Pinning the two wars on current administration, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 9-10-2009 @ 07:50 PM by Southern Guardian

It seems as though pinning both of the current wars in the middle east on the Obama administration is readily acceptable. Its as if folks here blame this administration for waging both wars and thats it, with little understanding of the circumstances.

The fact is, both wars were not started by this current administration. I can fully understand that part blame lies on Dems as with republicans, after all, many of them voted for it, including Clinton and Kerry. That being said, for years following that war Democrats called for withdrawal, as with many on the left, after falsehoods revealed following invasion, only to be hurled as unpatriotic.

The fact is, Iraq is within a two year withdrawal fase, As promised, complete withdrawal will be by 2011. People find it wholly convenient to put blame on the current administration for this war purposefully ignoring this fact of matter. Merely by troops still being there, folkes continue to pin this war.

The fact is, the view of the war in afghanistan is really to your perception. There are some us who believe we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11 and that the wars there are to hunt down the terrorists who did so. There are truthers who believe otherwise, but likewise not everybody is a truther.

I would obviously like to get an explanation by what ATSers mean and believe in this matter, but I think there is a gross misunderstanding or ignorance over the current circumstances over the war. Truth is, whether we support the war or not, we came into Iraq, caused that mess and its our duty to clear up behind ourselves. Like it or not, there are differences concerning the attacks on 9/11 so likewise there will be different views on our mission in Afghanistan.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 08:08 PM by David9176

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I'm not pinning the wars on Obama...they were there before he entered office....that's a given.

My gripe is that he received a reward based on peace and humanitarianism and he's done nothing in action proving so.

If you're anti-war...then party shouldn't change or give anyone any leeway when they aren't coming through on promises.

If Republicans controlled things right now...they'd be doing the same thing...we all know it.

Everyone says they want out...but no one gets us out. Yes, we should have never been in Iraq....no doubt about that....we should have been after the 9/11 culprits and help the people there by building schools and helping their community...not by killing innocents to get the bad guys.

You need the will and the support of the people's citizens to win a war....we don't have it. As more people continue to hurt....the opposition to all of it will continue to rise as people will be wondering why they are dirt poor yet supporting a war on the otherside of the world that seems unwinnable.

Not to mention...our own foreign policy in this country has been terrible for a very long time...and it goes through all of the political spectrum.

Just remember that many of the people, I think, who are criticizing this are actually not Republicans as this many hurt their want for a troop increase. Sending out more troops after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize would look ridiculous...at least in my eyes.

My two cents.

As for the conspiracy stuff...I don't buy into the truther movement. Is it possible that the government was naive and stupid in it's ignorance beforehand at the very least? Absolutely.

9/11 was a dagger into the heart of our economy...we falsely propped it up to fund a war that wasn't even freakin constitutional...and in the end...even justified.

Go shopping so we can go to war!

We can't go shopping anymore..we dont' have money to fund this anymore. It's got to end.

S/F

[edit on 9-10-2009 by David9176]

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 08:18 PM by SLAYER69

Originally posted by David9176

If you're anti-war...then party shouldn't change or give anyone any leeway when they aren't coming through on promises.

Dave with all Respect.
My son was out there and are two of my nephews.
Lets not dance.

I hear you.

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 08:38 PM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Southern Guardian

I'm not pinning the wars on Obama...they were there before he entered office....that's a given.

My gripe is that he received a reward based on peace and humanitarianism and he's done nothing in action proving so.

I agree with you there David, the awards were premature... and even considering the explaination that this was just "to promote future efforts" I still believe it was premature. That being said, I guess it was the choice of the committee...

If you're anti-war...then party shouldn't change or give anyone any leeway when they aren't coming through on promises.

If Republicans controlled things right now...they'd be doing the same thing...we all know it.

I disagree... I doubt they would have announced withdrawing troops. The republican platform on Iraq was to remain there until the "job was done". Sure Bush signed the agreement of two year withdrawal, but that was in response to the nature of the campaign and the need for John McCain to win. I believe that if Iraq was not among the topic of concern, Bush would have kept troops there and McCain would have followed suit.

Everyone says they want out...but no one gets us out. Yes, we should have never been in Iraq....no doubt about that....we should have been after the 9/11 culprits and help the people there by building schools and helping their community...not by killing innocents to get the bad guys.

Agreed.

Just remember that many of the people, I think, who are criticizing this are actually not Republicans as this many hurt their want for a troop increase. Sending out more troops after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize would look ridiculous...at least in my eyes.

I fully understand the sacrifice in afghanistan, but I believe for some people that day of 9/11, I dont think I could stomache a troop withdrawal... allowing that monster with his minions to continue on hidden in the mountains.. I mean I find it rather frustrating that truthers dump their beliefs, and in that assuming this war is on par with Iraq. To some us its completely different.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 08:43 PM by Jenna

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Truth is, whether we support the war or not, we came into Iraq, caused that mess and its our duty to clear up behind ourselves.

Holy cow, Batman. I do believe I've finally found something you and I agree on SG. That's a sign of the end of the world right?

On a more topic-related note, blaming the wars solely on Obama is just asinine. However, as sitting president any escalations of those wars will rest squarely on his shoulders. Had the government not jacked around and basically ignored Afghanistan for the last 8 years I'm fairly confident that war would be coming to an end soon at the least.

It wasn't just Bush responsible for the wars, it was him and all of Congress. They had the ability and the opportunity to nip both wars in the bud, but they didn't. So really I blame everyone in Congress who voted for the wars more so than I do Bush. He has his share of the blame, but they have a larger portion since they were the ones with the power to stop it before it started.

As for Obama, the wars were already in place when he took office. He can't be faulted for starting them. He can, however, be held accountable for the actions he takes concerning them.

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 09:04 PM by LadySkadi

Originally posted by Jenna

Snip

It wasn't just Bush responsible for the wars, it was him and all of Congress. They had the ability and the opportunity to nip both wars in the bud, but they didn't. So really I blame everyone in Congress who voted for the wars more so than I do Bush. He has his share of the blame, but they have a larger portion since they were the ones with the power to stop it before it started.

As for Obama, the wars were already in place when he took office. He can't be faulted for starting them. He can, however, be held accountable for the actions he takes concerning them.

I'm just gonna piggy-back on these two points...

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 09:22 PM by KSPigpen

As president, Obama should have the power to stop wars. Nobel prize for peace? Uh, continued torture, continued drone attacks, further drawing in Pakistan...even though I may not be the one beating my wife, if I SEE it, and don't STOP it, I am guilty. You may not make it stick in a court of law, but who are we trying to kid?
Presidents CAN end wars. They can stop the killing. This one clearly has no desire for either, despite his holy rhetoric that he used to get elected.
Same old death dealing, new face.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 09:37 PM by David9176

reply to post by SLAYER69

Dave with all Respect. My son was out there and are two of my nephews. Lets not dance. I hear you.

I hope they make it home safely. I had one relative and 2 friends...2 were in Iraq and one was in Afghanistan. They all made it home safe.

I support our troops...which is why I want them home.

This war has already lasted twice as long as WWII. Enough blood has been shed.

6000 deaths for 3000....how many have to die before the 3000 is justified?

How much farther in debt do we have to go to realize we can no longer fund this?

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 09:45 PM by David9176

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I disagree... I doubt they would have announced withdrawing troops. The republican platform on Iraq was to remain there until the "job was done". Sure Bush signed the agreement of two year withdrawal, but that was in response to the nature of the campaign and the need for John McCain to win. I believe that if Iraq was not among the topic of concern, Bush would have kept troops there and McCain would have followed suit.

I'm not sure about that. McCain blabbed about the surge most of his campaign and bringing troops home would have proved that it worked...well not proved but at least give evidence that is was working. Afghanistan would be the same though as it is now....with a troop increase likely.

Not to mention many Republicans would be championing McCain's moves right now even though they would mostly be the same.

Republicans criticize Obama just to do it...it doesn't matter what he did or what his stance was.....and then ignore the pathetic standing of their own party in the process.

Also...the left would be extremely angry that they would be seeing no real end to the war. They'd be screaming that our country is bankrupt. It's all the same.

It's funny...you can turn on Hannity's radio show (It comes on when I leave work)......and you'd think he created all the debt himself which of course is not true...although he's certainly escalating it.

I hate Hannity...with a passion.

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 10:49 PM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Truth is, whether we support the war or not, we came into Iraq, caused that mess and its our duty to clear up behind ourselves.

Holy cow, Batman. I do believe I've finally found something you and I agree on SG. That's a sign of the end of the world right?

Probably

On a more topic-related note, blaming the wars solely on Obama is just asinine. However, as sitting president any escalations of those wars will rest squarely on his shoulders. Had the government not jacked around and basically ignored Afghanistan for the last 8 years I'm fairly confident that war would be coming to an end soon at the least.

The government has been slack, congress has been slack both republican and democrat. I agree.... this is such a complicated situation at the moment.... withdraw, only making those 9/11 attackers to think they "got away from it" but in that bringing soldiers home... and satisfying the truthers.... or keep troops there, keep the fight and the confidence of many families and those who felt the official story is legit.

It wasn't just Bush responsible for the wars, it was him and all of Congress.

Oh I agree... I frown whenever such politicians as Kerry and Clinton rally on against the warhawks... I mean where were they that day as well?

As for Obama, the wars were already in place when he took office. He can't be faulted for starting them. He can, however, be held accountable for the actions he takes concerning them.

Well Im glad you recognise that fact. He has indeed got a big decision ahead of him regarding afghanistan... and which ever decision that it is it will be his doing as POTUS. So long as these wars rage on though... they will be pinned to who so ever is in office and that is unfortunate as the fault and circumstances can be attributed to so many.

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 11:32 PM by Jenna

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Jenna

Holy cow, Batman. I do believe I've finally found something you and I agree on SG. That's a sign of the end of the world right?

Probably

I knew it!

Honestly I knew there had to be something we'd agree on. Nice change of pace to be in agreement on an issue.

The government has been slack, congress has been slack both republican and democrat. I agree.... this is such a complicated situation at the moment.... withdraw, only making those 9/11 attackers to think they "got away from it" but in that bringing soldiers home... and satisfying the truthers.... or keep troops there, keep the fight and the confidence of many families and those who felt the official story is legit.

Very true. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. Regardless of whether we withdraw or stay and finish it there will be plenty of people unhappy with the decision. It would tickle me pink if we just brought everyone home tomorrow and said to heck with them. I have friends and family there and I'd much rather have them home.

However, if we were to do that not only will those responsible for planning 9/11 think they got away with it, we'll also leave 2 countries in ruins. Regardless of anyone's opinions about the wars, it just wouldn't be right to leave Iraq and Afghanistan in a mess that is partly our fault.

Oh I agree... I frown whenever such politicians as Kerry and Clinton rally on against the warhawks... I mean where were they that day as well?

Likely sitting around with their thumbs in their rear's or playing solitaire instead of paying attention.

Well Im glad you recognise that fact. He has indeed got a big decision ahead of him regarding afghanistan... and which ever decision that it is it will be his doing as POTUS. So long as these wars rage on though... they will be pinned to who so ever is in office and that is unfortunate as the fault and circumstances can be attributed to so many.

Of course I can recognize that, I'm not entirely unreasonable.

I agree it's a very big decision that he gets to make all on his own. And it's one that he'll be responsible for and have to live with. So while I wish he'd hurry up and make up his mind about the troop increase that's been requested, I also can understand how that's a difficult decision to make. I just hope he makes the right one.

The wars themselves can only be pinned on those who were in Congress and Bush. The decisions made about them, however, rest solely on Obama and whoever follows him into office if, heaven forbid, they aren't ended before he's out. (All of the decisions made after he entered office of course.)

Pages: ^^TOP^^