OH wait now the wars are bad?

[jackfaire]

I think people get amnesia a lot. People who agreed with the two wars we are fighting who cheered Bush on when we got into them are suddenly blaming President Obama for them?!?!?

Not official policy makers or anyone more important than you or I but have seen comments here and there about people sighing shaking their heads and basically going, "Geez I can't believe President Obama has us in two wars."

Apparently these people figured the day he took charge the wars should have just stopped immediately and/or suddenly the wars became bad simply because of the party affiliation of the President.

It saddens me really to think that people as pointed out in the political blindness thread seem to care less about, "This is what's right and that is what's wrong" than with fighting and beating the other guys.

[Stormraven]

Seriously, it's not much different from those who opposed the wars while Bush was in office, and now either vocally support them, or stay silent and condone them because Obama's in charge.

[protege]

But, during the campaign, Obama and his cronies did trumpet loudly about bringing a quick end to the Iraq war, bringing our soldiers home, closing Gitmo, etc. etc....and so far, hasn't done any of that. Not helping either, but the media painted him as some sort of Messiah. People put so much faith in his promises, and are now upset that he's let them down. They feel as if he cheated them.

[jackfaire]

They feel as if he cheated them.

The people I am referring to were against him from the start and never wanted him in office they are now acting like he personally started the wars and took us over there in the first place.

[Hobbs]

But, during the campaign, Obama and his cronies did trumpet loudly about bringing a quick end to the Iraq war, bringing our soldiers home, closing Gitmo, etc. etc....and so far, hasn't done any of that. Not helping either, but the media painted him as some sort of Messiah. People put so much faith in his promises, and are now upset that he's let them down. They feel as if he cheated them.

We're withdrawing this August...is that not quick enough for you?

I've never understood people's objections to the Afghan war. Can someone please explain, with as much brevity as possible, the reasons behind it? Is it just a pacifist thing or is there some legitimacy? Because from my perspective, there's no logical reason to oppose the Afghan war.

The closing of Gitmo, I believe, was opposed by the Defense Department. I'm glad he's listening to us for a change.

I certainly don't feel cheated. He went and (with Congress) passed one of the most landmark health reform bills in this country short of the 1960s. He's done more in 2 years than some presidents did in four. I'm really proud to be serving under him.

[MadMike]

I've never understood people's objections to the Afghan war.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I never had an objection, assuming that they were correct in deciding that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks.

As far as Iraq, we never should have gone there. We should have concentrated on Afghanistan instead of screwing around in Iraq. Maybe we could have finished up and been out of there by now.

[jackfaire]

I've never understood people's objections to the Afghan war. Can someone please explain, with as much brevity as possible, the reasons behind it? Is it just a pacifist thing or is there some legitimacy? Because from my perspective, there's no logical reason to oppose the Afghan war.

No there isn't most people don't have an objection to the Afghan war but everyone who is against the Iraq war is told by people, including musicians, what is your problem with the Afghan war?

After there were protests about us going to Iraq a country artist did a song about 9/11 and how we were in Afghan and why as if the people had a problem with that.

Honestly it used to piss me off to say, "I don't like us being in Iraq," and then having the person I was talking to say, "Dude fucking 9/11 man that right there is why we are in Afganistan"

Then of course I say, "Well yes I know but..." they cut me off and declare themselves the winner of Crazy World.

[Hobbs]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I never had an objection, assuming that they were correct in deciding that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks.

As far as Iraq, we never should have gone there. We should have concentrated on Afghanistan instead of screwing around in Iraq. Maybe we could have finished up and been out of there by now.

Thanks Mad Mike because your question was actually relevant to my question. I was asking why people oppose the Afghan War...not people's political beliefs with misunderstanding Iraq=/=Afghanistan (I hate that to, btw). I've bloody heard people's objections to Afghanistan and seen them in news stories, so don't sit there and say that no one objects to it.

[AdminAssistant]

Personally, Guantanamo Bay should go back to Cuba, to whom it really belongs. (Yes, they gave it to us after the "Spanish-American" War - or "trading one Imperialist dirtbag for another.") The military doesn't need a super secret overseas base where they can lock up prisoners, deny them Constitutional rights like due process of law, and do who knows what else in the name of Homeland Security.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Okay that's cool. One problem: Where do we put the prisoners who are there already or would go there?

[fireheart17]

Okay that's cool. One problem: Where do we put the prisoners who are there already or would go there?

I can answer that.

David Hicks (was convicted of terrorism, however this was under the Taliban, not under Al-Qaeda) was sent back to Australia, served out the rest of his sentence here, had a control order placed on him until the end of 2008 (IIRC), Australian Federal Police (basically our version of the FBI) chose not to renew it and nobody's heard anything about him since. (aside from a quiet wedding held elsewhere, he hasn't written a book or anything about it, however I think there are certain laws that prohibit him from making any money off of it)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...bay-naval-base

That'd be where they go most likely.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/0..._haiti_012110/

And that's what it would be used for instead apparaently.

[Hobbs]

Personally, Guantanamo Bay should go back to Cuba, to whom it really belongs. (Yes, they gave it to us after the "Spanish-American" War - or "trading one Imperialist dirtbag for another.") The military doesn't need a super secret overseas base where they can lock up prisoners, deny them Constitutional rights like due process of law, and do who knows what else in the name of Homeland Security.

How do you know what the military needs? Again you're trying to be an expert in something you ain't.

Certain laws should govern their care and imprisonment, but Constitutional rights should be reserved for citizens of the United States. As *unlawful combatants, it's hard, militarily and politically, to distinguish what rights they actually have under Geneva.

*Unlawful combatants are combatants that, though they are not allowed to participate in conflict, do. A lawful combatant is distinguished by these terms: Have a right to kill legitimate targets, Under a responsible command, wear distinctive signs(uniforms, unit markings, etc.), Carry arms openly, Respect the LOAC(Law Of Armed Conflict).

[protege]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I never had an objection, assuming that they were correct in deciding that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks.

I didn't have a problem going into Afghanistan. I knew people who were killed on 9/11--one of the planes landed in their office

But, I'm a bit torn on Iraq. Sure, we took down an evil asshole. But, I don't think it was the *best* idea, considering how volatile that area is. At least when that prick was in power, things were stable somewhat. Oh, and he did some truly nasty things to the Kurds--poison gas attacks, massacres, etc. Even so, Saddam should have been taken out during the first Gulf War.

One thing I would *love* to know, is why is it...whenever allegations of prisoner abuse surface, everyone gets so upset when US troops are involved. But, when it's "the other guy" nobody says a thing. I seem to remember videos of US and coalition soldiers being beheaded by radicals. Yet, where was the outrage?

[Hobbs]

Even so, Saddam should have been taken out during the first Gulf War.

We were stopped after public reaction to the "Highway of Death" plus reiteration that our presence was to liberate Kuwait and not to invade Iraq. However, had we done that, there's no doubt that we wouldn't be there now.

One thing I would *love* to know, is why is it...whenever allegations of prisoner abuse surface, everyone gets so upset when US troops are involved. But, when it's "the other guy" nobody says a thing. I seem to remember videos of US and coalition soldiers being beheaded by radicals. Yet, where was the outrage?

Oh, but surely those people deserved it b/c they're fascist imperialist pig-dogs [/sarcasm]

[blas87]

Because we're America and we're all stupid and fat and power hungry mongrels that want to take over the world while cramming yet another Big Mac down our throats. That's why.