Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jul 2, 2010.
Can you imagine if a high ranking Democrat said this?
If it were up to me neither war would have happened but were there now and its not like we can just pack up an leave...
Our current batch of Repubs has lowered the standards so much in the past decade that they can now get away with retarded statements like this in the eyes of other Repubs.
It would be more damning were Michael Steele taken seriously, even by Republicans.
Seriously, it's my right as someone who has always opposed both wars on a number of different grounds, to say that the war in Afghanistan continues to be a waste of resources, and that I am displeased with the Administration for failing to move more rapidly in a sensible direction on that front. While it's not Steele's place, and it's not an issue on which the Republican Party can claim any kind of moral superiority, it's still true that we are wasting lives, money, and time on Afghanistan and the likelihood that it will deliver us any kind of benefit is extremely low.
Hate to use the rword but...
This is the behavior of a mentally retarded person. I'm totally serious.
I can't wait to see Olbermann tonight. xD This is going to be hilarious.
So according to Republicans, 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan occurred under Obama...
Its amazing how blind (I wont say dumb) some people can be, he was refering to the recent shift to focus on Afghanistan rather than Iraq
Thats your opinion not a fact unless you can provide a quote.
After reading the quote very carefully 7 times, I cannot see that is what he was referring to. Is part of the quote missing?
"This was a war of Obama's choosing," Michael Steele said at the event. "This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
He should learn to phrase better if thats what he meant...
It's this a new way to insult forum members?
Recent shift? LOLz. He campaigned on an Iraq draw down and increased focus on Afghanistan. He sent troops in February 2009 (ones Bush wouldn't) and again a few months ago. He's trying to finish Bush' war.
Sad, Daddy Bush failed to take care of the problem in the Gulf War and Junior failed on his try.
I'm on my phone right now, so it's difficult to post the link, but Rudy 9ui11ani was the most recent Republikkkan to claim that there were no major terrorist attacks on Bush's watch. Google it yourself if you don't believe me. I believe Dana Perino also attempted to make such a claim.
And do I really need to provide proof that M. Steele said that Afghanistan was an Obama war of choice?
Just another day at the office of the Ministry of Truth.
Nice to see Michael Steele's break with sanity is finally complete.
What Steele said could be considered true, depending on how you interpret it.
Obama did choose this war in the sense that he supported it from the beginning, favored it over the war in Iraq (which he opposed but chooses to continue to prosecute), and has increased troop levels and spending on the war. And it can also be considered true that the "United States" has not actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in the war in the sense that a large portion of the US citizenry and many in Congress did not initially or do not now support the war, and few people really want this or any other war even though they may feel it is necessary.
I believe what he is trying to say is that it is ridiculous that Obama is increasing the war and that there is no point to be there. He knows that the war was started under Bush, he was there. It disappoints me that the Republican establishment can't accept reality.
I knew some comedian would try to defend him.
If not, spectacular, on-the-nose satire above!
It's true, if Obama did not want the war he would have ended it by now. Obama is a war mongerer; another Bush.
Obama's certainly no pacifist. But he won't qualify as another Bush until he sends the army overseas to imperialistically invade another country.
Of course the idiocy of Mr. Steele is displayed by forgetting that the war against Afghanistan began under a republican president and republican controlled congress.
"Operation Enduring Freedom" is the official name used by the U.S. Government for the War in Afghanistan, together with three smaller military actions, under the umbrella of the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The operation was originally called "Operation Infinite Justice"... U.S. President George W. Bush's remark that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while"...
So is it normally your practice to put forth the most charitable description of things Republicans do, and the least charitable description of things Democrats do?
No. Do you normally put forth the least charitable description of things Republicans do and the most charitable description of things Democrats do?
I disagree, but under that usage nearly every American president has been a warmonger with a marked few exceptions.
Moreover, it's interesting how often people try to compare Bush and Obama as exactly equivalent when it suits themand completely opposite at nearly the same terms in a manner that frankly should imply cognitive dissonance so great it can only be explained by tachyons and alternate dimensions.
Obama has doubled-down on a war started, and nearly lost by the Bush administration, one that has serious implications for the future of American power should we fail in our objectives. It's worth remembering that this was Bush's war in the beginning and during a sagging middle when the Afghans turned against us, Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan, and the Iraq war pulled men and material away from a difficult fight. This war has lasted longer than Vietnam because the Bushies botched it so readily allowing it to become Obama's war.
That said, if you didn't believe in this fight in 2001 - 2008 than I respect, but disagree with your opinion. If, however, you're another post-Bush dove then you might want to look in the mirror and wonder just how far and deep your political hackery goes.
You seem to think I support Bush. As a libertarian, I could not be more opposed to him. In nearly every sense, the two are very similar presidents, usually one being slightly more extreme than the other on certain issues and visa versa. And this "war" didn't start with Bush, it has been going on ever since we started intervening in the middle east. And it wouldn't have mattered how Bush handled it, it is impossible to win a war against a tactic and an idea. There is NOTHING to win there other than even greater U.S. resentment. In 2001, I was 9, so I didn't really have an opinion on the war other than what my father said. It wasn't until I saw the Republican debates and heard Ron Paul's point of view that I became political. And it is not that I am a "dove". I am nothing of the sort; if there was a legitimate threat, and if the war was constitutionally approved by congress, I would have no problem with nuclear warfare to get the job done quickly and effectively. I just have a problem with this conflict because 1) it was not declared by congress 2) The cost has become waywaywaywayway too high 3) there is nothing of any value to win 4) The world's greatest army against a group with no planes, no tanks, no missiles, and yet we still can't win.... perhaps that should tell us something. 5) even if we do "win", problems in the middle east will continue to occur; we can't change the mindset and the culture of a people, it is impossible.
How is it going to affect our power if we stop intervening with a group that already hates us that we can not stop and stop wasting money on an empire? And I don't really think every president can be considered a war mongerer, just the recent crappy bunch.
I was careful to allow that you did not.
I disagree, the war in Afghanistanas opposed to the larger and haphazard GWOTwas against a particular group of individuals who had bases of support and objectives that could be taken. Our support of the Northern Alliance initially allowed us to change the political machinations in Afghanistan and radically changed the situation there. We were fighting a specific group of people, not an idea, there.
Several major attacks were directed by Bin Laden in Tora Bora, Afghanistan.
That Congress abdicated its duty is a serious problem, but not in terms of prosecution of the war.
You and MacArthur...nuclear weapons are not the silver bullet many think they are. First, even the use of Daisy Cuttersall the boom of a low-yield nuke without the messy fallouthad a negligible effect. Second, the complexes in Tora Bora would have been difficult to destroy with a nuclear warhead. Three, using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan would spin up the Russians, Iranians, and the rest of the region. Fourth, using such weapons would have harmed civilians and our allies in the Northern Alliance.
Nuclear weapons would have had serious consequences and may ultimately, proved, largely ineffective at breaking Al Qaeda without creating blowback so serious and detrimental that we'd be exchanging one problem for another.
COIN can work, but it needs time and consistency over time.
Afghanistan isn't actually in the Middle East, but that technicality aside, before the Russian invasion, Afghanistan was a relatively cosmopolitan nation. The culture has been mutilated by almost continuous warfare and genocide.
Name three United States presidents who did not deploy troops or ships somewhere in the world? There are remarkably few.
Well then, can't we also say that those who didn't believe in the fight earlier under Bush who now support it under Obama deserve equal criticism?