Obama General Discussion II - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-02-2010, 11:56 AM   #21
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Amen .

Why exactly are we responsible for building nations, anyway?
Well, when you invade another country and remove their government, as the United States did in Afghanistan and Iraq, many would say it naturally becomes that country's responsibility to help replace the removed government with a new one. Its also in the interest of the United States, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, to help insure that the government that replaces the removed one is different from the removed government that created the need for the invasion in the first place. Leaving behind no government and chaos would help create new threats and a need to invade again to remove those threats. So would leaving behind a government that was essentially the same as the one before.

Quote:
I'm all for getting involved if, say, a genocide is happening-we should definitely go and help stop that, because that's a human rights issue and we should never stand for that kind of atrocity. But when did we decide we were the almighty power that needed to build other nations?
The United States did not suddenly decide one day to start building Afghanistan and Iraq. Threats from inside these countries made invading them and removing the regimes there a necessity. Helping to rebuild both countries is necessary to reduce the chances that the threats that brought about the invasions in the first place, will return.


Quote:
We have enough issues with our own, how can we go over and expect to run other countries smoothly?
Its not about running, ruling or governing other countries, but helping them to govern themselves in a way that does not threaten other countries.

Quote:
And it just seems awfully patronizing to me-"Oh, these poor people, they don't know how to create a nation on their own, we must help them (read: occupy them)". The citizens know the area better than we do. They know what kind of government they would like.
These people are attempting to form a government under enormously difficult and challenging circumstances. Not helping, essentially abandoning the situation would put the United States and other countries at greater risks and many would consider it immoral. Helping does not mean replacing the citizens knowledge and ideas about what to do. It involves working with the citizens of that country to help them achieve the best outcome.

Quote:
Why do we feel we have the right to dictate that stuff to them? Would anyone like it if another country came in and tried to change our nation or felt we needed an overthrow or a change in regime or whatever
Nationbuilding is not about a group of foreigners dictating to people inside a country about the way things should be or work. Its about working with the local population to help them achieve their goals and desires that help produce stability inside and outside the country.

No one likes war, but the threatening situation inside each of these countries made the invasions and regime removal a necessity. Nation building naturally follows regime removal in order to prevent chaos as well as a return of the threats that made the invasion a necessity in the first place.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 11:58 AM   #22
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post




we've had 10 years. what's taking so long?
10 years is a short time when it comes to nationbuilding.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 12:13 PM   #23
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
We can't expect to be able to go in with a formal military operation, no matter how down-and-dirty or "mean" we're willing to get, and expect to eradicate Al-Qaeda and solve terrorism once and for all. So I don't view it as a question of how mean we're willing to be to get results, I view it as a question of whether we're approaching the fight in the right way. You can't solve terrorism with military force.
You can't effectively deal with terrorism without the military/police force. The United States has never had a presidential administration that believed the military was the ONLY means of dealing with terrorism. The strategy in Afghanistan has always involved government, political, and economic development,diplomacy, in addition to using the military.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 12:26 PM   #24
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
i think it's a huge mistake to compare Afghanistan and Iraq to WW2.
Well, that would depend on what is being compared. To claim that there is nothing in either of the conflicts that could be compared is incorrect.

Quote:
the reasons we are in Afghanistan today are quite different than they were in October of 2001.

The United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 in order to remove the Taliban from power, hunt down and capture or kill the members of Al Quada, and rebuild Afghanistan with a new stable government able to provide for its own internal security.

9 years later, these are still essentially the same reasons the United States is involved in Afghanistan.

Quote:
it's now the longest American war. .
Thats only if you believe the Vietnam war didn't start until August 1964. Yet, the first US soldiers killed in Vietnam were killed in 1959. When President Kennedy was murdered in 1963, there were over 16,000 US military personal on the ground in Vietnam, often engaged in combat.

Quote:
they don't call Afghanistan the "graveyard of Empires" for nothing. no empire, ever, including ours, has endless blood and treasure. decisions will have to be made
The Soviet Empire and the British Empire do not collapse or decline because of their involvement in Afghanistan. Their involvement had an impact, but its a major overstatement to call Afghanistan the "graveyard of Empires".

The United States Of America is NOT and Empire!

Security is the most important requirement for the survival of any country. What country would ever put on cap on what it is willing to spend to protect the lives and well being of its citizens?


Just to keep things in perspective, here is a list of US combat deaths from all the major wars the United States has been engaged in:

Revolutionary War: 8,000
War Of 1812: 2,260
Mexican-American War: 1,733
Civil War: Union-140,414 Confederate-72,524
Spanish-American War: 385
Philippine-American War: 1,020
World War I: 53,402
World War II: 291,557
Korean War: 33,741
Vietnam War: 47,424
Persian Gulf War: 113
Iraq War: 3,502
Afghanistan War: 863
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 12:46 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:12 AM
wow. are the Republicans now against Afghanistan because Obama is for it?

Quote:
"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, [Afghanistan] was a war of Obama’s choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in. ... It was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he’s such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed," - Michael Steele

Think Progress RNC Chair Michael Steele Converts Into Anti-War Protester: Never ‘Engage In A Land War In Afghanistan’

i mean, i can't quite fault him. land wars in Afghanistan certainly don't go well. but what about the unwavering faith that Americans are exceptional at everything (except soccer)?

i'm stumped.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-02-2010, 12:53 PM   #26
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Wow...

The stupidity is spreading faster than normal in that party.
BVS is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 01:03 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 09:12 AM
*Blinks*

What? No, seriously...WHAT?

So...somehow Afghanistan is now Obama's fault 'cause we shouldn't have engaged in war with them (even though that war had been going on before Obama came into office) and the United States wasn't for it (really?) and...

Yeah. I'm horribly confused at where he's going with this train of thought.

Angela
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 01:52 PM   #28
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
wow. are the Republicans now against Afghanistan because Obama is for it?




i mean, i can't quite fault him. land wars in Afghanistan certainly don't go well. but what about the unwavering faith that Americans are exceptional at everything (except soccer)?

i'm stumped.
Unfortunately, in the quest by some to attack the President, they switch their positions on issues to do so. Makes no sense at all, but I have seen it happen in both political parties.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 03:29 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Unfortunately, in the quest by some to attack the President, they switch their positions on issues to do so. Makes no sense at all, but I have seen it happen in both political parties.
Further hasn't Michael Steele had a history of bonehead comments? I really doubt his view is going to spread far in the Republican party.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 03:51 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,153
Local Time: 10:12 AM
House Democrats ‘Deem’ Faux $1.1 Trillion Budget ‘as Passed’ - HUMAN EVENTS

Quote:
House Democrats ‘Deem’ Faux $1.1 Trillion Budget ‘as Passed’

Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that "deemed as passed" a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the "deeming" document allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky constraints of a budget.

The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget resolution passed.

Never before -- since the creation of the Congressional budget process -- has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money.
Bluer White is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 05:42 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
wow. are the Republicans now against Afghanistan because Obama is for it?




i mean, i can't quite fault him. land wars in Afghanistan certainly don't go well. but what about the unwavering faith that Americans are exceptional at everything (except soccer)?

i'm stumped.

Steele has been on thin ice for some time now,


I expected him to announce that he was pursuing opportunities in the private sector awhile back

this newest pointless statement
should bring that announcement fairly soon.

they just need to get the word out to the African American GOP.

Clarence Thomas has not logged into his twitter acoount, yet.
deep is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 07:31 PM   #32
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,153
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i mean, i can't quite fault him. land wars in Afghanistan certainly don't go well. but what about the unwavering faith that Americans are exceptional at everything (except soccer)?

i'm stumped.
Is your position on Afghanistan evolving?

Mine has over the past few years.
Bluer White is offline  
Old 07-03-2010, 02:12 AM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Is your position on Afghanistan evolving?

Mine has over the past few years.
I wonder if we could start a thread to discuss our evolving opinions about it, without being inundated by 'you-know-who' with a bunch of armchair recitations of troop and brigade counts.

Because I'd love to have or at least read that discussion with many of you.
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 07-03-2010, 09:03 AM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Is your position on Afghanistan evolving?

Mine has over the past few years.


yes, it has.

but this is the chairman of the RNC. the "stay the course/the Surge cures cancer" party. it's so diametrically opposite of what the party's broad stance towards war (we love it!) has always been. it's extremely unlike a Republican to think that certain regions of the world are essentially ungovernable by an outside power and that not every country is Germany or Japan in 1946.

Steele's job is to be the face -- more or less -- of the RNC. i guess he has two?
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2010, 09:25 PM   #35
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it's extremely unlike a Republican to think that certain regions of the world are essentially ungovernable by an outside power and that not every country is Germany or Japan in 1946.
The United States is not engaged in conquering, annexing and governing other countries. The United States did not do this in post war Germany and Japan and its not doing it now in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all these cases the United States has been engaged in efforts to HELP the country develop its OWN government, security forces, and economy. Its why these efforts are working despite the fact that so many other interventions failed.

There is nothing that makes Afghanistan immune to the effects of proper nationbuilding and globalization. But for some reason, liberal democrats like to believe that its impossible for the Afghan people to make progress. It may also have something to do with opposition to any type of military intervention, the military etc.

Abandoning Afghanistan in the 1990s did not make sense then, nor does it make sense now.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-03-2010, 09:27 PM   #36
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
I wonder if we could start a thread to discuss our evolving opinions about it, without being inundated by 'you-know-who' with a bunch of armchair recitations of troop and brigade counts.
I see, you want a thread where the facts are few, and all of the opinions are similar.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 12:05 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Is your position on Afghanistan evolving?

Mine has over the past few years.
Steele's comment feels less like an evolution though, and more like an about-face--one that is rather convenient as it allows for more Obama-hate. Also, the actual content of his statement doesn't imply a change or evolving of his stance on the war.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 05:07 AM   #38
Acrobat
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 459
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Steele's comment feels less like an evolution though, and more like an about-face--one that is rather convenient as it allows for more Obama-hate. Also, the actual content of his statement doesn't imply a change or evolving of his stance on the war.
we agree again. Steele...... very dissapointed in him.
Benji2112 is offline  
Old 07-06-2010, 09:37 AM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:12 AM
thehill.com


Veterans Affairs head blasts administration over hospital incident

By Russell Berman - 07/05/10 02:10 PM ET

The Democratic chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee lambasted the Obama administration over its handling of an incident at a St. Louis VA center in which more than 1,800 veterans were told they may have been exposed to HIV.

“It's outrageous, one, that this happens, but even worse is this secretive, almost cover-up mode that they go into when something like this happens,” Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) said on CNN Monday.

The Department of Veterans Affairs last month sent a letter to 1,812 patients informing them that could have been exposed to HIV and other deadly viruses because of dental equipment that was insufficiently sterilized over a period of 13 months. The agency said the risk of infection was “extremely low” but it urged patients to return for blood tests.

Filner criticized the administration for taking more than three months to send out the letters after it discovered the faulty safety precautions in March. “We should be much more caring not only about the procedures but the way we deal with them after they're known,” the congressman said. He said it was “disgraceful” that Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki did not know about the lapse until last week.

Filner said the “only way you can get accountability is if there is someone who actually pays a price for this,” although he did not explicitly call for Shinseki to be fired.

The Veterans Affairs Committee is holding a hearing on the issue next week.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-06-2010, 09:47 AM   #40
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
because of dental equipment that was insufficiently sterilized over a period of 13 months.
I have to wonder how this even happens in this day and age.

Something doesn't sound right...
__________________

BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×