at least.

[MNDemNY]

15. I like the 'Oh, we're not Pro-war, we just support THIS war!

You know, the "good" war that Obama campaigned on. The one he "pledged" to escalate, but we just did not hear him.

[AllentownJake]

26. The odd thing is I'm not totally opposed to all wars

I'm just opposed to half-ass wars where we blow the shit out of a place, get bogged down in a civil war, than stay in a quagmire for years scratching our head.

If the threat is one that requires the worst human failing, than the entire nation devotes it's full resources to the effort, otherwise, the the threat isn't really that big.

[Hepburn]

34. Love you, Jake....

...but you forgot to add that after we perpetrate this stupidity, we then send tax money over there to rebuild what we have totally fucked over ~~ while ignoring the needs of our own citizens for things like medical care.

What irony: US tax dollars go to free healthcare of Iraq ~~ and that is supposedly good, but doing this for our own citizens? Socialism.

Fuck this shit...

[AllentownJake]

Ironic that Germany and Japan have better social safety nets

and protect their own industries better than the nation that defeated them 60 years ago.

Yes it is absolute insane, and it is because our leaders live in a bubble.

[MNDemNY]

41. .

Yup if it's really worth it, we won't even have to ask for "sacrifice" If the public "needs convincing" it probably is not worth the cost.

[AllentownJake]

53. Exactly nt.

[Hepburn]

96. That analysis says it all....

...for example: How many people had to be convinced on December 7, 1941?

:hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

228. This war and some others, actually.

Some wars - not very many, but some - are justifiable.

"Pro-war" is an attempt at name-calling, not discussion - it's a deliberate attempt to conflate support for some wars with support for all wars. Which, given that anyone who doesn't believe Hitler should have been allowed to conquer the world comes in the first category, and absolutely no-one whatsoever comes in the second, is a foolish thing to do.

[havocmom]

256. +1

Bravo

[NC_Nurse]

7. I avoid those posts. It's like trying to argue with an anti-abortion "pro-lifer".

They act like you don't care at all for human life, no matter what you say. When you ride in on
a high horse, there's no way to have a real conversation.

[boston bean]

8. there was once a day

where a post like this would be beaten to death and the OP probably ts'd.

it isn't like that anymore, so you win I guess........

[Robb]

27. What day was that, sport?

'Cause I've seen a lot more around here than you. :hi:

[boston bean]

45. I'm no ones sport, Robby ok?

when someone decides to make derisive remarks about "DU Peace Movement"

You can rest assure it wouldn't have lasted for one minute here in the years of 2001-2008.

[Hepburn]

67. Yep....

...I have been around for a bit...and shit like this would not fly back when there really were some liberals around here.

JMHO

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

168. Spoken like someone that's been here since 2005.

:wave:

[havocmom]

245. ah, so the "DU Peace Movement" can make erroneous assumptions and ugly charges

but others can't point out the fault with such hog wash? I agree with Robb; there has been a lot of ridiculous assumptions and accusations made against people who don't march in lock step with others. And by golly, Robb is correct again that changing avatars is not real effort.

Frankly, the attitude of 'no dissent allowed' is a bit too cheney-esque for my tastes. It sort of goes against the whole concept of a discussion site, especially a DEMOCRATIC one.

And who are you to assure us of what lasts around here? Unless you are a sock puppet for Skinner, you are way off with that crap.

You can always put up your own site and smite all who dare differ.

[ShortnFiery]

254. Yes, attacking people who had nothing to do with 9/11 (Taliban) is our right ... Peace is so passe.

Yeah, you've got God on your side, right? :eyes:

[havocmom]

264. I was referring to the attacking of other DUers who might have a different view, not 9-11

First, I find it oddly reminicent of bush/cheney (or at least Rudy) this tagging '9-11' & 'Taliban' onto things in the belief it will add some sort of magic protection for hog wash accusations. I made no mention of 9-11 OR the Taliban. I addressed behaviors of some factions here on DU, in agreement with the OP that this new flavor of all or nothing thinking and attacks on those who hold different opinions is not constructive. IOW, take your 9-11 and Taliban reference and stuff 'em as they are not pertinent to my remarks at all. (Taliban is, however, pertinent to any full discussion of 9-11, were we having that, as they did provide sanctuary to OBL. Ah, topic for another day, perhaps)

Second: As a means of making your point, ducking behind a staw-man is not good cover. Using the same straw man that dick cheney uses is just plain sad.

Third: you just made a PROFOUNDLY, and possibly profane, assumption.
You post that I might think peace is so passe and/or:
A) feel god is on my side
B) believe there is a god who would take sides
C) believe there is a god period

You have no idea of my theology, nor my history actually getting out and DOING things which advance the human effort for peace. ASSumptions say more about the makers of them than the subjects of them.

And given the evidence of how fast you responded to (and attacked without ANY foundation of knowledge about me) my post, thank you for making my point, and Robb's too for that matter. You engaged in attack communication before engaging any skill at critical thought you might possess. You jumped to conclusions and made assumptions about me and my philosophy without taking the time to ask yourself what proof you had for your broad-brush, and erroneous, assumption regarding my views. In short, you made a really poor attempt to dismiss my post without so much as taking time to consider it. I agree with Robb, such bullshit is not productive.

So, that jumping to conclusion thing, is that a good form or physical exercise? Cuz it sure isn't much of a mental exercise.

[xiamiam]

87. you may have been around a lot lately..but attempting to divide du by deriding those of us who want

peace instead of this escalation..pretty much blows your cover

[havocmom]

284. OK, that is just the proof OP needed

Thank you for playing.

[NJmaverick]

9. What pisses me off is the lack of thinking, simplistic slogans

dishonest tactics and a blind adherance to ideology. There is absolutely no thought put into their positions or posts on the issue.

[cali]

14. Please. You're generalizing about those of us opposed to the

escalation in Afghanistan. I'm firmly against it. I think we should get the fuck out now, but I have little use for the sanctimony of some here who hold that same position.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. I think for it to qualify as a "generalization"

he would have had to say something to the effect of "all the people opposing the escalation..." I don't think you're accurately portraying his comment.

[NJmaverick]

21. Fari enough, there are certainly exceptions to the rule

sadly you are crowded out by the large crowds of people I described. As I talked about in my post yesterday it's a difficult call between giving up and retreating and giving victory one more chance. The sad thing is neither position is all that unreasonable as there are good arguments for either position. However extermists prevented thoughtful and good discussion. It's pro war this and peace symbol that.


It's about nation security and interests, the lives of our troops and our citizens and what is morally the right thing to do. That is what should be being discussed.

[MNDemNY]

32. If it was REALLY about national security interests, we would be invading Pakistan ...

in order to secure the nukes, and instituting a push for "regime change" in Saudi Arabia! Anything short of that is a dry fuck. Feels good but nothing comes of it.

[NJmaverick]

54. "Invade a country to secure their nukes"

Is that anything like lighting a match so you can see if you have any gas left in your gas tank? Pakistan is a huge threat and one that offers no easy solutions. There is a sizeable number of fanatics in that nation that hate the west They are nuclear armed and there are still their serious issues with India.

Do you honestly THINK that you could secure every nuke before they were either used on invaders or smuggled over to terrorists??????????

[MNDemNY]

60. I'm not advocating it, just pointing out that there is NOTHING MORE..

to be gained in our national security by remaining inside Afghanistan. We can see to our interests from off shore.

[NJmaverick]

64. If you want to point out how there is nothing more to gain in Afghanistan how about talking about

Afghanistan?

[MNDemNY]

71. I don't know, why do you talk about our Revolutionary War?

:shrug: :rofl:

[NJmaverick]

80. I talked about the revolutionary war to point out the flawed logic of the war is always bad crowd

it wasn't about Afghanistan, but rather a flawed position. I am sorry my critical and complex thinking confuses and baffles you. Although I suspect it's one of those no harm no foul thing as you seem to be simplistic enough to amuse yourself over your confusion.

[MNDemNY]

107. Your a very funny soul.

But you got a thing for those TV characters. Such a deep thoughtful person. What IS flawed is the supposition that there is any thing further to be gained by prolonging our adventure in Afghanistan. The "terrorists"are not there. They are in Pakistan, Somalia, Indonesia....,and mostly ,in , and being financed in SAUDI ARABIA. To focus so much attention on the dirt fields of Afghanistan is disingenuous , at best, but more likely reckless endangerment as to our real "security interests" The only thing to be gained in Afghanistan is $$$ and right wing votes. So spew your "right wing" crap all you want, but expect to be heckled. This is , still, "Democratic Underground".(at least for now):P

[NJmaverick]

131. OK let me break down your slogans

"the terrorists are not there" To a degree this statement is technically accurate. The number of terrorists current based and training in Afghanistan is negligible.

However I am pushing critical thought here. We have to look beyond the surface. We have to ask ourselves what will happen if we retreat. The most likely scenario will be the return of power of the Taliban. The same Taliban that hosted Al Qaeda as they planned and carried out 911. The same Taliban after years of fighting with the US who will certainly have more incentive to continue to support terrorists bent on attacking our nation.

That is what your simplistic slogan is lacking, a deep examination of the issues. You may feel that there is no chance for success. That would be a reasonable position. The idea that Afghanistan does not play a major role in our national security would be born of ignorance.


You keep up with the symbols, slogans and insults. When the right wingers did it, they nearly destroyed our nation. You honestly so convinced of your superiority that you think taking the same approach will not yield similar results.

Oh and calling me a right winger, doesn't make your messed up views any better, it just betrays how shaky the foundation they are built on is.

[MNDemNY]

169. No, you are wrong.

We can tend to our national security interests in Afghanistan from offshore. The "democracy" we have set up in Afghanistan is doomed for failure. Sorry but if we occupy every country in the world were the people are being oppressed or treated badly by their leaders , well we could not. You gots nuttin' but spewage that sounds as if it is coming from bush himself, so why would i not infer that you have "right wing" tendencies, at least on this issue. Go back to watching your "deep" TV shows, hang here and you get heckled.

[NJmaverick]

177. Perhaps you can explain how you it is possible to

"tend to our national interest in Afghanistan from offshore". What exactly does this program entail? How does it prvent the return of the Tabiban to power and eventually the return of Al Qaeda.


I could go into the flaws of the slogan "if we occupy every Country in the world" but I grow weary of nonsensical hyperbole that only distracts rather than examines the issue.

As for who is "spewing" Bush like nonsense, I would think your Black and White Bush like thinking would better fit the bill.

[MNDemNY]

193. I do not care if the "tabiban(sic)" controls Afghanistan.

We can easily eliminate any "terrorist" threat to us with air power. The "Taliban" allowed Al Qaeda in for $ we could remove that incentive. And your labeling every thing as a 'slogan' is getting quite old.Al Qaeda is quite comfy in Pakistan and is unlikely to return.

[NJmaverick]

197. "We can easily eliminate any "terrorist" threat to us with air power."

That would be a gross over estimation of the abilities of air power. The terrian and the lack of fixed targets that terrorists pose, pretty much negate the effectiveness of air power. Beyond that you need sound intelligence for targetting. With the Taliban in charge that will be greatly limited. You can't just keep blindly lobbing bombs and cruise missles into that vast nation and think it will some how keep Al Qaeda away.

[MNDemNY]

218. If they are hiding in caves, they are hardly a threat.

And, anyway, the 911 attacks were planned in....wait for it.....SAUDI ARABIA !!!! !!!! Again there is nothing more to achieve in Afghanistan. Unless you are a defense contractor, or have a keen interest in an oil pipeline. Neither of which is essential to OUR national security. So in closing, I say, get off your knees and wipe your chin.

[NJmaverick]

227. Wait you can't gloss over the inability of air power to control terrorists

with "if they are hiding in caves, they are hardly a threat". With out intel they don't even have to hide in caves. They can simply live and work among the population. In a Taliban condoled Afghanistan Al Qaeda will once again be free to meet, plan and train. The nation becomes a safe haven to operate from.

Oh and Saudi Arabia was where Al Qaeda recruited the terrorists used to carry out the attack, not where they planned and operated.

[MNDemNY]

236. Theres more al qaeda in NYC than in Afghanistan.

There is nothing more to gain in Afghanistan. Just money.Do you Really think that Nothing was "planned" in Saudi Arabia?? OK mr. Bush, you have been exposed! Bow to your Saudi Kings! Walk hand-in-hand to the podium and tell us what good friends they are. Nothing to be gained in Afghanistan, 9-11 would not have happened if 'we" paid attention to our own intelligence. That is where we need to expend some resources, and then pay attention when we are warned. This adventure in the Middle east, YES! I am including Iraq in this whole shit pile, was little more than Cowboy bush trying to look "Hard" for his Daddy. Yup, just that simple. Time is long past to end this charade. Any "defense" of this is pure BUSH ERA bullshit. The End.

[NJmaverick]

237. Wow!

First thing I noticed the massive number of slogans and catchy phrases unsupported by fact:

"Theres more al qaeda in NYC than in Afghanistan"

"There is nothing more to gain in Afghanistan. Just money."

"Bow to your Saudi Kings!"

"Bush, you have been exposed!"

"I am including Iraq in this whole shit pile,"

"Any "defense" of this is pure BUSH ERA bullshit. The End."

"Time is long past to end this charade."




Sure looks to me that you attempted to defend your position on an intellectual plain (an effort I applaud), ran into major trouble and couldn't properly defend it.

As a result you decided the best way to save face was to post a rant of incoherent and unconnected slogans and simplistic ideas, that have no basis in reality.

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

240. sad

:(

[enlightenment]

174. So, in other words,

this isn't about defeating the 'threat' to our national security, it's about securing a 'victory' in Afghanistan - regardless.

The Taliban will return to power because fundamentally they are an ideology - not a group. We might manage to eradicate the few that currently exist, but we cannot eradicate the ideology with that same heavy hand. If anything, they will 'return' (as you put it) with even more 'incentive' than they had before we managed to salt the earth of their villages.

Honestly, leave the 'critical thought' out of this. You are spouting just as much superficial hyperbole as others and attempting to convince others of your own superiority by using the phrase and hoping that it will shield you from criticism. Try engaging in some actual 'deep examination' of the political and cultural situation in Afghanistan.

[NJmaverick]

183. You are confused. Victory is defined as eliminating the threat

they are not seperate and independent. Now on to your slogan:

"The Taliban will return to power because fundamentally they are an ideology"

Does that mean the teabaggers will return to power? How exactly can that happen and the liberals aslo return to power (as they are also an ideology)? Ideology is not some sort of unstoppable force. It's a shared belief system and those sharing can gain and lose supporters.


"Honestly, leave the 'critical thought' out of this."

Sorry I can't. When simplistic concepts like ideologies are unstoppable are made, I have to point out the flaws in the logic.

[MNDemNY]

220. The "threat " was eliminated 6-7 years ago. Victory has been achieved.

Any further lingering must have other motives. I can only deduce that you share those motives. Thus, that you share the 'right wing" views.

[NJmaverick]

231. Actually a better description would be they were put in remission

and like cancer it can and has come back with a vengeance. The Taliban has gained serious traction in Afghanistan. The most probable result in a sudden pull out will be their return to power. Al Qaeda also still exists and most likely would be welcomed back. So how on earth can you make a claim like "the threat was eliminated" which is completely contrary to the FACTS at hand? Was that so you could then work your way to the accusation that I have right wing views and you were hoping I would deal with that personal attack instead of noticing how flawed your position was?

[anigbrowl]

271. I didn't read it that way

You and i disagree about this issue - I think that that while the situation in Afghanistan sucks (and frankly, that Obama has dithered over it - but I don't know what he had to do to get a a proper strategy rather than a suck-it-and-see approach), but I have no problem discussing it rationally with you, because you make rational arguments for why you believe the policy to be mistaken.

But there are a lot of people whose opposition simply disregards the broader context and refuse to address the questions of how we should look after the legitimate interest o our national security. I'm in favor of the escalation because I believe that if we pull the plug and just leave it will result in a rapid destabilization of Pakistan and hugely increase the risk of a nuclear exchange between that country and India, something that came uncomfortably close around the turn of the century. Pakistan's democracy is very fragile and if Afghanistan were to collapse back into warlordism then the most likely consequence would be a return to ultra-hawkish military rule in Pakistan and a re-escalation of the Kashmir conflict, which would kill a hell of a lot more people. A nuclear exchange, or even a single deployment by one side, would result in a holocaust beyond our imagination - we have already seen the consequences of nuclear weapons in Japan, but the sad fact is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small cities. A nuclear attack on a city like Delhi, Mumbai or Lahore would result in devastation greater by an order of magnitude.

[dionysus]

322. i think he's referring to the people screaming warmonger and demanding people enlist, and other

childish shit some here say.

[AllentownJake]

17. Like comparing the Afghanistan war to the Revolutionary war?

That type of simplistic thinking.

[NJmaverick]

29. Nice peace symbol, I am impressed with your deep thinking

as for the revolutionary war, while it pissed off the simplistic anti-war crowd (because it was pretty embarrassing to see how wrong their position was) did you notice they could vote it down with unrecs? It broke even, which considering the irrational anti-war fever breaking out around here is pretty damn impressive.

[AllentownJake]

39. Someone who is railing against popular sentiment

cites popular sentiment as the defense, you are an intellectual light weight.

Of course, the notion that citing the repelling of a foreign occupying force by 18th century colonist who broke their era's laws of war to defeat a super power would be lost on the absolute idiocy of your post.

[NJmaverick]

42. At one time invading Iraq was "the popular sentiment"

I don't subscribe to the idea that right is defined by popularity.

[AllentownJake]

52. No but you cited recs/unrecs to justify your post

So you obviously value it at some level.

Keep trying to play the game sir, you are going to lose.

[NJmaverick]

57. Well when talking to symbol posting, slogan loving people

sometimes it's fun to rock their "if we are popular we are right' worlds.


As for game playing I will leave that to you and your simplistic thoughtless peace symbol. I will go back to thinking and examining the issues thank you.

[AllentownJake]

103. It is called a Palovian response

and you just fell for it. I routinely change my Avatar to the most controversial subject at a given time. During Health Care it was Dennis K, during the Stimulus it was Paul Krugman,

Simple minded people will attack the avatar instead of the posting. It is actually quite humorous really.

This is the most awesome avatar ever, because posters will actually attack a peace sign.

Thanks for taking the bait.

[NJmaverick]

So the term war is the bell and the wailing and peace symbols would be the drooling?

I would agree with that position

[AllentownJake]

117. Seeing that you just attacked an avatar

:rofl:

But please continue to go on about how smart you are, when you fell for my little game.

[NJmaverick]

134. I am suppose to take from your use of a mindless emoticon and an insult

that you can't dispute my assertion?

[AllentownJake]

147. Everything I've said has been pointing out you are the simple one

and your assertion is so idiotic seeing that you are the one salivating at avatars.

You can't really argue Pavlovian responses and ask people to respond to your assertions when every single post you have replied to in this thread starts off with an insult directed at an avatar.

You really lacked to see the brilliance in that OP yesterday. We knew people like you would start attacking peace avatars. Hell one poster jumped in and screamed about Afghanistan in a post I made about NAFTA and the Clinton administration yesterday.

It is really an interesting spectacle to watch.

Oh and here is that emoticon showing what I'm doing at you right now
:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

164. You haven't displayed any complex thoughts or ideas

simplistic concepts and black and white thinking is all you have managed so far. Perhaps the only mistake that President Obama made Tuesday night was talking to the nation as if it were filled with intelligent mature adults. Maybe he should have adopted the strategy you can relate to of symbol, slogan and insult.

You to see complex thinking go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7135758

[AllentownJake]

173. Edit your spelling of complex

Not a flame, however if you are going to advertise complex thinking spell it right.

LOL, I read that yesterday.

I guess my position on war would go way over your head.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7139256

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7133801

[Fire1]

214. You might want to check the spelling of "Palovian."

P-a-v-l-o-v-i-a-n = Pavlov

[AllentownJake]

219. Shit happens

[spoony]

100. Actually the American War of Independence was also unnecessary

It's just that you've been told in every classroom you've ever been in how glorious it was. Those who haven't aren't so impressed with it.

[NJmaverick]

106. Yet many of your fellow anti war people claimed my post was unrealistic

go figure, looks like they got that one wrong as well.

[spoony]

123. Why do anti-war people make you so angry?

Seriously, what did you expect? People on a DEMOCRATIC website to start waving little made-in-China flags and forget that many of us have hated these wars since they began?

[NJmaverick]

148. Here let me explain something to you

the vast majority of the world is anti-war at least in the sense that most will only enter into it as a means of last resort. However there are some how fail to understand or grasp that there are times war can be the only or best option. It takes the ability to move past what you were taught early on that "war=bad" to the more complex position that often there is no easy answer or option. That the world is about compromise and picking the best options (often when all the choices are not great ones).

While almost no one wants war, war is needed in self defense. War is needed sometimes to save lives. To understand that you need to move past the simplistic black and white thinking. You have to understand and see the world for what it is, a complex set of grays.


You should take an ethics class, I think everyone should have to really. In that ethics class you learn about situations where different ethical values clash and how to reconcile those incompatibilities.

[spoony]

163. You're assuming quite a lot

and shouldn't have. For one thing you're assuming things about my educational background, but I'll pass on that as I'm not interested in making this personal. The more important assumption is that those of us against this war "fail to understand" that war is sometimes the "only or best option." While I would say that once you as a nation reach that point you've already made mistakes policy-wise, and bad ones at that, if you must go to war that's one thing. But you're also assuming that this war is one of those times, and those of us against it strongly disagree with the idea that it is the "only or best option" for the US.

And, again, there's no reason to be condescending.

[NJmaverick]

171. You decided to use the label "anti-war", when you did that

you established a lot about yourself and where you are coming from. In fact it's that idea that the complex issue of Afghanistan can be boiled down to pro-war vs anti-war that is the heart of the problem Not only is that a gross simplification, but will prevent the sort of critical and complex thinking and discussion that topic needs.

Talk options, national interests, lives, ethical values and I will be impressed. Talk to me about pro-war vs anti-war and you will see a frustration over the use of tactics intended to distract instead of address.

[spoony]

189. I don't think anyone calling themself anti-war is doing it

to ruin your day or halt discussions. It's simply a statement of fact. "I'm against this completely." It doesn't mean I haven't looked at the issues. It doesn't mean I hate Obama. It doesn't mean I hate people who've come to a different conclusion or think THEY haven't looked at the issues. It just means this is where I stand and I'm passionate about it. That's it.

[NJmaverick]

207. Considering the complexity of the issue and the number of unknowns

I would really doubt the position of anyone who held it "completely". I think the moves being made are good ones. Do I think they will succeed? I am not sure. I am hopeful they will. I support the decision because it seems like a reasonable gamble, considering the potential losses and gains. If someone was to say they feel that the gamble looks like a poor one, I would understand. I may not agree but I would understand and respect their understanding of the situation. When people start talking about certainties in situations like this one, I really can't help but feel they have most likely over simplified the situation.

[MNDemNY]

18. What pisses me off is the "blind adherance (sic)" to a personality.

Absolutely no thought is required for those who OBEY. Is "Bot" still a No-No- word? How about "tool"?

[NJmaverick]

33. Nice peace symbol, I am impressed with your deep thinking

With such deep though I guess I should consider your intellectually dishonest accusations of being an Obama worshipper as being devestating?

[MNDemNY]

47. Well, you should ,at least, wipe your chin before you go out in public!

[NJmaverick]

59. sad and utterly mindless. Thank you for helping me to prove my point

[MNDemNY]

63. You have no point.

Except administration talking points.

[NJmaverick]

69. Thank you for your brilliant well thought out and detailed reply

I don't know what I was thinking when I suggested it was all about simplistic thinking, symbols and insults.

[MNDemNY]

76. Whatever.

By the way who is that silly twit in your avitar? Is that a TV doctor? Wow...thats DEEP.:crazy: :rofl:

[CoffeeCat]

61. Wow, DUers are now mocking peace symbols...

WTF?

Has this site been infiltrated by the pod people?

What the hell is going on?

[NJmaverick]

65. Wow, DUers that mocks thinking over symbols

WTF?

Has this site been inflitrated by mindless zombies

What the hell is going on?


This isn't the first time a symbol has been hijacked for a poor cause, just look at the tea bagger and the Boston tea party.

[TornadoTN]

79. The only people not being true to an ideology here are the self-professed

"Democrats" who blindly stand by anything that this President says, even when it's in direct opposition to the values that we hold dear - just because he's a Democrat.

Why is it that we put a new suit on a President, change the letter beside his name denoting party, and suddenly everything that he does is right and should never be questioned?

No wonder this nation is falling fast.

[NJmaverick]

88. I am going to introduce yourself to something we call crtical thought

You will notice when you read, that there is nothing about parties or ideology, but rather cold hard facts and a thoughtful look at issues and options.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7135758

[TornadoTN]

98. Funny how critical thinking is a one way street to you

Nice pimping of your own post by the way.

[NJmaverick]

185. Is this one of those, "I don't agree with you and popularity=right" posts

because otherwise it looks like you are agreeing with me.

[xiamiam]

121. cold hard, yes..thoughtful, not so much..nt

[NJmaverick]

186. Nice slogan, very catchy and the reader doesn't have to expend a single thought

:applause:

[fascisthunter]

268. blind loyalty

[AllentownJake]

127. Cult of personality nt.

[NJmaverick]

188. I saw that very same phrase posted at Free Republic

what are the odds?

[AllentownJake]

192. The Free Republic attack

An opponent of your opinion with an exact opposite world view than another opponent used a similar word or phrase, therefore they are equivalent in their criticism.

For someone who is so reasoned and so complex you sure engage in a lot of simplistic attacks.

You really are nothing more than a bad cliche.

[NJmaverick]

204. Maybe you should change your peace symbol to a flame thrower

as it would be a more accurate portrayal.

[AllentownJake]

206. Aww

Did your attack on an Avatar not work out the way you hoped?

[boston bean]

215. These supporters of war really sound freeperish to me.

[Moochy]

310. Sock Puppetry Extreme

It's not against the rules if you are in "good standing" supposedly.

[Duende azul]

28. Keep your wild assumptions and shove them up wherever you want.

i can't remember one post of yours going into the facts regarding the issue.

Let us see your bright thinking. Instead of mocking other positions you should do some effort defining your stance.

Perhaps I just didn't see your contribution, then I'm sorry to have been unjust to you.

[NJmaverick]

37. Sometimes it's very easy to prove someone wrong, like in this case

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7135758

[Duende azul]

72. Well, I'm not really impressed.

[NJmaverick]

93. I'm sure you weren't, no symbols, no blind adherance to an ideology

just boring talk about issues, options and consequences. That sort of thing is no where near as much fun as symbols, slogans and insults.

[QC]

31. This post is so dazzlingly ironic that it is truly a work of art.

Bravo!

[NJmaverick]

38. Nice peace symbol! It looks like you put a lot of thought into it

I'm impressed

[TornadoTN]

85. Mocking peace symbols is the new way to show you are a true Democrat!

I see you are one of the top contributors to the new hotness around here.

[NJmaverick]

94. Is mocking the teabaggers mocking the Boston Tea Party?

you need to get over yourself

[TornadoTN]

104. That's rich

Get over myself? You are the only one I see coming into every thread throwing ad hominem attacks at people and looking down from your high and mighty chair of self-righteousness to pass judgment on everyone else.

[NJmaverick]

191. Description of Ad Hominem

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

See now that you understand the words you used, you can appreciate the irony of your post.

[AllentownJake]

195. The Irony of you posting that

After attacking avatars.

[NJmaverick]

200. You're up to at least 4 posts of nothing but simplistic insults and personal attacks

not a hint of discussion of the topic. So you might want to look at your own actions.

[AllentownJake]

203. Yes because the FreeRepublic line was enlightened

:rofl:

I'm so smart and above everyone else except when I'm engaging in the behavior I am speaking out against.

Simple word for that. Hypocrisy

[Name removed]

201. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

210. I want you to look at this post

it shows how conversations progress when YOU move beyond name calling and personal attacks. Notice the complex and relavent issue being discussed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7144301&mesg_id=7145084

[AllentownJake]

319. You start off with name calling and than call for civility?

[AllentownJake]

135. Amazing

They have gotten to the point that they will attack peace symbols. That peace symbol OP was so genius, my bigger surprise is that there are those dumb enough to take the bait.

[spoony]

77. You mean like "finish the job"? I'm sick of simplistic slogans, too. nt

[NJmaverick]

102. No, more like consider the options

look at the situation in terms of our national interests, our fight with terrorism, the lives of the soldiers involved as well as the Afghan people. Look at the various options, consider the possibility of success and then decide the best course of action.


You go on posting symbols and war bad peace good though. that is certainly helping matters.

[spoony]

113. So is being condescending toward those who disagree with you.

If you can't see that slogans are also being used on the pro-war side (and from what I've seen the ratio of sloganeering is pretty high pro to anti) then you're being myopic on this.

[NJmaverick]

216. I don't like slogans used by anyone. I am pushing for critical thought here

I want discussion of ramifications and the various options. This is not a pro-war vs anti-war struggle. All that fight serves to do is distract us from the real issues. We need to focus on the situation in Afghanistan and what is the best course of action.

[Raineyb]

297. Says the person who has only blindly adhered to party.

I love irony.

[Greyhound]

313. So those of us that oppose this ongoing mass-murder are all idiots, in your opinion.

:rofl:

Nice handle BTW...

[Junkdrawer]

10. I'm changing my avatar to a peace symbol this week in your honor

:hi:

[Starry Messenger]

11. Did someone tell you to change your avatar?

What good does anything do on DU? It's a place where narratives are created and we come together to contemplate them.

[OneGrassRoot]

22. There was an OP all about that yesterday.

Encouraging everyone enraged by Obama's decision to change the avatar to a peace symbol.

Which, IMHO, is fine. It's the "us against them" dynamic that has been created in the last 48 hours that isn't helpful or productive. I haven't seen anyone posting that they WANT war, for cryin' out loud.

Again, IMHO.

:)

[Starry Messenger]

36. Oh, I missed that one.

I'm tempted to change it just for the OP.

I have actually had people tell me this escalation is just what they hoped for and voted for actually. Rather viciously too. I've never seen a group of people so angry over getting exactly what they wished. :shrug:

[OneGrassRoot]

56. Wow....

The only ones I know who are HAPPY about it are right-wing retired military peeps. And they most certainly didn't vote for Obama. Not these guys.....

[Starry Messenger]

68. This was right on DU.

It was more than one poster.

[xiamiam]

101. well..liz cheney, newt gingrich,karl rove, bil kristol and michael steele support as well

strange bedfellows, i say..

[NYCGirl]

128. Only up to the point where we leave. They hate that. NT

[SidDithers]

13. Rec'd with enthusiasm...

You're no dingbat, Robb. No matter what they say :)

Sid

[OneGrassRoot]

19. I'm sure there are many ways what you've written will be....

misinterpreted, as I'm convinced we all see and hear what we want to see and hear.

But I can't recommend this post more highly. For the most part, you speak for me.

Thank you. :)

I just posted similar sentiments elsewhere:

I think many people come here -- or any online message board -- to do battle. They seek confrontation and conflict in this anonymous venue. When something happens that is intense within the political world, like the last two days, it's like a million bombs are exploding on screen. People lash out and actively try to start shit; others try to avoid the shit but get sucked into arguments fairly easily.

Rarely does anyone post about ACTION...offering productive ways to deal with our problems. The posts, by and large, are judgmental posts, explaining why they judge this person or that person, or this situation or that situation, as good, bad or ugly.

With judgment comes push-back.

[ShortnFiery]

20. I don't know about "idiots" but squatting here disparaging an entire group of posters at

DU could be judged by many as IMMATURE as a Junior High Clique.

Enjoy your clubhouse and backstabbing an entire segment of DU. :eyes:

[cali]

25. omg. you really are clueless.

you have no safe island to speak from. You're the worst offender of this on
DU.

I honestly pity someone so completely lacking in self awareness.

[NYC_SKP]

58. It's easy for them to stand behind other peoples corpses to hurl insults or say STFU.

They act as though THEY are active service members, veterans or Afghani casualties.

The actual veterans I know on DU agree with Robb.

It's bullshit, cali.

[ShortnFiery]

78. Yes, especially since those of you supporting more combat troops to Afghanistan are, in essence,

cheering for more Killing and Dying by our troops.

You can't have it both ways. :shrug:

[Sukie]

120. That's where you are wrong.

I want our involvment with the middle east to end now, with this war. I don't want some president in ten years, or twenty years, having to send my grandchildren or great grandchildren back because we left a vulnerable situation over there. When my husband went to the first Iraq war, I never would have guessed that my son would have to go back in less than 20 years. You see, war is horrible, but sometimes, if you pay attention to the reasonings, you might understand that we have to do something we don't like now, in order to keep a worse situation from coming about later.

[ShortnFiery]

129. Al Qaeda is NOT in Afghanistan. We have NO valid right to continue occupying that sovereign nation.

[Sukie]

140. Afghanistan is not ready to handle keeping Al Qaeda out!

If you listened to the president. If you listened to Ambassador Rice. If you listened to Kerry. If you listened at all to those explaining why we are surging, then you would get that. But you choose not to believe those with the information. That is all fine. But you can't, beyond a shadow of a doubt, say they are wrong. You just believe it, based on your desire to believe all war is wrong. period

[ShortnFiery]

241. Yes they can. We are there to Prop up the illegitimate Mayor of Kabul against the Taliban ...

that is the covert agenda, i.e., the Administration's/Pentagon's dirty little secret.

There's no love lost between al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban have LOCAL not GLOBAL interests. The last thing they would want to do is "throw in" with al Qaeda ... UNLESS we stay and support the PUPPET THUG RULER, Karzai. Then, the enemy of my enemy is "my friend."

We should not insert OUR TROOPS in the middle of a civil war.

Get. Out. Now.

[ShortnFiery]

83. Many of us are veterans and/or active duty service members. Why is that?

Probably because we've either SEEN the horrors of war and/or have had loved ones who have come home in a coffin or less than whole.

[cali]

89. you do realize that I'm against the surge, right?

and you can't speak for all military families. Furthermore, you're not in the military.

[NYC_SKP]

114. your reply...

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7144301&mesg_id=7144459

Was not to the OP but to a reply to the OP.

Maybe your reply was meant for Robb, in which case mine is misdirected.

I agree with the OP, I'm sick of the petty and oversimplistic shit-throwing by, well, everyone.

And I'm also against a continued military existence in that part of the world.

But I'm not going to second guess this administration.

[ShortnFiery]

124. "I'm not going to second guess this administration."

With respect, the above sentiment is UN-PATRIOTIC. We must keep our LEADERS honest. Do not ever trust a politician 100%, not even a democratic one.

We will lose our blessed democratic republic if we are not vigilant.

We probably have already lost it to a right wing duopoly whose politicians merely play roles to keep us unwashed masses placated and/or at each other's throat.

SAD. VERY SAD that you would NOT "second guess" and follow up the rhetoric of ANY POLITICIAN - especially our OWN democrats. :(

[NYC_SKP]

144. Well, here's the problem...

It's like nuclear power. Plenty of people find it easy to say "no fuckin' way" until they really understand CO2 and the dangers of coal and global climate change. Then they go from "tear them down" to "well, we should keep the ones that are running".

In other words, it's a complicated fucking situation and waaay over my head, really.

And sometimes it takes military activity to undo a big fat mess left behind by an evil American regime, I believe that as unfortunate as it is.

So, absent a much better understanding of what the hell is really going on over there, I'm left with having to trust THIS president, or taking the easy route of sloganeering an absolutist POV, "no war, no way, no how", or somesuch.

And I tend to listen to the veterans I know and who are on this board.

grantcart had a very good piece, cliffordu has more of a well reasoned rant, both a enlightening posts and if you haven't read both of them I'll be happy to post a link.

:donut:

[ShortnFiery]

246. Don't give me that AEI disinformation that it's "too complicated" for us unwashed masses.

NO AMERICAN who draws a paycheck would SUPPORT "killing and dying" for the upper 1% and their moneyed interests in Geopolitics.

No, this escalation will NOT keep the American people safe. It's not THAT COMPLICATED: we occupy two Muslim nations. The Afghan People HATE the occupiers. Al Qaeda is no longer in that country and has CELLS world-wide.

It doesn't take A ROCKET SCIENTIST to conclude that every day our combat troops occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans are less safe, both at home and abroad.

p.s. I'll give you the fact that GC is super-intelligent but I'm also a military veteran. I served in Military Intelligence during the 1980s. Although GC may have a few IQ points on me, I'm no slouch and have reason to believe that WE may not be a part of his "big club." Think about it?

[ShortnFiery]

115. cali, you constantly attack my positions. You have a deep need to act as my big sister.

It's very clear that we have a personality conflict. I've asked you several times to not indulge your instant dislike of my actions ... yet you persist. Our conflicts are OLD and TIRE ... how about we disengage for the duration? or at least this lifetime? YOU are not "a cop" on DU. I know you dislike me, that's cool. In fact EVERYONE here knows the above. Let's give it a rest? ;)

[ShortnFiery]

73. Too funny! Talk about the pot calling the kettle "black."

No, with regard to offenders, I think you're still "the tops." ;) :hi:

[arcadian]

99. Bwahahahahahaha!

Pot.Kettle. Black

[cali]

112. hardly.

I don't generalize about people here who hold a different position than I do, sweetiepie.

[Hatchling]

172. Calling someone 'sweetiepie' is a sign of disrepect.

IMO

[Fire1]

221. instigating much. n/t

[MNDemNY]

139. Worse than me?

Shit, I'll have to try harder!:o

[noamnety]

23. Hide the photos of coffins.

Hide the photos of abu ghraib.
Hide the photos of deaths.

We don't want to see all that while we are theorizing about how productive it is.

[Hepburn]

44. You are not kidding....

...they war lovers have been all over the thread I did with the funerals of the war dead with UnR's.

They love the thought of war...just not the reality of it...:puke:

[noamnety]

66. I remember when

republicans were condemning newscasters for even reading the names of the dead.

I don't recall any DUers siding with republicans on the need to hide that stuff. I recall DU speaking in unison about the importance of keeping the cost of war in the public eye.

[Hepburn]

90. Well, check out all of the UnRs on my thread about the funerals of our war dead.

Absolutely disgusting, sickening and sad to see this kind of RW crap on the DU.

[QC]

110. But that was then.

Before President Dreamy McHotty ascended to the White house.

[Ignis]

273. Why waste your beautiful mind on that, after all?

[Xenotime]

304. The apple didn't fall far from the tree, did it.

[Ignis]

325. Have you read _Bush on the Couch_?

Lots of interesting info in there about Poppy and Babs' parenting style.

[watercolors]

30. Great post! I hope others understand it?

Du is become so different, I find myself cringing at most of the posts these days. I grew up in a DEmocratic family, many politicains in it. I worked the polls at age 16! It deeply hurts to read some of the hateful angry posts against our President. WE may not approve of his decision, but we can at least give him the benefit of doubt and be civilized about it. I am amazed at all he has accomplished in this year! WE are an American Idol Mentality, Your either in or out and we are not prepared to give you a chance to prove yourself! So sad for this country.

[ixion]

84. what is civilized about a hostile occupation?

what is civilized about bombing an already brutalized country?

There is nothing civilized about a military solution. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

So don't support brutality and tell me I'm not civil because I don't.

[Lint Head]

40. Pictures say a thousand words.

[Lint Head]

43. pictures say a thousand words.

[closeupready]

153. RIGHT - that's what I was posting.

n/t

[mopinko]

a new low here, it is.

and sad for all of us that want peace and a democratic president (THIS president).
did they think that mopping up after these criminals would be a matter of signing a few laws and having a big cigar?

[cbdo2007]

48. It's similar to trying to have an actual discussion on the economy here.

You have those of us who actually know how the economy works and how it all fits together and why it works that way...

and then you've got all of the people who's knowledge of the economy is simply "big business is bad!!!" "They're all criminals!" Those statements are true but without knowing why "big business is bad" and just shouting that over and over again doesn't help the situation.

[NYC_SKP]

49. Thank you, Robb!

The "self-righteous" is thick in here.

Every point you make is valid, it's way too easy for people to stand behind other people's dead bodies and losses while they hurl insult after insult at anyone who doesn't fall in line or STFU.

It's bullshit.

I worry that mods will lock this, but I'm proud of you for posting it.

:toast:

NYC_SKP

[BeFree]

50. "War is over if you want it"

If only it were so easy. War is over if you want it. War is MIC. MIC is war. It ain't over, it is stronger than ever.

That there is so much blind loyalty to the MIC is disgusting.
A basic element of our opposition is, and always has been, the MIC.
So to see DUers roll over and take the MIC's words as the final words, well...

[ShortnFiery]

97. What many here don't realize is that this 18 month surge is just another way to GIFT the MIC ...

with a TRILLION more of our tax dollars. That's cool, we didn't need those bucks domestically, did we? Therefore, in addition to DUPING the populace into a SENSELESS ESCALATION, our private war profiteering corporations are going to make out like bandits ... with the full support of the clueless public, i.e., anything to keep us safe albeit al Qaeda has moved into Pakistan, Yemen, Somolia, etc. How idiotic is that? Do you believe THE LIES that our government is feeding us? But you will think erroneously that our government has NEVER lied to us in the past? Here's what I have in reply: Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq WMDs. :nuke:

[xiamiam]

141. there was a time when 95% of the people here knew this..the other 5% were trolls

different percentages today

[BeFree]

149. Do I believe the lies?

Where should I start? <<<Jfk? RFK? MlK? >>>> 9/11?

There are many here who do believe the lies. It is our biggest hurdle.

[CoffeeCat]

51. So, there are actually Democrats...

...who are for widening the war in Afghanistan?

We used to be solidly united against this Middle-East debacle--which we all know is about oil and
plundering resources. When Bush did the same thing in Iraq we all recognized the con. We were
all against the war.

What's the problem now? Is a war launched by a Democrat--suddenly a great idea, even though innocents
will be slaughtered, brave soldiers will be murdered and the corporations can rake in a few more billion
as the PNACer boy soldiers continue their neocon fantasy game of 'let's plunder the world"?

Really?

I haven't been involved in any of the war conversations on DU, since Obama's speech. But if what
you're saying--is that half of DU supports Bush II redux--then I think I've lost my faith in Democrats.

You can't stand around screaming truth about the Iraq war when Bush is at the helm--and then turn around and
cheerlead the neocon lies--just because a Democrat is now leading the corruption and murder. We aren't
that simple minded are we? Their guy does it and we're against war, but our guy does it and it's bombs away?

Seriously?

And I'm also a little sickened that a DUer would suggest that peace-symbol avatars and talking about the
war on DU--is somehow wrong. What the hell? I think Rush Limbaugh makes fun of Democrats for doing
those things too.

The world is upside down if that OP is acceptable at DU.

[ixion]

62. yeah, amazing, isn't it?

All of a sudden the cheerleaders and apologists come out of the woodwork.

I don't recall such ardent support for the hostile occupation of Afghanistan when * was in office.

[CoffeeCat]

86. All Democrats used to understand the con of the neocons...so WTF?

This really isn't an issue about war, per se. We all know that this Middle-East game in the
dessert is about what the neocons initially said it was---the United States using military
might to dominate the world's resources.

It was up on the PNAC website for years, for Pete's sake.

We all understood that the Iraq war was the neocon/PNACers getting their foot in the door.

Additional wars in that area serve only to widen that plan--the plan on their damn Web site!!

So, we're really not talking about being "anti-war" per se. We're talking about being against
the brainless, failed, PNAC debacle--and we're against our politicians using war to enrich
their corporate buddies who donated to their campaigns.

War is legitimate sometimes. WW2 was necessary. Absolutely.

This is not. I thought we all understood that. So again, WTF?

Where are all of the corporatist, neocon cheerleaders coming from and why are they on DU?

[ixion]

95. what you're witnessing is those who put party above politics

something I find highly unethical and hypocritical.

[Zomby Woof]

333. You weren't around in the fall of 2001 either

A lot of the DUers who joined in 2004 and after really don't know shit about DU or its history.

And yes, I am waving my longevity dick around.

[TwilightGardener]

81. When was DU ever solidly united against Afghanistan? Many of us supported that effort.

We were united against Iraq. Different war, you see.

[ixion]

91. Huh?

I have a distinctly different recollection, and don't remember support for George Bush invading Afghanistan. :eyes:

[TwilightGardener]

116. I never, ever caught grief for my support of Afghanistan, or for supporting the Democratic

party's position on it (which was that we should refocus on our effort there by ending Iraq). Now, all of a sudden, I'm not welcome here, and some are claiming that we used to be a "united front" against Afghanistan, and that's just not true--revisionist history. It wasn't an important topic here, in fact, until Obama took office. People are confusing the united opposition against Iraq for Afghanistan.

[ixion]

202. again I say: huh?

It wasn't an important topic?

It seems we've been on different boards over the last 8 years.

[Renew Deal]

122. Then your memory isn't too good.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x289081

[TwilightGardener]

138. Wasn't here then--I joined DU in 2007, and openly declared my support

for Afghanistan, and nobody had a problem with it. In fact, since all of our candidates during the primaries espoused increased action there, I had plenty of company. Didn't start being called a "war monger", etc. until the last few months. Only thing that changed was the President.

[Renew Deal]

146. That wasn't to you

But I agree.

[TwilightGardener]

150. Oopsie...

:D

[ixion]

198. 58% against...

that's a pretty solid majority.

[Robb]

222. Now who sounds like Bush?

:rofl:

Sorry, cheap shot, but I had to take it. "Mandate" and what-not.

But it's a majority, for certain, you're right. Interestingly it's almost exactly the same number as a poll I posted yesterday. I'm not sure what that tells us, frankly.

[ixion]

226. heh...yeah, cheap shot

:rofl:

It is interesting that it's close, though. :hi:

[redqueen]

285. Thanks for posting that link.

It's alarming how easily people can tailor their memories to suit what they'd prefer to believe.

Back then, nobody got called a chickenhawk or told to enlist (or otherwise insulted) for saying they'd support Bush sending more troops in Afghanistan... but now that Obama is in charge, it's a huge problem.

Funny, that.

[CoffeeCat]

111. I supported a limited US presence...

...in Afghanistan--in order to surgically cut out Al Queda and to
bring bin Laden in.

That requires strong intelligence gathering and special ops carrying out
limited, surgical military exercises that would specifically erradicate
Al Queda.

Yes, the world supported that.

What's happening now is a different animal. Cluster bombs, tens of thousands of U.S troops.
War among the Afghani people--slaughtering innocent men, women and children--just like we
did in Iraq. A big, giant murder machine that would be an inappropriate response to
ridding the world of several hundred Al Queda members.

The solution doesn't fit the crime. It's more big-money war.

We used to all know this.

[TwilightGardener]

133. There's no "we". My objections regarding Afghanistan was that Cheney

totally fucked it up by sending all of our troops to Iraq to start a new war, lost all of the ground our troops gained in the early years of the war, and failed to complete the anti-terror mission, and now we're kinda screwed. But I never supported suddenly pulling the plug on it as a total failure, and thought maybe Obama could bring it to a decent resolution. Still hope that. But the revisionist history here is getting out of hand--I just don't remember many protest posts against Afghanistan, and I remember support for both Hillary's and Obama's and Biden's plans for that region during the campaign.

[xiamiam]

155. WE still do...its the 30-40k newer members that i'm not sure about..nt

[xiamiam]

136. that is not a good excuse because you are talking about 9 years ago

when it WAS a good idea to get obl.....it is not now...so give that one a break

[TwilightGardener]

142. I refuse to let people tell me how "we were UNITED against Afghanistan" when in fact

that was not true, and still isn't.

[Ignis]

274. We really need a new name for PNAC, since we've embraced it.

Perhaps we could call it "Real Democrats Love War?"

[Sukie]

55. Because I expressed support for Obama,

believing that he is the moral man with a conscious that I voted for, who wouldn't choose the escalation unless it was the only option to ending the war, I was told to "enlist then". Me, a 50 year old daughter, wife and mother of men who served in war. My dad is a Vietnam vet who served in the Special Forces and went to Nam 4 times and was wounded 3 times, who has the Soldiers medal for bravery outside of wartime. My husband went to Iraq in 1991 as a blackhawk helicopter pilot and if anyone understands anything about war, they wouldn't want to fly a blackhawk in one. My son, who was 11 years old when his dad went to Iraq, went in 2006, as a reservist. He isn't a pro war type. However, when the war began, he enlisted in the reserve while in college so that he could do his part. They pulled him out of college three times for training and then sent him to Iraq, with less than a year left to graduate. It set him back tremendously. Since he has been back, he finished college, but do you think all the pro war businesses that supposedly support the troops have hired him? No. He is among the jobless. He has been graduated now over a year and a half and having a hell of a time trying to find work. People on this board who make comments to others don't have any idea what that persons life is like, and really don't care. They just want to feel superior. To me, the peacers on DU are no better than the righties who are against abortion. All war is bad. All abortion is bad. No shades of gray.

[spoony]

74. You post that and accuse others of trying to start fights?

C'mon, really?

[stray cat]

75. Peace Good War Bad is as substantive an exchange as you are likely to see I'm afraid

Not much substantial below the slogan.

[spoony]

82. You disagree that peace is good and war is bad?

And as for "slogans" it seems that market has been cornered by the "finish the job" crowd.

[NYC_SKP]

118. "swoosh", right over your head... n/t

[spoony]

126. Yeah I'm just a moron, why don't you explain it since you're so bright. nt

[NYC_SKP]

161. Not a moron, maybe just passionate.... I don't know....

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7144301&mesg_id=7144808

:donut:

[spoony]

179. I still don't see why someone would say

that "peace good war bad" is without substance. Actually the fact that you would define this military action as an exception ("sometimes it takes military activity...") to it would indicate that it is, normally, the ideal. No? You may disagree with it as an "absolutist" position, but there is indeed great substance in it. Specifically, in this case, I think those who are supporting this surge don't give the dissenters credit for looking at this as an individual conflict. The accusations in this thread are that we think: "this is war, war bad, me oppose!" We're looking at THIS war and we simply don't find it worth continuing. You can disagree, but you can't fairly smear anti-war people as being THOUGHTLESSLY anti-war anymore than it is fair to say people who support it are blind Obamabots.

[NYC_SKP]

190. I don't think Obama thinks it's worth continuing either.

And I think that, and you'll remember bush started it, the right way to leave, and to be sure that all the past casualties were not entirely in vain, is to go in with strength and a strategy to make a best effort to be able to leave that region in better shape.

That's it, I gotta run, thanks for the reasoned discussion, though.

:toast:

[spoony]

293. Yep, cheers

Have a good one!

[NYC_SKP]

316. Peace, spoony!

:toast:

[tekisui]

105. I hear your complaint.

The discussions have been unproductive, to say the least. One thing that bothers me is the ridicule and disdain that anti-war posters have gotten from supporters of the plan.

Very few of the responses from the supporters have had substance. When well-meaning, anti-war and pro-Obama posters have spoken of their true problem with the escalation, they are called names and the debate is deflected. The supporters of the surge have been as nasty and bullish as anyone.

I was shocked when once the plan became known and good DUers were against it--the negative, personal and ugly responses hurled at them. I was really surprised to see such disdain for liberals who strongly believe in peace over war.

I know a lot of the anti-war posts have been unhelpful or stupid even. But, it goes both ways. I have seen over the top ridiculousness from the pro-surge posters as well. I have never seen such passion to defend or deflect debate on war on a Democratic site.

[tandot]

109. No shit. Great post, Robb.

:hi:

[NYC_SKP]

125. The very same "Peace" "Groupthink" led to a few folks disrespecting returning VietNam Vets.

For anyone who remembers.

I knew this was familiar and finally figured it out.

So, maybe that's just around the corner, calling vets babykillers...

:puke:

:patriot:

Edit: changed "people" in subject line to "a few folks" because protesters were mostly respectful of returning Viet Nam vets.

But a few assholes, suffering from simplistic groupthink, embarrassed us all, and were actually counterproductive.

:donut:

[spoony]

130. Wow. Really? Pre-emptive condemnation of anti-war posters as

vet-spitters? Really? Holy shit this place has gone around the bend.

[ShortnFiery]

132. Oh, that 's pure unadulterated BULLSHIT! Many of us respected the vets who were family members.

... another right wing hawkish meme to not take anti-war people seriously.

BUNK!

[G_j]

137. I also call

bullshit!

:thumbsdown:

[NYC_SKP]

151. I stand by it 100%. I never said all protesters were that way, only that shallow thinking...

...and groupthink helped make it happen.

This phenomenon is beyond argument, it's how it happens.

By and large, the majority of protesters were caring and intelligent AND respectful of servicemen.

:patriot:

[G_j]

162. it would have helped if you stated that up front

"by and large, the majority of protesters were caring and intelligent AND respectful of servicemen."


I was involved in the peace movement back then also. Most of us had friends or family who had been drafted. We were trying to bring them home. I really never witnessed the hatred or disrespect toward the soldiers that has been mentioned through the years.
It may have happened, but I never saw it, and I was at quite a few demonstrations.

[NYC_SKP]

167. You are right. I edited subject line and made a clarification.

It is possible that some of these haters were plants, but I suspect that some of them were just really passionate and uninformed, and this was a result of jumping on a bandwagon without thinking things through.

Mass hysteria, mob mentality? Maybe these are part of the same dynamic, I don't know.

[G_j]

178. thanks

it's kind of a sore spot for me. I feel that the 'baby killer' meme has been repeated so many times that it has completely distorted
history for some. It started with the RW and was eventually picked up by others it seems. But I never heard it.
I tried to stay away from situations where there were likely to be plants, but I know there were many. FBI records bear that out.

"Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" that was the theme that sticks in my mind.

[MNDemNY]

152. I tiny minority who got a lot af attention at the time. You know like teabaggers.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War was one of the most vocal and effective anti-war group, ever. Your post shows ignorance on sooo many levels. Who low will you go to defend this policy???Is. "America. Love It Or Leave It" next?:rofl: :patriot:

[NYC_SKP]

156. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7144301&mesg_id=7144830

:patriot:

[Tailormyst]

157. When I march along side VFP and IVAW I assure you I am not calling them baby-killers

I think to label peace activists like that is really way off base. I would invite you to join us at the next DC March so you can see for yourself that it is not a group disrespecting vets.

[NYC_SKP]

165. I am certain you are not.

Note that I said "a few".

Maybe you can refute my explanation of why a few did that to veterans, instead of taking this personally.

Thanks for your support, by the way.

[jonnyblitz]

180. wow a good chunk of us "peace" folks ARE vets so if you are

trying to compare your plight as a criticized DU chickenhawk with returning vietnam vets who were spat on then you are more fucked up than i originally thought!! :crazy:

[closeupready]

143. Barbara Bush, I didn't know you posted on DU!

Don't worry your pretty little head about body bags and coffins. Not worth it. :sarcasm:

[MadHound]

145. Heaven forbid we confront you with the realities of escalating an illegal, immoral war

Heaven forbid we disturb you beautiful mind with what happens in the real world.

We're making you uncomfortable, good. Perhaps you'll start to think now instead of just blindly supporting a war because a Democratic president says that you should.

[Hepburn]

175. + a zillion! n/t

[sui generis]

187. the dipshittery abounds

Iraq was the illegal war. How do you find afghanistan to be an illegal war? What is an illegal war anyway? We HAVE proceeded poorly in Afghanistan. We should not BE in Iraq at all, but Afghanistan has a remaining issue that will continue to impact enrollment in al qaeda and is also STILL a human rights wreck in the form of the Taliban.

If we want out we need to enforce a standard for human rights BEFORE we walk away, by any means necessary. This chickenshit "not my problem" attitude is immature and not the best face of our vaunted humanity.

[MadHound]

247. Let's see, we're killing innocents by the thousands, that is one way in which it is immoral

Though there are many others also.

We're also conducting military operations on the soil of a non-cooperating sovereign nation, that makes it illegal.

As far as Al Qaeda goes, well if we drive them out of the region they have shown before that they will simply set up operations in another country, Somalia, Sudan. Are you, like our president, willing to wage war forever and ever, amen, invading one country after another simply to chase down a small group of people?

As far as human rights goes, yes, they are atrocious in Afghanistan. They're also atrocious in many other countries in the world, China, Saudi Arabia. Do you propose that we drop in the military into those countries in order to correct their human rights record? Actually, using the military as a means of enforcing human rights in a country is A: just a bit oxymoronic and B: Far from the best or most effective way to spread human rights. In fact using the military to enforce human rights is really quite counterproductive.

Using the pretexts of Al Qaeda and human rights to provide a fig leaf of cover for what is/was a military operation certainly isn't the best face of our vaunted humanity. Killing thousands and thousands of innocents really does tend to muffle that message.

[sui generis]

280. I agree in principle

but pragmatically we are in THAT country. Absolutely you can't "enforce" human rights by using the military, but in a country with 34 "regions" and only two stable regions we do need to protect what stability there is and even try to expand it.

We can't just ignore human issues. It seems we expect the "oppressed" to rise up and overcome their oppressors - that's a juvenile romantic notion that many have. If you want human rights in ANY other country we have to make supporting human rights a priority and value of our country in its foreign affairs.

We should want the greedy and the oppressors who ARE in power to "rise up" themselves and freely build and enforce human rights infrastructures so they can remain in power and profit from it, and we do that by exercising economic initiatives, both against those countries and against any country that continues to deal with them. It's a lot less bloody than insisting that freedom fighters like the al sadr army fight for freedom and end up embittered oppressors themselves.

We have to set the standard - but in the meanwhile, in my twisted opinion, at least as of the moment, the Taliban does not have a right to exist in a country that we occupy. If you belong to the Taliban, you are not an "innocent", and if belonging to the Taliban is NOT a choice, then the Taliban not merely but really most sincerely should not exist in a country that we occupy.

[redqueen]

287. Noooo we don't... it was 'chutzpah' for Obama to dare to imply

that the Afghan security forces should help at all. The thread in which that little gem was posted got over 300 recs.


Madness abounds.

[Hissyspit]

339. Marjorie Cohn: Reasons Why Afghanistan Was Illegal War

http://www.alternet.org/world/93473/afghanistan:_the_other_illegal_war

It's not "dipshittery."

David Weirich: "Keeping Troops in Afghanistan Violates U.S. Law"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Keeping-troops-in-Afghanis-by-David-Weirich-091130-579.html

[xiamiam]

176. its not just those who die either..so many physically maimed or

psychologically scarred..heartbreaking...an entire generation of young people have been deeply affected by this mess ..are we about to go for the second generation...just a few more years and..voila..the kids of those kids will be fighting

[Hepburn]

184. Yep, generational:

My grandfather: WWI

My father: WWII

Myself: Vietnam

My children: Iraq

[donco6]

181. Yeah, sort of like the "So you LOVE the Taliban?" posts.

In fact, it's just like that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

232. You're right - it's no better.

All I can say is that I, for one, have felt provoked by having people call me a warmonger or that I'm "cheerleading for war". Childishness begets childishness, and I think I can safely say that it was not posts like the one you point out that served as the opening salvo.

[sui generis]

182. brava Sir Dingbat

it is absurd and ironic that the people on DU who are most vocal about "peace" are most willing fight their friends here to the death.

:shrug: breakfast isn't just for breakfast anymore.

[bigtree]

234. not everyone who argues against these occupations is a pacifist

. . . just opposed to 'dumb wars'.

[Robb]

235. Very VERY few, actually, you're right.

My last poll only managed (IIRC) two posters who said they were against all wars, no matter what.

[Fire1]

205. K&R. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

K&R

[berni_mccoy]

213. K&R

[grahamhgreen]

223. War #3 - we can not afford it our country is in shambles. nt

[alittlelark]

229. Robb is NOT a dingbat. n/t

[AndrewP]

233. **GOLF CLAP**

[TexasObserver]

238. Another meaningless rant, poorly written.

[AllentownJake]

242. You and I have become much similar posters

In the past 2 months

How are things going?

:hi:

[TexasObserver]

249. I'm sick about this war. It's stupid. It's pointless.

It will cost American and Afghani lives, and only make things worse. And it's pissing away money needed here.

Still lacking needed jobs program to put unemployed to work now. I'm expecting a 2000 point drop in the DOW in the next four months. I also expect it to rebound by mid summer, however.

Our job isn't to agree with the president. It's to make sure he doesn't abandon our core values.

Less than a third of Americans support him on Afghanistan, and that's about the same level of support he gets here. The war supporters always make more racket than their numbers would suggest.

[cbdo2007]

250. Doesn't sound like you're a very good economist either.

[TexasObserver]

252. Like you'd know.

[AllentownJake]

253. Funny because this is one of the few posters on here

that can go toe to toe with me on the subject and has.

[TexasObserver]

259. I preached being a seller in the market from Jan 08 until Feb 09.

I posted as such here many times in that period.

I encouraged people to get back in when the DOW dropped below 7000. And I've been encouraging buying since then. For those who missed getting back in for the 09 rally, I encourage being ready to move back into the market in early 2010.

Here's why:

First, there will be many, many businesses which choose to go into chapter 11 to reorganize in the first quarter of 2010. They'll get all the cash they can, and then take the chapter instead of paying creditors. They'll keep the debts they want, and get rid of executory contracts that hurt them. They'll cram down debt and spend the first half of the year getting streamlined. Those that can hang on will be able to rebound. Those whose core business is decimated won't be able to, and they'll convert.

Second, the commercial credit situation is going to cause ripples when debt goes into default. The security for such loans will not cover the debts, so lenders will looking at non performing loans, and that means their capital will take a huge hit, putting such lenders at risk for failure.

Third, consumers who have used credit to buy Christmas and such at year's end will take a chapter in bankruptcy, and all that consumer that goes bad will show up in the first quarter.


I remain optimistic for the long haul. I still think the DOW will be above 10,000 on Sept 1, 2010.

[AllentownJake]

262. Disagree on outcome

Agree with analysis.

Like I've said, you are one of the posters on here, that I may disagree with from time to time. I have respect for.

[TexasObserver]

263. For the sake of the country, I hope I'm right about it.

I think you do nice job discussing economic issues intelligently, Jake.

The son of a friend who just graduated from a nearby university is going to Allentown to work. I don't know the name of the employer, but he's starting at $50k and got a signing bonus. Managing some kind of distribution center, I think. It's a national company. Don't know which one.

Good luck on your job situation. I hate seeing people unemployed or underemployed.

[AllentownJake]

267. Good sign

The distribution centers around here have been decimated over the past year.

The only considerations I believe you are missing is the political debate that begins next year on the banking industry and the war it will have in congress.

The other is I'm very confident a large fraud is about to blow up in the banking sector. A former Goldman Analyst made a very good case that several of the Too Big to Fails are cooking their books.

[TexasObserver]

272. Oh, they're cooking them.

They're creating controlled entities to which they "sell" foreclosed assets at the debt values, allowing the lender the illusion of not suffering a deficiency on the loan at that moment in time. This allows them to overstate their capital, which keeps them afloat. By deferring their losses through the subterfuge, they are able to stave off the hits they'd take by the examiners from the Comptroller of the Currency.

It's a scam, and Uncle is looking the other way for now.

[AllentownJake]

275. That is where the political war comes in over regulation next year

It's called leverage.

[AllentownJake]

255. 2000 you are more pessimistic than I am

I was expecting a 1000 fall in January when the Christmas sales come in than some stabilization on the cheap dollar.

All is quiet on the Christmas sales number after Black Friday...translation, no good news to tout.

[TexasObserver]

261. See my other post. I think it will be a short term drop for 3-6 months.

I expect some rough sledding in the first quarter, and as bad news comes in, the market will start to think it's got a Thanksgiving to New Year's hangover. Add bad news internationally, and cold weather, and it's a prescription for a short term dip.

2000 is probably high. I don't expect it to drop below 8500, but I do expect it to go below 9K.

[JVS]

289. It's almost creepy how all the fussing and feuding has been overcome by the dire circumstances

[Moochy]

307. But behold the power of the War Reccers

[dusmcj]

243. they're projecting, but you don't need to let it spoil your day

they're busy congratulating each other about being right (and feeling a sense of relief that they finally found some others to affirm them) which means that some other people will actually be getting the work done of keeping the Taliban at bay, here (can anyone say "doctrinal conformity" ?) as well as abroad. Given the (lack of) intelligence or at least knowledge evinced by most of their commentary so far, I'd say that's a good thing too.

[ShortnFiery]

251. "they're busy congratulating each other"

Gee, how ironic. That's what the OP and club members of this thread are preoccupied with, i.e., congratulating each other with delusions of grandeur. :evilgrin:

[AllentownJake]

258. I've never seen a group of people angrier that they got their way nt.

[dusmcj]

260. it's not about getting "my" way and the anger is for the lack of useful discourse /nt

[JVS]

291. Then go talk to people like Sarah Palin who applaud this escalation.

It's not our fault on the left that you guys move right and then don't like what we have to say in response.

[dusmcj]

318. I don't care whether goofballs happen to support the same things I do /nt

[JVS]

327. Then quit complaining about the lack of "useful" discourse.

[Prism]

301. That's what I don't understand at all

If the President is doing so many things they want him to, why so furious about it?

That's what leads me to suspect much of it is less about policy than "teamism". In the same way people get bent out of shape that someone holds different religious beliefs. It's not enough to know what you believe, others must agree.

[Amonester]

265. What the hell good do you think your OP does, on DU?

Satisfy your ego?

mmm... otay.

[Bluebear]

269. "So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

[Ignis]

276. Ahhhhhhhhhh, get out of my mind!

Post # 273:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7144301#7146680

[Bluebear]

278. ...

:toast: to our beautiful minds!

[LostInAnomie]

270. +1

K&R

[alarimer]

277. I have a problem with people who were opposed to this war when Bush was in office but now favor it.

Because their guy is now leading it.

The Afghanistan is, and ALWAYS was wrong. Period, end of discussion. Just because Obama decided to escalate for purely political reasons (and there was no other possible reason, just a cynical calculation that this would help his reelection), now all the Obamabots are suddenly pro-war. They are suffering from Partisan War Syndrome.

[TexasObserver]

292. Agree on all points.

[bullwinkle428]

279. Thanks for reminding me to change the avatar!

:thumbsup:

[Techn0Girl]

320. I like it - Great idea. We are all in this together - most of us anyway.

[AndrewP]

332. Go figure, some liberals like peace! How novel.

LOL

Interesting world we live in that I have to apologize for not liking killing for profit.

[redqueen]

281. Keyboard commandos... spot on. (nt)

[closeupready]

283. 298 replies and - on balance - 10 recs. LOL, Robb.

I think you need to consider what that means.

[closeupready]

286. Oops sorry - now it's nine (no, that wasn't me - I already unrecced).

:rofl:

[JVS]

290. My bad

[JVS]

288. If you don't like it, you can always change your mind.

:nopity:

[graywarrior]

294. Lookie!

I have Ted!

[philly_bob]

298. UNREC cuz I don't get why you care if I change my avatar.

I do not know anything about the pictures of war dead, etc.

I agree with you that the "Go enlist" threads are silly.

[smalll]

300. Down with leftbagger deviationism.

K&R.

[EFerrari]

303. Not ALL of you, Robb.

lol

:)

[Moochy]

306. K&U

Plonk

[Egnever]

309. +1

[leftstreet]

311. unkick and unrec

[ima_sinnic]

312. unrec'd b/c the OP didn't really seem to have any point or to make sense

are you mad b/c people want to show their opposition to the escalation with a peace symbol, or because the idea was even put out there?
Are you mad because people even do oppose the escalation?
Who are "all" that the "peace movement" thinks are "idiots"? Who's this "we"?

[gleaner]

314. I don't support the war ....

but I don't think you're an idiot. I wouldn't treat you as one, either. I would be fairly sure that you had your own ideas and reasons to support them, and that is what I would be interested in discussing. I would discuss, because I try to understand people who think differently than I do on the issues, not to mock them, but because understanding is one of my primary motivations.

I think the suggestion about changing the avatars was meant to help delineate who was in favor of the war and who was opposed to it. Those who were opposed to the war were the ones being asked, not those who were supporting it. I interpreted it as a means of quick identification of which side one supported and maybe a statement that anti war posters could make to show their opposition. I didn't change my avatar, and I don't think anyone wants to force others to change their avatar either.

We are all very heated on this issue, whatever our point of view. I am not trying to speak for everyone at DU. For one thing you can never really speak for someone else, only yourself. For another thing I haven't been here long enough to know everyone on DU. I am still in the process of learning who everyone is.

All I would ask of you is to approach us as individuals the way you want to be approached and not as a big anti war lump that automatically shares a heart a mind and thinks the same thoughts. We are also a diverse group and I for one would like to think that I express myself as an individual who can make points worth consideration or rebuttal depending on what you think of them.

If not then give me an individual ass kicking. Mild or severe as you require.

[rug]

315. Right on! I'm posting a picture of Binky!

[NYC_SKP]

317. I'm gonna post whatever's on my clipboard. Hope it's not PRON!

[OneGrassRoot]

323. Now THAT was worth scrolling down for...

:hi:

[kenny blankenship]

324. Oh not at all! Just some of you. Let's say 60%

The rest of you are half-clever, goosestepping, manipulative shits. Dangerous? Sure. Authoritarian? You bet! Idiots? No, you don't all have that excuse for your bloodlust.

[Ignis]

331. Not all hawks can use "The Bush Defense"

I like your style. :thumbsup:

[Lorien]

326. Robb is a dingbat. nt

[Techn0Girl]

328. 300+ Replies and Rec Count Zero - Sometimes this place gives me Hope :)

[NJmaverick]

329. Would that be the ability of a dishonest minority to dominate over reason and logic?

[Techn0Girl]

330. It is what it is.

[HughMoran]

334. Holy crap - you've got more than 115 unrecs and 114 recs!

I've never seen a thread like this - amazing.

It appears that you've hit a nerve - good for you!

[Robb]

337. Not really my intent, although if it sparks a little action, that's good.

I think it's only that close (on the rec/unrec thing) because many folks don't seem to have actually read the post.

I could hypothesize the kind of folks who put a lot of stock in rec/unrec aren't good readers, but that wouldn't be particularly fair. :D

That said, I'm glad it wasn't overwhelmingly rec'd. This is an internal discussion, really, aimed at DUers in particular, and it wouldn't sit well on the front page. It's []iour dirty laundry.

[Bjorn Against]

335. I have done a lot more than simply change my avatar...

I have participated in three protests in the past three days, one of which was a march through downtown Minneapolis without a permit during rush hour traffic. I have already risked arrest to end this war, and I have four more protests planned over the course of the next week one of which will involve another act of civil disobedience. Don't assume that those of us posting in opposition to this war are not doing anything to stop it.

[Robb]

336. Never did.

And a careful read will find my original post aimed nowhere near at you. :patriot:

[cliffordu]

340. Kicked. Excellent points and I'd rec it if it wan't too late.

[grantcart]

341. You can kick a thread with one hand

[cliffordu]

347. I can kick you with the other.

[bridgit]

342. Hm, well, maybe this 'DU Peace Movement' would be on a more creative footing if they were able...

to bring 'peace' to DU first like a proper suiter with a bouquet of flowers and a buisness card. Or like some bench-test or other, try it out see how it goes see if they can do it without sighing mightily through bored, flared, predictably professorial nostrils. Cause DU's easy, we can be pushed around and sent into angst & brier patches with the unrec feature; when their *real* opposition is tough as fucking nails and they do not give a shit what anybody thinks including this 'DU Peace Movement'

[Raine]

343. Kick

:kick: :-)

[POAS]

346. kick

[NoPasaran]

348. Kickaroo

Thanks, Robb

[Forkboy]

349. Well I didn't want to be the one to say it.

:hide:

:P