I remember those days on DU

[The Straight Story]

It was us vs them. We fought like hell against the wars.

In 2006, right before the election I made this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On8P--pPKy4

There was the whole Orange revolution thing going on. There was a lot of talk about elections and voting machines. Cindy was a big discussion topic.

Bev Harris. Andy. Feeling like no matter what we did it did not matter, because those in power gave us the finger.

We wanted those in power to pay for what they did wrong. Finally, after 8 years in a hell called bush we came out of it all.

We spent hour after hour complaining about the wars, the lies, the hell of living under bush and his lies.

Body bags are still coming back here.

In my video there is a banner that still stands out to me: "Bring the troops home now or face Mutiny"

And now here we are. Folks in power are going to cover the asses of others who were in power. Now we are not all pushing for an end to the wars. We are suddenly 'rational' and not calling for an end to the wars. We are already there.

That body count we used to trumpet day and night...well not so important anymore. We won, and being anti-war is not so popular on the left anymore.

I have a son in the Army. And one going in June. When I get upset about it now, I hear that they made a choice, they are big boys. yeah they are. But so are those in power - and they keep these wars going on and funded.

We can yell all day long about all these folks going to tea bag parties. We can laugh at them, point out how wrong they are on things.

But I can remember a day when we on the left got out and yelled about these wars. When we fought against them, tooth and nail.

Where are those protests now?

People in foreign countries are still dying. Our kids are still falling by the way side. I know we cannot just up and leave over night. I knew that back then. So did many here.

But we still stood up and fought against these wars. We still kicked ass and wanted an end to it all.

Did we forget who we were and what we wanted?

[chimpymustgo]

1. I hear you, straight story. We have won victory...but we have lost heart.

[babylonsister]

3. How have we lost heart? We have a new president who

"finally" put an end date to Iraq, and one who wants to try to educate and help Afghanistan, instead of blowing everything up in sight.

[TBF]

8. "Educate and help" Afghanistan by increasing troops? n/t

[EFerrari]

10. That's usually the way it's justified. n/t

[babylonsister]

11. Look it up. It's not about fighting just to fight anymore, it's about

trying to stabilize the country. I'm not wild about this either, but that's the current plan.

[tavalon]

23. That's called renaming

Same war, different package.

[bvar22]

33. An "End Date" ?

The supposed "End Date" includes the framework for a Permanent Occupation by 50,000+ Military Troops. This figure does NOT include the Contractors/Mercinaries that Obama is still using as part of his Occupation Forces.

Read the fine print.

[datasuspect]

41. soldiers are in the business of killing people

they are not educators.

that's what teachers do.

[babylonsister]

2. We have a new president. He's put a time table on one 'war',

and parameters on Afghanistan. It's a different situation now.

We have a president who might just listen to you instead of someone who didn't give a crap.

[MadHound]

5. He is drawing down one war, not ending it, drawing it down,

While ramping up the other.

What's different about it? We're still killing innocents for no good reason. We're still spending our lives and our fortune on wars over oil, wars over gas. What's different?

We continue to spend over half our budget on war, while people continue to slide into the economic abyss. What's different?

You think Obama is listening? HAH! He is mouthing polite pieties while continuing to bankrupt this country by excessive spending on the war. What's different?

Troops will remain in Iraq, the war will escalate in Afghanistan. People will continue to die, and our country will be spent on fighting unneccessary wars.

It is past time to start packing up all the troops and bringing them home. But sadly, we're going to get ourselves stuck in another quagmire, all by following a Democrat who escalated the war. What's different?

[babylonsister]

14. He's doing everything he said he'd do.

Why the surprise? From you, nevermind.

Yes, we're all warmongers but you. :eyes:

[MadHound]

29. No surprise

And why this continuing emphasis on his doing what he promised in his campaign. So he promised to be a warmonger in his campaign, big whoop, doesn't make it right. Nor does it make him immune to criticism either. Nor does it mean that just because I voted for him after he had made this statement that I have to sit down and shut up.

The simple fact of the matter is that Obama, like so many other Democratic candidates in the past, was the lesser of two evils. Which means that I don't support many of his positions, including his war policy. And yes, if you support an escalation in Afghanistan, that does make you a warmonger, and a hypocrite as well, since you were against the wars under Bush, but now, somehow because it is a Dem in office, that makes war alright with you.

[TBF]

31. I'm not surprised at all, but I'm not going to be complicit either. nt

[The Straight Story]

7. And still here I go back to

"bring the troops home now" - We used to feed off things like that. We kicked bush's ass over that.

Now? We accept time lines. And we believe them? I once believed that once our people got into power we would have trials over torture - but now we are told we need to look ahead and not back.

We keep moving the goal posts, just like the right would have done.

Yeah, the war is bad and illegal, lots of people suffering from it. So in a few years we will change the title of those in war zones, bring some home (well, we will shift them to another war), and all is well.

We did not support such things back then.

Why do we now?

[babylonsister]

13. You must have forgotten that Bush never gave us timelines.

Obama did during the primaries. Now that's a bad thing? Please.

[The Straight Story]

15. it is a matter of trust

We thought Obama would nail those performing torture, but we were wrong.

Are we going to believe those in power when it comes to time lines?

I like Obama, Have defended him here as well. But we on the left kicked bush's ass over the war, and if he had given us a time line what would we have said about it?

And when that time comes and goes, what then? Will we defend the reasons given to extend it if someone in power has a D after their name?

Or will we do what we did before and hold mass protests and yell that we need to bring the troops home now or face mutiny?

[babylonsister]

18. As stated in this thread, Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd

do. When the time comes and he changes his reasoning, that's when I might go ballistic. He's been in office 88 days?

A time line is a big deal after the past admin.

[tavalon]

24. He's been in long enough now

That is no longer quite the justification it was, mmkay, so ditch it.

[leftstreet]

4. I remember how Jack Murtha got everybody stirred up

Whatever happened to him?

[MadHound]

6. Great post, and so sadly true

War is just fine with people, just so long as it's "their guy" doing the warmongering. Doesn't matter that the immorality of these wars hasn't changed. Doesn't matter that the motivations for fighting these wars hasn't changed. No, all that matters is that somebody with a D behind their name is calling the shots, and if that's the case, then people are happy. Look at how well that worked out in Vietnam:eyes:

But my little group and I are still out there, Wednesdays and Saturdays, protesting the war. After all, somebody has got to do it, and it certainly isn't going to be the Democrats.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. An Unfair Generalization, Hound

Obama's my guy. I'm not ok with war. But, i'm not sitting in his chair and having to face the realities of the situation, with all the inherent details.

That's doesn't make me OK with a gradual drawdown, but i think it's just the way things have to be.

I trust that he knows what he's doing. It's why i voted for him.

GAC

[MadHound]

30. So you were against the war under Bush,

But now that it's Obama, you're OK with it, that "it's just the way things have to be."

That makes you a hypocrite Prof, and worse yet, a trusting hypocrite. You're old enough to know better, old enough to know that you never, ever, trust a politician, especially in these days of the two party/same corporate master system of government. No matter how warm and personable he appears to be, always remember that it's not your best interests he has at heart, but those of his major donors. Go on over to Open Secrets and see whose interests those are, it will explain a lot.

[ProfessorGAC]

35. I'm Not A Hypocrite

I'm a realist. There are realities that getting out isn't as easy as 1, 2, 3.

I was against the war with Bush because HE STARTED IT FOR NO GOOD REASON! I cannot fathom how you don't see the difference between starting an unnecessary war and what Obama is doing now. The two are night and day, and no matter how hard you wish to make them equivalent, you can't. Saying 2 = 3 doesn't make it so, no matter how much you wish it.
GAC

[MadHound]

36. Ahh yes, a realist indeed

A realist that found war under Bush abhorent, but now that Obama owns it, you find yourself being a "pragmatist", a "realist", hmm, sounds more like codewords for hypocrite to me.

The realities of the matter are this Professor: We're not getting out of Iraq. Yes, we're drawing troops down, but only to the point where there's about 50,000 troops left in Iraq. Those troops are going to act as "advisers" and "trainers", who will only go out on "anti-terrorist missions". More fun euphemisms that you should recognize from the Vietnam War era, since those are the very same euphimisms we applied to combat troops in Vietnam during the early days of that war. Didn't mean that those troops killed and died like regular combat troops, no, no. But those kinder, gentler terms were designed to fool the public about the war, and they did for awhile. Will they fool you again this time around?

Then there is the reality of Afghanistan, where we're not drawing down troops at all, but are instead increasing our commitment in that region, and widening a war that was originally designed to bring to justice one man, and now looks like we're going to be rebuilding at least one, if not two countries in the region. Administration officials are openly talking about another decade long commitment. Why? What can we possibly hope to achieve with our military in the area other than more death and destruction? This is a war of ideas that we're involved in, yet we're foolish enough not only to bring an army to that war, automatically insuring our loss, but now we're going to double down on that commitment. Hello, McFly?

No, Obama didn't start either of these wars, but he is certainly continuing them, and in one case even widening them. If you were against Bush starting an illegal, immoral set of wars, then why are you down with Obama continuing them, and even widening one? Oh, yeah, it comes back around to that "h" word again. Well, as they say, the truth hurts sometime, and it looks like this is one of those times for you. Perhaps you should take this opportunity to do some serious soul searching, you know, figure out why all the sudden you're feeling uncomfortable with yourself and your support of these wars.

Just because these wars are being run by a Democrat in the White House doesn't make them any less obscene, any less illegal, any more moral than under Bush. We're still killing innocents and destroying countries for no good reason. All that's changed is the letter behind the C in C's name, from R to D. Doesn't mean that his actions are any more moral, or any less heinous. Think about it.

[ProfessorGAC]

38. You're Not Listening, At All

Therefore, this conversation is over. I make it very, very clear that i had my most stringent objections to STARTING THE WAR!
You failing to grasp that reality is on you, not me.
GAC

[MadHound]

39. Actually I'm listening quite well,

I understand that you were against the start of the war, and against both wars while they were Bush's wars. But now that Obama is in charge, you're more than willing to rationalize our continued presence in Iraq (remember, a 50,000 member residual force for the foreseeable future). After all, you trust this president:eyes: More over, you're willing to follow Obama's lead as he ramps up the war in Afghanistan, a war which the experts in the administration are stating could go on for another decade. A war that is just as pointless as the one in Iraq. Yet you're willing to trust him, after all as you say, "Obama's my guy."

Yes, you were against starting the war, but apparently you're not willing to work towards ending the war. Rather, you're more than willing to support this war now that it's in the hands of your guy. Meanwhile the senseless killing and destruction continues unabated in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But it's alright now that Obama is in charge, at least in your view. Again, the word hypocrite applies here, but I think that you already know that. Your defensiveness, your touchiness on this issue says a lot. That's OK, you don't have reply, but as you continue to wrestle with this issue ask yourself this one question, would you be supporting a permanent troop presence in Iraq of 50,000 if it was Bush in charge? Would you support an escalation in Afghanistan, along with the prospect of a long drawn out war if Bush was in charge? Then why do you support these actions now that Obama is in charge?

Think about it.

[KG]

40. +1

[EFerrari]

9. After putting together protests that no one would cover

decided to take that energy and write instead. The struggle continues only by other means.

[Zhade]

12. FUCK BEV HARRIS. SHE HELPED KILL ANDY STEPHENSON.

I will never forgive that horrible waste of humanity for what she did.

[The Straight Story]

22. um, I was not saying anything about her one way or the other

:)

[tavalon]

25. He was using her for context

She's gone from here, okay, relax.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Dumb.

[girl gone mad]

shallow.

[underpants]

17. As a runner I have to say that front running is much different

than the heroic come-from-behind story

Step up folks. We are the leaders. Be careful what you ask for and all that.........

[bleever]

19. Leading isn't easy.

Otherwise, everyone would be doing it.

I'm glad so far to have President Obama running at the front, and I'll keep up the pace.

[underpants]

20. Exactly bleever

he's on it
daily-geez that guy is always on TV

He has good people (pros) working long hours

[bleever]

21. The team he's assembled, and their discipline,

is nothing short of amazing.

It even makes me give him a little latitude on Geithner, Gates, and Summers.

:thumbsup:

[Ghost Dog]

26. It's AF-PAK war (invasion) now, according to the PR.

And the 'Long War' under whatever name continues.

The Military/Clandestine Money System requires enemies, even if they have to be invented and/or provoked into existence. The eco-freaks weren't scary enough, so Islam was provoked, after the end of the Cold War. Still, even elves and other protesters could serve, domestically.

Sure, like turning a kilometre-long oil tanker, change of course takes time, even where there's
the will.

But, perhaps the steering mechanism is broken?

US behaviour in Latin America will be one indicator, I predict...

[Mari333]

28. agree with everything you say..apologists for the occupations are what

I called them before..
chickenhawks..
i called out the chickenhawks when bush was in and i will continue to call them out now.
armchair warmongers.
people who dont mind sending your kid but wont send theirs.
people who think your kid is cannon fodder.
assholes.
i dont care what party they belong to

same old shit as before.

[Hydra]

32. You know, the response posts on your thread say it all

But I knew this, even back in the Bush days. The loyalty was not to the principle- it was to the side you are on, and that's where we stand today.

When Obama supported the shredding of FISA, he was supported because he was "One of us," not because his position was sound.

Sad to say, but those of us of principle are the minority, and will be fed to the shredder someday. The reason we aren't now, is because no one listens to us anyway.

[guruoo]

34. In a perfect world. n/t

[conscious evolution]

37. I haven't forgot

and I plan to keep speaking truth to power.