Does Antiwar Crowd Care About Vets Scathing Letter to Bush and Cheney....No. They No Longer Care...

reply to post by bknapple32

At least he is starting wars without the deaths of troops.

Must have missed the part where he didn't end them and started new ones and Afghanistan where the majority of US troop deaths have been under his admin.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

Don't see the current potus or his admin "bravely leading the troops in to battle".

He's all safe and sound partying and playing golf.

Yup.

But then again he hasn't lied to the people to instigate an invasion of a foreign country either.

reply to post by BritofTexas

But then again he hasn't lied to the people to instigate an invasion of a foreign country either.

Missed Libya,Syria,Yemen,Uganda and operation olympic games Iran (flame and stuxnet) and Pakistan then eh?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by bknapple32

 

At least he is starting wars without the deaths of troops.

Must have missed the part where he didn't end them and started new ones and Afghanistan where the majority of US troop deaths have been under his admin.

Iraq.. followed through on Bush's end date... Afghanistan... employed a troop surge that felt was needed to take a better grip and allow for faster withdrawal. Its not as simple as more people died under Obama in Afghanistan. Fact is, both wars were started by lies. Obama is bringing the troops home in 2014. He so far, hasn't started any ground invasions of another country that cost the lives of thousands. I just don't get how someone of logic cant concede this point.


there are plenty of other points to attack obama on. Comparing him to bush in terms of cost of war is asinine

reply to post by neo96

Libya,Syria,Yemen,Uganda and operation olympic games Iran

Are you suggesting that all the operations and the military activity in these countries are based on lies?

Because last time I did some research Yemen was a hot bed for radical Islamic fundamentalism which has served as the base of operations for multiple terror cells.

reply to post by bknapple32

Iraq.. followed through on Bush's end date..

Bush's end date which means Obama did not end the war

Afghanistan... employed a troop surge that felt was needed to take a better grip and allow for faster withdrawal.

You don't need to surge troops to withdrawl faster a surge is an escalation of WAR.

Its not as simple as more people died under Obama in Afghanistan.

Sure it is when the ROE's were changed.

both wars were started by lies.

So do tell if both were "lies" why did he escalate the war in Afghansitan, and do tell why will military and foreign aid be continuing for the next 20 years?

Obama is bringing the troops home in 2014.

Yeah right thats what he said in 2008 and 2014?

hasn't started any ground invasions of another country that cost the lives of thousands.

Fast and Furious and 50,000 Mexican nationals dead say otherwise, so does Syria

there are plenty of other points to attack obama on. Comparing him to bush in terms of cost of war is asinine

Nope the only difference is body counts

reply to post by Openeye

Are you suggesting that all the operations and the military activity in these countries are based on lies?

Do tell what was the reasoning behind libya when not a peep has been heard from them in over 30 years?

Because last time I did some research Yemen was a hot bed for radical Islamic fundamentalism which has served as the base of operations for multiple terror cells.

Someone needs to explain to me why the Bush Admin was actually fighting "radical islamic fundamentalism" whereas the current one has been aiding them "Libya,Syria".

reply to post by neo96


Ohhh, were talking body counts from other countries as well??? Then bush wins again.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by bknapple32

 

So do tell if both were "lies" why did he escalate the war in Afghansitan, and do tell why will military and foreign aid be continuing for the next 20 years?

Cleaning someone else's mess is never pretty

Originally posted by neo96
Someone needs to explain to me why the Bush Admin was actually fighting "radical islamic fundamentalism" whereas the current one has been aiding them "Libya,Syria".

That statement tells us all we need to know about your grasp of foreign affairs.

Thank you.

reply to post by TriForce


As a party they didn't. Republican talking heads like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity shamed anyone who dared question the president.

I know there were republicans that disagreed with the wars, but as a whole they were all for it until public opinion bit them in the ass 5 years later and they suddenly changed their tune.

reply to post by bknapple32

Cleaning someone else's mess is never pretty

Whose mess would that be?

Charilie Wislons (Democrat) during the Soviet War in Afghanistan?

Clintons failures of killing Bin Laden the inspiration of 9-11 $ times he could have taken him out didn't.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by neo96
Someone needs to explain to me why the Bush Admin was actually fighting "radical islamic fundamentalism" whereas the current one has been aiding them "Libya,Syria".

That statement tells us all we need to know about your grasp of foreign affairs.

Thank you.

Say it is rather accurate considering other topics on ATS and Benn Swann.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by bknapple32

 

Cleaning someone else's mess is never pretty

Whose mess would that be?

Charilie Wislons (Democrat) during the Soviet War in Afghanistan?

Clintons failures of killing Bin Laden the inspiration of 9-11 $ times he could have taken him out didn't.

edit on 20-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Anything to keep moving those goal posts backwards huh.

We're talking about the Afghan war BUSH started. No one else. And we're talking about cleaning up BUSH's war. Anything else you try and bring into the fold is just to deflect.

reply to post by bknapple32

Anything to keep moving those goal posts backwards huh.

Who are the ones who keep crying about Bush 13 years later?

Afghanistan of 2000 was created by the left Charlie Wison there arming of the rebels which made afghanistan someone elses mess to clean up.;

First of all, one of these days the rest of you will come around to the realization that they all serve the same masters so this left/right bickering is stupid. As for the majority of deaths having been during Obama's term, well DUH! Look at the troop levels v. casualties. We had less than 30,000 troops in Afghanistan until almost 2008. Between 2008 and 2009 troop levels about doubled and ***GASP*** deaths did as well. They've run about 0.5% in the later stages of the war. It's all a business model. The finger pointing is pointless. The whole frigging thing was and is a scam.

reply to post by neo96

Do tell what was the reasing behind libya when not a peep has been heard from them in over 30 years?

We probably are already pretty much in agreement on Libya, although I do not think we would have been involved at all if there was not a rebel force attempting to seize control of the government

In my honest opinion Libya appeared a lot like pre-war Iraq. A "seemingly" popular leader/dictator who had been accused of multiple human rights violations, an extremely corrupt political system, and a growing resistance movement.

The Obama administration instead of repeating the Iraq strategy instead elected to support the resistance with intelligence, supplies, and air support. While not as drastic as the Bush Iraq strategy, it was still an unneeded and arguably unethical use of our resources.

That all being said Gaddafi was still a corrupt politician who should have been opposed much earlier, just like Hussein and Assad.

Someone needs to explain to me why the Bush Admin was actually fighting "radical islamic fundamentalism" whereas the current one has been aiding them "Libya,Syria".

I would not say the current administration is "aiding" Islamic radicals, again we are blowing the crap out of them in Yemen, Pakistan, and a plethora of other nations. But it is far more politically viable to support resistance movements which seek to overthrow already unpopular and radical governments.

I agree that the resistance movements that came out of the Arab Spring are fueled by fundamentalism, but that old saying still rings true "the enemy of my enemy" and all that jazz.

It makes no real difference who holds the White House. In the big picture the world powers want all rogue nations, all despots, all resources under one body of power. How they go about it is generally dictated by their political base. Republican, Democrat, there is no real difference when it comes to war. The end goal is exactly the same. Clinton started the Iraq war invasion rhetoric long before Bush took office. Had a Democrat won POTUS there would have been an invasion of Iraq. To be fair Sadam was as bad as Hitler and need to be taken out. He was ramping up for a Middle East war.

reply to post by neo96


Dont forget the fact that he personally picks out who gets executed by drones, like some kind of twisted serial killer.
I wonder what method he uses.. eany meany miney mo?

reply to post by TriForce


What a gross exaggeration. Obama does not personally pick who lives and who dies, there is a group of decision makers involved in the process which includes the secretary of defense and the CIA director, there are probably dozens of people involved.

Its not just Obama with pen, paper and joystick flying around blasting people he doesn't like.