Saturday, August 29, 2009

AGAINISTAN

DURING BARAK OBAMA’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, AMERICA WAS ENGAGED IN TWO WARS.
ONE WAS A CRIMINAL MISADVENTURE.
THE OTHER WAS A TIRED AND ANEMIC WAR WITH A FADED GOAL.

WISELY, OBAMA HAD EARLIER ADVOCATED AGAINST THE INVASION OF IRAQ, WHICH HE LABELED A WAR OF CHOICE.
BUT OBAMA SUPPORTED THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN WHICH HE CONSIDERED A WAR OF NECESSITY.

THE ONLY NECESSITY WAS THAT, IN ORDER TO BE ELECTED, HE STARTED WEARING A FLAG LAPEL PIN TO PROVE HIS PATRIOTISM, AND HE PROMISED TO EXPAND THE ‘RIGHT’ WAR TO ILLUSTRATE HIS TOUGHNESS AND MAKE HIS BONES.

THE RUSSIANS HAD TEN YEARS OF BONES.

HE IS TOO SMART TO BELIEVE IN THE LAPEL PIN OR THE 8-YEAR-OLD WAR.

13 comments:

Horsebreath said...

The war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity. Now we might want to walk away from that war but its not so black and white. Why give up on this President now when he needs our support.

quicksand said...

DEAR HORSE,

YOU ARE RIGHT. WAS.
IT WAS A WAR OF NECESSITY.
BUT...IT'S BEEN 8 YEARS.
WHAT IS OUR GOAL?

AGAIN YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT BLACK AND WHITE.
IT'S GRAY.
44 DEAD SOLDIERS THIS MONTH.
MOST SINCE THE WAR BEGAN.

NOT GIVING UP ON OBAMA AT ALL.
I THINK HE COULD BECOME A GREAT PRESIDENT.
I HOPE HE DOES.

Anonymous said...

We stay until there is enough of a functioning government and national military to stand on their own and prevent the terrorist training camps from operating freely.

ben's friend said...

I'm afraid that we will never stop the terrorist training camps until we learn that we have no right to go into other countries and make their decisions for them especially by force. They don't "hate us for our freedom," as Bush was fond of claiming. They hate us because we are powerful and can meddle in their affairs and worse yet we often do. We too often conduct our foriegn policy based on the principle that might makes right. It should never escape our memories that while our hostages were in Iran Regean was making deals to sell arms to their government and funneling that money into Nicaragua to meddle in their affairs. We rooted for the Afgans when they were figthing the Russians and Rumsfeld was shaking the hand and being nice to Saddam Hussien when he was fighting Iran. How refreshing it would be if we based our foriegn policy on moral principles rather than expediency. And we wonder why people don't always like us?

Horsebreath. said...

To Bens friend
Its moral to defeat the Taliban.

quicksand said...

DEAR HORSE,
NO ARGUMENT WITH YOUR MORAL POSITION.
DO YOU THINK THAT WE'LL DEFEAT THEM WITH TROOPS?
WE'VE BEEN AT IT FOR 8 YEARS.
MAYBE MORE TROOPS IS THE ANSWER...BUT I BELIEVE NOT.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.
ONLY A DRAFT WOULD TELL US IF THIS WAR IS ESSENTIAL.
NO EASY ANSWER.

quicksand said...

NOTE: AFTER RECEIVING A MESSAGE THAT OBAMA DIDN'T VOTE AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR BECAUSE HE WAS NOT YET IN THE SENATE...A CORRECTION WAS MADE.
HE SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE WAR.
THANKS

quicksand said...

E-MAILED BY SASSY

Vietnam should have taught us to get out and let them fight their own battles. The jungle, the desert, now the mountains -- why should our soldiers die in places where we don't belong?!

I'm sick of war!


Sassy

Anonymous said...

That mentality is the reason the Taliban and Bin Laden were able to thrive in Afghanistan.

Anonymous said...

It's important to remember some of the facts about the war in Afghanistan. In the world that existed before 11 September 2001, Afghanistan under the Taliban was a blight on humanity. Millions were driven from their homes to live in squalid refugee camps in Pakistan and they were the lucky ones. Women were stoned to death, music was banned and there was no schooling for girls. The world sat on its hands, as it did in Ruanda, Bosnia,..and does in Darfur. Why, it was legitimate to ask, did we go to war in Serbia to protect innocent citizens from their own government in Kosovo but did nothing in Afphanistan which seemed like a much worse case. Well, the answer was probably because it would be a more difficult war to win. That might be the logical military answer but maybe not the right moral one.

Then 11 September came along and the world discovered that the Taliban were a bunch of nasty thugs who violated practically every principle of international and natural law. It was right to go into Afghanistan because if human rights mean anything, they mean that girls should not have acid thrown on them because they want to go to school or people don't get their faces slashed because they dare to vote.

So there is the fact that the Taliban are murderous thugs who hide behind the cloak of religion to terrorise millions.

There is also the fact that the war in Afghanistan is sanctioned by the UN and is not a case of the US intervening in someone else's business. There is a UN resolution because the international community decided that lawless bandits running and abusing its people is everyone's business. In international law, sovereignty no longer means you get to do whatever you like to your people.

The real issue is not why the US is there or whether it should be there but why is everyone else not there with the same commitment. A few NATO countries are doing more than their fair share but where is everyone else who was whining on about the abuse of international law with the US intervention in Iraq. Here is international law and institutions at work but where is their commitment.

If there was a case to be made for a just cause this it. War doesn't solve every problem but it might be the only solution you have when you are dealign with someone who thinks violence is not only justified, it is morally rewarding.

quicksand said...

DEAR ANON,

WHILE I COULD TAKE ISSUE WITH SOME OF WHAT YOU SAY, I'D RATHER THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL AND INTELLIGENT COMMENT.

quicksand said...

DEAR ANON,

WHILE I COULD TAKE ISSUE WITH SOME OF WHAT YOU SAY, I'D RATHER THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL AND INTELLIGENT COMMENT.

Anonymous said...

I don't think he is that smart, actually -- unless reading really well off of a teleprompter counts.