Obama: Safety of world at stake in Afghanistan

[NightWatcher]

President Obama today announced he is sending another 4,000 troops to Afghanistan to confront what he called an "increasingly perilous situation" in the country and its neighbor, Pakistan. "The safety of people around the world is at stake," Obama said. Obama has vowed to make Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/27/us.afghanistan.troops/index.html

So we're still going to use the Boosh-ism of "War" on everything?

"Safety of the world"??? Hyperbole much?

Ask the thousands of people moving to homeless tent cities how Afghanistan has threatened their safety.

Obama's still better than McCain.

[Clio the Leo]

1. "Boosh-ism" .... also hyperbole much? NT

[jody]

2. Bush/Cheney are gone but their policies linger on. n/t

[mix]

posturing, i hope

I would like to think that the Obama administration realizes the folly of waging an unwinnable war where other empires have fallen, the British and Russians being the most recent.

I would like to think that Obama realizes as well that we our better off as a republic, not an empire and that such projections of American power harm our national interests in the long-run by creating more terrorism and hatred against us.

I would like to believe that Obama is not an imperialist, that he is a wise leader, and that he understands how destructive American imperialism has been to the health and security of millions beyond our borders.

I would also like to think that "tough talk" and escalation in Afghanistan are a prelude to a negotiated settlement with moderate Taliban elements(those who are less committed to global jihad and are more locally and nationally focused).

I want to believe, I really do, but a kinder, gentler empire is not something I will ever support the perpetuation of.

[leftofthedial]

3. BULLSHIT!

ferfucksake.

[dos pelos]

4. Crock of shit...........Obama=Bush in this regard

Now he both talks and acts like Bush.Lets take a moment here folks and take a good clear look at what we elected.

[AZBlue]

18. Lets take a moment here folks and take a good clear look at what let on DU -

before it gets a pizza!

[empyreanisles]

5. "War on Terror" was CNN's terminology for that headline, not Obama's words

They have wisely dropped this language. Instead they prefer to say, "Struggle against extremism".

[FudaFuda]

6. semantics.

'struggle against extremism'

'overseas contingency operations'

What was that thing candidate Obama once said about lipstick on a pig?

[empyreanisles]

7. I'm just saying, I think Obama realizes that term was hyperbolic

, and the reality is that this is a more focused, police operation.

[FrenchieCat]

8. He ran on dealing with Afghanistan, and that is what he is doing.

That is exactly what he talked about as a candidate,
and so your criticism might be more based on what you wanted,
not what he didn't or didn't do.....

In otherwords, be careful about the lipstick....as it may be your own.

[totodeinhere]

9. Just because he said he would increase troop levels in Afghanistan...

during the campaign doesn't make it right. I opposed him on that during the campaign and I oppose him now. More troops will not help. No amount of troops can deal with the kind if insurgency that is going on there. They need to negotiate with the Taliban and cut the best deal they can, then get out.

[empyreanisles]

14. I think he knows that. But he feels he has to try. He did send less than many expected.

And negotiations with the Taliban will occur as his speech outlined.

[MarjorieG]

17. It's not the Taliban however awful. It's in cooperation with int'l Al Qaeda.

The Taliban terrorizing Afghans, and with their drugs, would still be left to their devices had we not been attacked by Al Qaeda and started fighting there.

[FudaFuda]

10. "He said he would, so deal." is not a justification.

Dissent is permitted, is it not? My point is you can change the label attached to it, i.e. 'overseas contingency operations,' but its still the same 'war on terror'.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Yes it is; on both sides.

Do you mind?

[FudaFuda]

15. Yeah, because you're not responsive to the point I was making

My post was about 'semantics' - i.e. changing the name of the war doesn't make it less of a war. It's just an attempt to divert everyone's attention from the fact that the same war continues, only with even more American soldiers on the ground now. As much as I disagree with the 'surge' of another 17,000 or 21,000 more American soldiers going to Afghanistan, I object just as strongly to tricky wordplay in re-naming the war as an attempt to fool me. That's really an insult and definitely politics as usual, not the break from the old ways of doing things that he campaigned on.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I understood your semantics just fine......and was responsive to your point....

although you didn't agree with it.

Hope you understood my point on your semantics. The war has not been renamed, but the strategy has been and that is what is important. Stay tuned, as the 7 year war will take slightly longer to unwind than 2 months and an announcement.

As for insults; the only insult perpetuated is the one of folks so willing to jump the gun and make pronouncements before any time has passed just because they can. It is easy, populst and perhaps understandable, but it doesn't change the fact that the lipstick you have just put on the pig is yours, not so much his.

[mix]

19. excellent point

it is the same argument companies make about their product warranties

[ZombieHorde]

11. He also says that he does not support gay marriage,

and we are free to strongly disagree with him on this issue.

I don't know the correct course of action in Afghanistan, but I reject the argument which claims we should not complain about previously stated policies.

[FrenchieCat]

13. and you are doing so.

See how that works?

Operative sentence in my post...."your criticism might be more based on what you wanted..."

It appears that we agree.