Just a few quick questions to ponder after President Obama's speech announcing a massive escalation in Afghanistan:
- What percentage of those kids in the audience will die because of this decision?
- Why do so many pundits and pro-Obama activists continue to focus on how "hard" and "difficult" and "trying" this decision is for President Obama, rather than on how "hard" and "difficult" and "trying" this will be for the soldiers who are killed? Doesn't Obama get to make this decision, and then go home to the comfortable confines of a butlered White House, while thousands of Americans will be sent 7,000 miles from home to face their potential deaths? Isn't the latter "harder" than the former?
- Where's the antiwar movement and the marches and the organizing and the protesting? Where are all those well-funded groups that protested George W. Bush's war policy? Or was all that really just about hating George Bush and embracing blind Partisan War Syndrome?
- In the days and weeks after this speech, will the White House's cynical new spin get ever more desperate and become, hey - at least an Afghanistan escalation holds out the possibility of making sure military combat casualties start outpacing military suicides?
- Simple budget question: Should we now believe that escalating the Afghanistan War at the same annual cost of universal health care will save more than 45,000 Americans a year (i.e. the number of Americans who die every year for lack of health insurance)?
- Did CNN really turn a move to potentially send thousands of Americans to die in Central Asia into an over-stylized, hyper-marketed television show called "Decision Afghanistan?" Is the media really that soulless, or did my eyes betray me?
- Which is worse - a stupid person like George W. Bush starting a dumb occupation, or a smart person like Barack Obama following the lead of that stupid person, but actually escalating that occupation?
- The "we're going to escalate war to end war" refrain throughout the speech - have we heard that before somewhere? It sounds sorta like "we'll burn down the Vietnam villages to save them." Just curious if that's what we're talking about here - because, ya know, that worked out really well.
- Are we really expected to believe that massively escalating a war is the way to end a war? I mean, really? Like, is the public really looked at like we're that stupid? And a follow-up question: Are we really that stupid?
- If Obama's Afghan War strategy about escalating a war to end a war was a self-help strategy for, say, alcoholics, wouldn't it prescribe drinking more whiskey to stop drinking - and wouldn't we all laugh at that?
- How many pundits will insist that bowing down to the Military-Industrial complex and escalating this missionless war somehow shows "resolve" and "strength" and "toughness" and "leadership" and not embarrassing weakness?
- Would the Obamaphiles now telling us to "give President Obama a chance" with this decision and/or defending Obama's escalation - would these same people be saying we should "give President McCain a chance" and/or defending President McCain's escalation if he was the one in office making this decision?
- I'm confused: Is this hope or change?
I would like to ask our President: In your heart of hearts do you believe in your own actions or is it that you do not have the strength (failure of pride) to go beyond conventional military wisdom and its minions? Transparency seems to have a different definition now as it is transparent that you are using your gifted eloquence to rationalize the whole deal to the entire world. We call upon you to give the world a better example!
Mr. Sirota's questions are absolutely legit and there will come a day in the near future when opposition will be more organized despite the general respect we have for our President.
The "anti-war" marches were naught but glorified parades. And when the climate is right, EVERYONE loves a parade. Heck, everyone loves a CHARADE, too.
Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, when asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Phase I: Get Pakistant's nukes
Phase II :Overthrow Afghanistan gov't
Phase III :Nuke Israel and blow up America.
What should we do?
You honestly believe that a bunch of guys in the desert can take down Pakistan? Then why hasn't India done it yet?
The 9-11 hi-jackers were Saudi-Arabian!
Fighting a war with Afghanistan because some terrorists might plan terror there is like going to war with Brooklyn because some criminals might plan crime there.
It doesn't, but it'll make stock holders in Halliburton a lot richer. So, even if they do blow up America, all that extra money will make it hurt a lot less for some.
and you cannot kill in the search for peace.
..............jp
A lot of people are fond of saying that everthing wrong in the country is the fault of George Bush. While it happens to be true, an equal share of blame goes to all the people who stood around saying nothing while it happened, or worse, took every opportunity to defend every wrong move he made to those of us who were complaining.
Unfortunately, the same policies continue, and the majority of the population continues to stand there and defend every wrong move that the new President makes. Wake up, f00ls. If it was wrong when Bush was doing it, it's wrong when Obama does it too.
It may be different people defending Obama, but they're achieving the same goal as the Bushites with the same tactics: silence all opposition as the US continues its rapid descent into the dustbin of history. Now approaching terminal velocity.
I've said before that the Obamabots have replaced the Bushbots - they are birds of a feather and they don't seem to know it. It's all about the man, not the policy or what's best for the country. They have no tolerance for legitimate dissent. They dismiss opposing views as evidence of a lack of patience and childish expectations. Sad.
He has the power to butt outta there and he made the decision to surge for now.
What happens in 2011+, nobody knows but you can bet on the status quo.
I think he's gonna regret this decision to send young Americans to a war without mission or reason. His speech didn't make any sense, in terms of how his strategies would be different from his predecessor's. This is what I think would probably happen. He wouldn't be able to withdraw American troops by 2011. No one knows for how long a war would last.
Infrastructures, economy, social programs, education are all crumbling and the debt is topping $12 trillion, yet an American president feels the necessity to spend lives and money (going deeper in debt) in another corruption-ravaged country.
If you are trying to avoid another US 9/11-like attack, why not put those 30,000 soldiers at strategic positions in the US? Sending them to Afghanistan doesn't stop terrorist attacks; it makes it more likely. Or if you want to catch Bin Laden, his capture doesn't mean much. He already has a lot of followers.
Because it is a war for political image.