Anti-war groups fizzle under Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn't blaming anyone as I believe that is a waste of energy in this case. What I am doing is questioning the current situation and future plans in regards to the military. How long and how many? From your answer, I would surmise that we will be there in a military function forever as we cannot eradicate a terrorist organization as it is not a soverign nation, we cannot eradicate militant muslims, and Pakistan will likely never be in a position of stength to police Afghanistan.

I wasn't blaming anyone as I believe that is a waste of energy in this case. What I am doing is questioning the current situation and future plans in regards to the military. How long and how many? From your answer, I would surmise that we will be there in a military function forever as we cannot eradicate a terrorist organization as it is not a soverign nation, we cannot eradicate militant muslims, and Pakistan will likely never be in a position of stength to police Afghanistan.

Yeah, I think that's the situation. As bleak as it sounds. As was said before, if we had prosecuted this war correctly, and not invaded Iraq, we wouldn't be in this quagmire. And, unlike the other quagmire, this one involves nuclear weapons.

Buzz,

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

Andrew

Stop rewriting history, that is not why Iraq was invaded and you know it. Chaney and Bush Sr. considered it an" internal" problem not a threat to the world and made this very clear in the first gulf war.


Cheney-

Officials downplayed the significance of the revolts and spelled out a policy of non-intervention in Iraq's internal affairs. On March 5, Rear Admiral John Michael McConnell, director of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged "chaotic and spontaneous" uprisings were under way in 13 Iraqi cities, but stated the Pentagon's view that Saddam would prevail because of the rebels' "lack of organization and leadership." On the same day, Secretary of DefenseDick Cheney said "it would be very difficult for us to hold the coalition together for any particular course of action dealing with internal Iraqi politics, and I don't think, at this point, our writ extends to trying to move inside Iraq."[13]

Bush-

President Bush himself insisted three days later, just as the Iraqi loyalist forces were putting down the last resistance in the cities:?"I have not misled anybody about the intentions of the United States of America. I don't think the Shias in the south, those who are unhappy with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad or the Kurds in the north, ever felt that the United States would come to their assistance to overthrow this man. (...) I made clear from the very beginning that it was not an objective of the coalition or the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein."[17]?

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

So, are you leading the charge for us to invade the Congo, Somalia, any other nation in Africa or anywhere else, that is involved in "ruthless people killing the vulnerable?"

So, are you leading the charge for us to invade the Congo, Somalia, any other nation in Africa or anywhere else, that is involved in "ruthless people killing the vulnerable?"

Seriously, how can you call yourself a decent human being and allow inocent people to be killed? If you have the means to save lives you should act. What are your thoughts Glenda?

Seriously, how can you call yourself a decent human being and allow inocent people to be killed? If you have the means to save lives you should act. What are your thoughts Glenda?

My thoughts are that you are cheerypicking the reasons for invading Iraq..and seriously deviating from the foreign policy discussion, to make a point. There are countries all over the planet that are killing innocent people...it happens every day. If our foreign policy were based on the United States intervening in every case of "ruthless people killing innocent people" then, we would be at war 24/7/365.
I like to think that civil societies do not condone killing of innocents...but that does not mean it does not happen; and it does not mean that we as a country need to invade every country that does it.
It also does not mean that our goevernment leaders are not above condoning a certain amount of collateral damage...and the decision happens regardless of which political party a policy maker/decision maker belongs to...
IMO your argument is a red herring to the reality of what happened in the decision to invade Iraq. It was irrelevant to the ones making the decision, and it remains irrelevant.

Yes, it may well be that many Iraqi people are better off without a hateful dictator in charge of their country; likewise, it may just as well be that many are dead today that would not have been; the infrastructure of the country is in shambles today and it was not before we invaded. Only the Iraqi people can really say whether our invasion of their country made it better.

What is completely true is that there are thousands of US men and women and families who are either dead or seriously wounded never to recover, and have had their lives turned upside down because of the Iraq War. There are US children who have lived years of their lives without their mom or dad...and in fear that their mom or dad would never come home--and many did not. There are many families who have empty places where their son or daughter once sat...the hospitals and rehab centers are full of our young men and women who will never be the same.

There were many other options for dealing with a hateful dictator...the cost to those of us whose family members served in that war is much too high for just getting rid of a dictator who was killing people...our military is designed to protect the United States from enemies who are a threat to us--not to intervene in other countries' internal horrors. If that were the case, then I believe the Rwandan slaughter was a much more appropriate intervention.

We elect our officials to make good decisions. This was not a good decision IMO and I find it disingenious on your part to continue to see this from such a narrow point of view.

My thoughts are that you are cheerypicking the reasons for invading Iraq..and seriously deviating from the foreign policy discussion, to make a point. There are countries all over the planet that are killing innocent people...it happens every day. If our foreign policy were based on the United States intervening in every case of "ruthless people killing innocent people" then, we would be at war 24/7/365.
I like to think that civil societies do not condone killing of innocents...but that does not mean it does not happen; and it does not mean that we as a country need to invade every country that does it.
It also does not mean that our goevernment leaders are not above condoning a certain amount of collateral damage...and the decision happens regardless of which political party a policy maker/decision maker belongs to...
IMO your argument is a red herring to the reality of what happened in the decision to invade Iraq. It was irrelevant to the ones making the decision, and it remains irrelevant.

Yes, it may well be that many Iraqi people are better off without a hateful dictator in charge of their country; likewise, it may just as well be that many are dead today that would not have been; the infrastructure of the country is in shambles today and it was not before we invaded. Only the Iraqi people can really say whether our invasion of their country made it better.

What is completely true is that there are thousands of US men and women and families who are either dead, seriously wounded never to recover, and have had their lives turned upside down because of the Iraq War. There are US children who have lived years of their lives without their mom or dad...and in fear that their mom or dad would never come home--and many did not. There are many families who have empty places where their son or daughter once sat...the hospitals and rehab centers are full of our young men and women who will never be the same.

There were many other options for deal with a hateful dictator...the cost to those of us whose family members served in that war is much too high for just getting rid of a dictator who was killing people...our military is designed to protect the United States from enemies who are a threat to us--not to intervene in another countries internal horror. If that were the case, then I believe the Rwandan slaughter was a much more appropriate intervention.

We elect our officials to make good decisions. This was not a good decision IMO and I find it disingenious on your part to continue to see this from such a narrow point of view.

A couple notes, on the infrastructure comment, that's not the case. Their infrastructure was seriously dilapidated before the invasion due to long standing U.N. sanctions. The country was not making forward progress either. Also due to the embargo, Iraq was unable to sell their oil on the open market, so they were unable to use oil revenue to fund infrastructure improvements. Their infrastructure is being rebuilt now and is in better shape than it was prior to the invasion. As an example, the capacity of their electric grid is now double what it was in 2003. Which isn't to say it's 100%, they still have a lot of work to do.

As far as the ?protection from enemies? comment goes, pronouncements based on hindsight are the convenience of critics 😉. I agree we went in there based on bad intelligence and false pretenses. In retrospect, we never should have invaded. On the flip side, I try to imagine a world today with a desperate Hussein still ruling, with the country of Iraq still squeezed by political and economic sanctions, with millions of people suffering under totalitarian rule, and I wonder if, over the long term, the sacrifices the Iraqi people and the U.S. and other coalition forces made will ultimately be deemed worth while. Based on hindsight, we had no justification for invading. But is Iraq better off and is the U.S. safer because we did? My guess is that in the end the answer will be yes.

Glenda, I fully expected you to label me as disingenious, it's what you do followed with the notion that your ideas are on higher ground. Bottom line you're saying the senseless killing is going to happen so why get involved. We should remain focused solely on ourselves?

I doubt you think anything is worth fighting for so it's pointless to continue this debate. When your words don't win you lose.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/McRib-coffee-help-boost-apf-3346242375.html?x=0 ruthless people killing the vulnerable....ceo of mcdonalds

McRib, coffee help boost McDonald's 4Q earnings - Yahoo! Finance ruthless people killing the vulnerable....ceo of mcdonalds

Precisely, they are slowly changing their menu. They now sell oatmeal for breakfast and offer apples instead of fries. Quite a stretch from a dictator using chemical weapons on his own people though. Fast food is a personal choice right?

You could say the same thing about tobacco companies but personal choices should remain personal so long as it doesn't affect others.