Obama Is Obligated

[Nazz]

Of course. Obama deserves some time to make progress. I wasn't writing him off, just noting that I'm still not entirely sold (yet) on some basic aspects of his foreign policy arc.

Hell, a majority of us gave Bush at least five years before we started to call his bullshit, so yeah, give Obama time, but also watch critically.

[Nazz]

Vengeance hell. How about some good old coldblooded revenge, served up in the same manner the injury & death was served to us?

Jeeze, two days later and I'm still shaking my head a bit at this one... Yeah ok-- some good old cold-blooded revenge... If we want to think strictly in those narrow terms at least realize that there are realistic limits to taking revenge, and that it goes more than one way. So then, are Iraqis now entitled to avenge the injury and death we brought in our unnecessarily long, criminally mishandled military occupation following an invasion based on lies and motivated in large part by imperial lust and self-righteous ideological posturing?

The world watches what we do. The world watches our moves. So do our enemies. Not to mention our so-called allies. What our enemies & allies have learned watching us these past 40 years is that we are paralyzed by bold actions.

"Paralyzed by bold actions?"

Really? Is that why "we" invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to kick out the Taliban? Is that why "we" invaded Iraq in 2003, despite the fact that weapons inspectors were already in place and working? None of that sounds too "paralyzed" to me. In the case of Iraq in particular, maybe it's ill-advised "boldness" that in some ways paralyzed our anti-terror efforts.

The world is not a utopia or a religious retreat. As it is we cannot sit solidly in the company of our father's fathers. Not with our heads held up. It's past time for Bin Laden's death. It won't mean much now. Still, it needs to be done.

You're right. It won't mean much. The time for that was six-plus years ago, when (if you believe Kerry), our military, had a chance to close in on him but, under Bush's orders, basically gave up the pursuit. Since then the US has done extensive damage to its credibility and support through its own bullying of allies, general arrogance at times, and poorly-conceived and somewhat disingenuine militarism.

Those that mean to do us harm have long since come to the conclusion that we are a nation of swallowers. Our enemies have no belief in "justice". They believe only in death. We are well positioned to give it to them and to all those who would offer them sanctuary.

Yeah, while I'm intoxicated by this no-nonsense black and white approach and attitude, and there is even some truth in it I suppose, we don't live in some Saturday morning cartoon. Yeah, perhaps we are "well positioned" to slaughter the bad guys, but we could also be well-positioned to get into a series of endless, thankless world-policing quagmires as well, complete with mounting collateral damage and all of the ugly realities of extended military occupation. That's also possible. Yes, we need to protect ourselves, even through military action when appropriate, but at some point we also need to move beyond the brainless FOX-speak and start working on practical solutions. And yes, it will need to involve diplomacy and international cooperation at some point, not that incessant "with-us-or-against-us", my-way-or-highway crap from our previous "leaders".

[stilltrucking]

yep simple as that

speaking of that

they say it is a gift to be simple

the simple truth

Mingo I will not read another war novel after Short Timer's. AKA Full Metal Jacket.


I run out of metaphors for wars. But you know some pretty good fiction has come out of wars. So I guess they must be good for something.



I just don't have the heart for this discussion.

I will leave it up to Obama.
I think he is a most practical politician.

[hester_prynne]

I am sure there are people right down the street that would love to kill me for whatever reason, cuz they have a gun by God???....Killers exist everywhere. Have you read the morning paper, or watched tv or listened to the radio right here in America? Hello?
This is not world war 1 or 2 time you know. This is 2009 and things have changed completely, except, sadly enough, some folk's (alot of them commentators on FOX news) still remain fixed at those previous levels when it comes to addressing "adversaries". (Many of whom have bought their arsenals from the USA)
The days of War as we knew it are over, so get over it and grow up, put your fucking guns and bravado away, and learn how to compromise peacefully and civilly already. It may be a difficult concept to understand but we arent the only country with nuclear power and we never will be. A new strategy is imperative.
Geez!
H

[stilltrucking]

I don't suppose you meet any veterans of foreign wars in you job Hester?



I am just saying that Obama is our Commander In Chief. I think he is about competence not ideology.

I am sure there will be congressional inquiries. This is not about politics really. just opinions and trying to trip somebodies trigger.
Well it tripped mine. I got no cools.

It is a guy thing hester,
I don't think it has much to do with anything.
Just an interesting discussion
next thing tony c will be calling me a good buddy.

He takes pride in being a one man internet hate machine.



No seriously you are right.

Hester wrote

A new strategy is imperative.

No doubt that our defense department has got to be transformed. Frigging transformation. Now there is the groucho magic word for today.

First thing I would do if I was Obama is change the name of the defense department back to what it truly is THE WAR DEPARTMENT. Ha.


Obama does not even have his full cabinet appointed yet. I think he has other more important matters to attend to at this point in time. Like transforming our strategy. Chaney and Bush ain't going nowhere. The congressional committees and courts will know where to find them when the time comes

We have the most lethal armed forces. But it ain't helping much when the civilian leadership are ideological idiots.

Well like I said Hail To the Chief.

I am a worse quaker than I am a Jew if that is possible.

I guess the fact that Dr Death, Pol Pot, Stalin and others died peacefully in their sleep makes me a bit jaded about war crimes.
But who knows what their final dreams were, just how peaceful was their final sleep.

I can think of times when I wish somebody had used deadly force to stop a genocide. Rwanda haunts me more than the holocaust if that is possible.

Shake Hands With The Devil
and interesting book
I have never read.

sorry tony
how did we go from Obama's obligations about war crimes to talking about war?

Say tonyc don't ya know there is a a war on.

I suppose we can have this conversation now so that when peace breaks out again in the world
we will know what to do.

[stilltrucking]

Mingo I have not seen the headless rooster
I must be blessed because I still believe in it.

I don't know if Rwanda could have been prevented even if the troops on the ground were sufficient. Maybe the slaughter would have found another way to happen.

But if you are into thinking about it
there is a book called Shake Hands With The Devil. Written by the Canadian general who was in command of the UN peace keeping forces in Rwanda. He wrote it as thearapy to deal with his nervous breakdown.

I have not read it just excepts.
But like I said I am who believes what I have not seen.

[stilltrucking]

I have not seen him around anymore but eyelidlessness had some interesting things to say about warriors. He called them all murderers.

So much talk talk
so much news
my head is spinning
Talk about returning combat veterans
bringing their skills home.

And right wing extremists trying to recruit them.

Do we have an obligation to those men and women who went to war to defend what they were told was threat from Iraq.

Where would we be if we had just kept faith with Afghanistan and Pakistan too for that matter.

Ah shit
shit shit shit

Somebody shoot me while I am happy

[Nazz]

First thing I would do if I was Obama is change the name of the defense department back to what it truly is THE WAR DEPARTMENT. Ha.

Yeah. That's what it was called before the War Industry got built up properly, wasn't it?

I guess the fact that Dr Death, Pol Pot, Stalin and others died peacefully in their sleep makes me a bit jaded about war crimes.

Good point. It was a particularly ruinous and dangerous Century, that Twentieth (even though the roots of its various expanding and chain-reacting disasters go back even further in time). In Pol Pot's case, the US essentially used him in some ways to counter the larger "Communist Threat", ignoring his atrocities. The Cold War is typically used to "justify" all of the shit the US has perpetrated on the world stage. Not that other nations and entities weren't guilty of shit also. But it's just that the US wants to pretend it's own shit doesn't stink, or never existed, and that it alone is morally blameless.

I can think of times when I wish somebody had used deadly force to stop a genocide. Rwanda haunts me more than the holocaust if that is possible.

Yes. A difficult question, to say the least. I have no good answer, really, other than to note that the more powerful and corporate the War Industry becomes, the less likely it seems it might ever actually be used to stop the genocide of the poor and powerless.

[Barry]

Here's what would have happened if the US had airlifted in, say, 50,000+ troops before enough Hutus or Tutsis were killed in Rwanda to call it a genocide: we'd now be sitting here discussing what a shameless act of unfounded aggression and corporate imperialism that was on the part of the US.

Peace,
Barry

[Nazz]

Good observation, but not necessarily.

And besides, one of the main things I keep coming back to is that the US finally needs to realize that, despite having probably the most powerful military on earth, it can't do everything by itself wherever and whenever it damn well sees fit with no international consensus and help, or virtually none. I think Obama gets this basic idea, or at least I hope he does.

And US allies aren't necessarily worthless "anti-American" freeloaders either. They helped substantially in the first Gulf War (even though I still feel that whole thing was a little on the sketchy side) because the US made the case and made the effort to build a truer international coalition. And US actions in Afghanistan in 2001-02 were generally supported by the world community as well. Iraq Part II has proven to be a far different story however, and whether we like it or not or fully agree or not, it has substantially damaged the US' already-mixed reputation, especially in that general region.

That alone would now make it very difficult, if US leaders decided to go there, for the US to undertake more earnestly legitimate humanitarian efforts in solo, which are tough to pull off even in times of relative world support and/or sympathy.

Btw, it's not as if the US completely gave up on going after al Qaeda/Taliban in the border zone. There have been quite a few bombing raids lately, particularly the end of last year. Most of you know how I detest that idea, but from at least the two reports I read it sounds like the "target precision" rate has been incredibly high. Granted that may be due to media bias or perhaps the element of surprise early on, and you can't win any conflict strictly from the air, but the US hasn't just "given up".

And yes, it's a serious concern that the Taliban are gaining power in Pakistan. I remain skeptical of their ability to do much more that hit and run stuff, but I studied up on it a bit more and it sounds more troubling than I imagined at first. But the US can't just rush into another ground war in that severe terrain, can it? Especially with critical US-Pakistani relations at stake.

Personally I'd like to see Pakistan take care of these border problems. If I understood correctly, Pakistanis in larger numbers are finally starting to reject al Quaeda/Taliban as misguided, oppressive and unwelcome. But if an escalated ground war is chosen as the next step, then I'd say it had better not be yet another US unilateral endeavor.

Okay, I've said an awful lot here, so it's time for me to sit down and listen for a while, I suppose.

[Barry]

And yes, it's a serious concern that the Taliban are gaining power in Pakistan. 1) I remain skeptical of their ability to do much more that hit and run stuff, but I studied up on it a bit more and it sounds more troubling than I imagined at first. 2) But the US can't just rush into another ground war in that severe terrain, can it? Especially with critical US-Pakistani relations at stake.

3) Personally I'd like to see Pakistan take care of these border problems. If I understood correctly, Pakistanis in larger numbers are finally starting to reject al Quaeda/Taliban as misguided, oppressive and unwelcome. 4) But if an escalated ground war is chosen as the next step, then I'd say it had better not be yet another US unilateral endeavor.

1) It's the ceding of authority by the Pakistani government (i/e military) that troubles me the most. It's not if they can or will attack outside the areas they control, but what they do inside. And they've already demonstrated a strong will to expand their powerbase.

2) I do not advocate that either. Some form of pressure or support, it seems, could be brought to bear on the Pakistani government/military to not capitulate to Taliban pressure, ie/ thuggery.

3) Exactly. See above.

4) I don't think this measure is warranted or called for at this point. Pakistanis in and out of government/military pay close attention to world opinion. Their image in the world's eye matters to them. Remind them of this.

Peace,
Barry