Obama's War...

[El Nino]

What's your point? Everybody already knew things were bad & getting worse, long before the election. That map is misleading. It was economic problems that got the republicans booted in 2006. The first stimulous was done in 2007, in the form of a tax rebate. It was too little too late, & didn't stop the hemmorage. People saw this coming as far back as 2005, even though the "official" start of the current recession is mid 2007. By late 2008, the economy was in freefall. The President took office in January of this year. Nobody expected an overnight turnaround. The big stimulous is in its 8th month of a 2 year timetable. Look at the unemployment numbers from earlier this week, & you'll see that the hemmorage has slowed to a trickle. We're looking at another 2 years of recovery at least. You don't know what you're talking about. You're not going to learn anything from infowars. Your guru, Alex Jones, doesn't know what he's talking about either. My eyes are wide open.

Like most people, You're missing the POINT. I said nothing about dems, repubs, the election, or a new administration. You see that's just it, they are all one in the same. Wake up

[hippifried]

I'm wide awake, & they're not the same. It's a different mindset & approach. The law is the law of course, & the President can't change them, negate them, or make new ones. The Constitution deliberately makes sure of that. Maybe you should wake up & look at how things actually work.

[Ben]

An article by Norman Solomon:

Mr. President, War Is Not Peace
by Norman Solomon

Eloquence in Oslo cannot change the realities of war.

As President Obama neared the close of his Nobel address, he called for "the continued expansion of our moral imagination." Yet his speech was tightly circumscribed by the policies that his oratory labored to justify.

Lofty rationales easily tell us that warfare is striving for the noble goal of peace. But the rationales scarcely intersect with actual war. The oratory sugarcoats the poisons, helping to kill hope in the name of it.

A few months ago, when I visited an Afghan office for women's empowerment, staffers took me to a pilot project in one of Kabul's poorest neighborhoods. There, women were learning small-scale business skills while also gaining personal strength and mutual support.

Two-dozen women, who ranged in age from early 20s to late 50s, talked with enthusiasm about the workshops. They were desperate to change their lives. When it was time to leave, I had a question: What should I tell people in the United States, if they ask what Afghan women want most of all?

After several women spoke, the translator summed up. "They all said that the first priority is peace."

In Afghanistan, after 30 years under the murderous twin shadows of poverty and war, the only lifeline is peace.

From President Obama, we hear that peace is the ultimate goal. But "peace" is a fixture on a strategic horizon that keeps moving as the military keeps marching.

Just a couple of days before Obama stepped to the podium in Oslo, the general running the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan spoke to a congressional committee in Washington about the president's recent pledge to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops in July 2011. "I don't believe that is a deadline at all," Stanley McChrystal said.

War is not peace. It never has been. It never will be.

Actual policy always, in the real world, profoundly trumps even the best rhetoric. And so, for instance, when President Obama's Nobel speech proclaimed that "America cannot act alone" and called for "standards that govern the use of force," the ringing declaration clashed with the announcement last month that he will not sign the international Mine Ban Treaty.

As Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams pointed out, "Obama's position on land mines calls into question his expressed views on multilateralism, respect for international humanitarian law and disarmament. How can he, with total credibility, lead the world to nuclear disarmament when his own country won't give up even land mines?"

At the outset of his speech in Oslo, the president spoke of his "acute sense of the cost of armed conflict." Well, there's acute and then there's acute. I think of the people I met and saw in Kabul who are missing limbs, and the countless more whose lives have been shattered by war.

In the name of pragmatism, Obama spoke of "the world as it is" and threw a cloak of justification over the grisly escalation in Afghanistan by insisting that "war is sometimes necessary" -- but generalities do nothing to mitigate the horrors of war being endured by others.

President Obama accepted the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize while delivering -- to the world as it is -- a pro-war speech. The context instantly turned the speech's insights into flackery for more war.
Norman Solomon is co-chair of the national Healthcare Not Warfare campaign, launched by Progressive Democrats of America. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." For more information, go to: www.normansolomon.com

[El Nino]

Ok. maybe not "the same" but so damn similar that they are virtually indistinguishable. I am not talking about petty social issues either like gay marraige etc. I am speaking of large issues that truly affect people domestically and abroad. Like empirialism, war on drugs/drug trafficking, economic slavery (Private Fed Reserve), corporate control of Government, illegal taxation, freedom opressing/anti-constitutional legislation like the "Patriot Acts etc"... Man the list goes on and on. They are the same, sorry pal, try again.

[El Nino]

Nice post Ben. Sad but true words.

[trish]

This convo took a left turn away from the OP's thread title. Point is, all the sheep were duped into getting another war president... plain and simple

What "duped"? He let everybody know his position on Afghanistan back before the primaries & all through the campaign. This isn't a surprize to anyone but you & others who weren't paying attention. There was hope among some that his mind could be changed, but there was never an expectation. 2 months from the conventions, there were no candidates for the office who were talking about pulling out of Afghanistan. The ones who did at the start had no popular support to speak of. Nobody was "duped".

Personally, I think the war in Afghanistan was a mistake to start with. I would definitely do it differently. But I'm not in a position to dictate policy, & the President is privy to a lot more information than myself, you, Ron Paul, or Alex Jones. He's a smart guy, & I trust him to keep the interests of America first, & to give due consideration to his decisions. So far, I have no regrets for my vote.

[El Nino]

^ ^ ^
Typical 'Liberal' Response

[notdrunk]

Mr. President, War Is Not Peace
by Norman Solomon

Solomon has no idea what is he talking about. Certain groups of people have to be beaten into submission and then you give to an avenue to submit. Only a gullible fool would think there is some good in the heart of an evil person. I guess the author wants people to take it up the ass and just deal with oppression. Oppression with peace...sounds like a good combo!

Additionally, the Ottawa Treaty is incompatible with the United States military. For starters, the US has a shit load of ap mines on the Korean DMZ that prevents North Korea from crossing into South Korea.

[chefmike]

You and Chef have a credibility level of about Zero, at this point! So go on and continue to straight up humor yourselves

Sweet Fancy Moses!!!

El Kaczynski attacking someone's credibility level....now that's a hoot...

[El Nino]

Big words from your chef, ladies and germs...