I agree with this completely, and I think it was a good decision by Obama!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I hope he turns all those countries into glass


it may change my outlook on him and ill give him some respect....

cut the fucking taxes leave the private sector to fix the economy and let the gov bomb shit like they are supposed to... bottom line.....

Everyone knows you support the republicans or at least republican ideals, so its no surprise what your views are. I think the reason why people might not react the same way (unless you are a republican) is that Obama is the only hope they got. They HOPE he is going to be different, maybe he won't be but but what else do we have? If Obama is going to be the "same" as Bush, god help us all ..(and i'm not even american).

Obviously this hasn't worked the past eight years. Its too bad really about the private sector not being able to regulate itself. I am all for that, however the greedy bastards at the top are willing to do whatever it takes to get the biggest piece of the pie possible at the cost of everyone else. Its clear they can't be left to handle things on their own sadly.

it's not, give up hope now, you're wasting your time.

nothing is going to change at all. just sit tight and wait for the next civil war.

also, carpet bomb iran

There is no hypocrisy, you guys are just trolls.. :1orglaugh

The Pakistan is working with the US on this stuff, but they can't be seen as working with the US on this stuff. Get it?

btw how is it hypocrisy, when Obama said from the beginning that he would ramp up the "real war on terror" in Afghan while closing down the Bush war for oil in Iraq? He's doing exactlly what he promised to do..

I was always under the impression that the war crimes stuff came from the Iraq War which some said the U.S. had no authorization to be in. The whole lying about why we went in and finding out that Iraq was zero threat to us. I didn't think many people were upset about Afghanistan.

first of all the man has been in office for all of 5 weeks? whatever is happening now in Pakistan was underway before he got in the White House and as a new wet behind the ears president taking over 2 wars you really don't want him making rash military decisions and pissing off the commanders and generals who are running these wars, the right would be up in arms calling him a naive pussy who is going to undo the progress already made.

and more importantly the man was explicit in debates that his plan was to step things up in Afghanistan where he believes the bigger danger exists. As for Pakistan, he told the American electorate in two debates that he would have no compunction about launching attacks on the enemy from within Pakistan's borders. McCain mocked him about that.

And what somebody else posted "The Pakistan is working with the US on this stuff, but they can't be seen as working with the US on this stuff. Get it?"

It took Bush time to become reviled - some of it earned, some not. Obama's not going to have a 4 year honeymoon.

Funny how Obama apologists will never run short of excuses why it's never their idols fault. If Obama bends them over and shoves his both fists up their asses without any lube, they will still find an excuse as to why he's doing the right thing.

The decision of Obama to persue the criminal was in Afganistan is a great disapointment.

But Obama is not a radical, look who he is appointed.

He seems to be supporting Israel in its illegal occupation of Arab lands.

He will support the rich and the powerful, because they run the system. You don't get far if you attact the Murdochs of this world.

"democracy" where you vote for one powerful class of people over another every 4 years will never represent the desires of the people. That could only be done with a system of direct democracy where people can be elected and dismissed at any time and where people have direct power over their localities and factories.

Sadly it looks like the US will continue as in imperialist power, using its large military to protect its economic interests around the world. So innocents will continue to die in far away lands so that the richer countries can become even fatter.

It always puzzles me how the right always talk about small government ignoring the biggest military in history. BUT thank god its not a health service...Like you really feel your liberty when you are a soldier...

As Noam Chomsky has said every Americn president would have been hanged for war crimes....

its quite simple.

if Bush is an asshole, a terrorist and a war criminal for going into these countries, for killing innocent people and for getting US (and other nations) troops killed - then any other action other than immediate, full and complete withdrawal also makes Obama the same thing(s). You can't reason that Bush committed bad genocide and Obama is committing good genocide and so on.

I've had to listen to people call Bush a terrorist and a war criminal for all these years and find it quite fascinating that the moment Obama gets into office, he sends 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan... starts instantly bombing villages/hideouts and caves resulting in civilian casualties in his first week, even bombing inside the sovereign territory of a 3rd country etc and suddenly its "hey man, lets give this guy a chance"

the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no difference when one guy orders 20,000 more troops to go in and blow shit up or the other does. innocent people die, the middle east gets pissed, arabs continue to hate us and so on.

i'm always interested in the depth of peoples hypocrisy when it comes to reinforcing their own personal world views and perspectives.

i'm all for bombing these places and building up troop presence in the region btw and destroying anyone who is sitting in their stone hut dreaming of detonating a bomb in a major city no matter where it is simply because they are growing up in a stone hut and cling to a book of fairy tales that ironically makes them angry....

my interest is simply in peoples hypocrisy and their own complete and total denial of it.

Bush started it... sure. so what? What does that have to do with Obama walking into office, ordering more troops into Afghanistan and approving bombings and attacks right away and attacks inside Pakistan? Where is the outrage? Why is it suddenly OK to send 20,000 "of our precious boys and girls into harms way, where many will lose their lives"?

Unlike most people, i can admit fully who and what i am. What i believe and I don't mind having those beliefs challenged. But people as a whole can't seem to get past their own bias, admit they are biased and admit their world view is biased. It's the weirdest sort of personal denial in people... thats why these discussions can really be "us against them" in everyones minds. its not about reason or fact... it simply about each person reflexively defending their own fragile world view so they don't accidentally find themselves in the position of having to rethink entire belief systems that enable them to get through the day without having to ponder, reason and intellectualize their way through everything.

i'm a fairly conservative person. i know that my own view of the world is biased in that manner. i know that my perception of issues is biased in that manner. its just simply the product of being left brain dominant. but at least i'm intelligent enough to admit and accept what i am and admit and accept that opposing views might be just as correct and valid as my own, even when i "just cant see it that way". people in general can't. that intrigues me. people tend break everything down into a simple black and white, yes or no style issue and run a quick crosscheck to see where that "yes" or "no" fits into their belief system and world view and reflexively adopt a position.. then they are forced to defend it to the end, often with no concern (and often no awareness) of how unreasonable they tend to get in their arguments.

people that claimed to detest Bush for going into Afghanistan and Iraq, called him a war criminal, highlighted everyday the deaths of innocent people and couldn't wait to post pics of dead kids are now defending Obama for the same.

and how do they reconcile that? they can't. that's why they are reduced to "you're an idiot" and similar remarks in their own defense.

people are fascinating. at least a baboon doesn't feel the need to challenge whether or not he's a baboon and can just relax and go back to jacking off and eating bananas. people tend to spend their whole day trying to convince themselves they're not baboons WHILE jacking off and eating bananas all day.

It's funny to me how right wingers have completely flip flopped now and blaming Obama for shit that Bush started... You stupid motherfuckers crack me up.

Pleasurepays... you got the whole idea behind the Bush War criminal thing wrong... what makes him a war criminal is lying about the reasons to go into Iraq in the first place and covering it up. Obama is just left with the mess to clean up.

i think that on a subconscious level, people don't really believe anything. everyone was tired of Bush fumbling around like a retarded ape and just like when they voted Bush into office, they are concerned about the future. When terrorism was the primary concern, Bush got re-elected because he was able to better convey that he was going to protect everyone. Now the economy, jobs, homes etc are the issue a man with charisma, compassion and sincerity of a televangelist looks into the camera and says "i understand and i'm going to fix your life" and people buy into it. i don't really think it goes much deeper than that.

"you right wingers now blaming Obama"

huh?

i fully support bombing these places and escalating troop presence. i support Obamas decisions to do so.

Obamas war crimes in bold

# Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:

1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages

# The following acts as part of an international conflict:

1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Using poison weapons
8. Using civilians as shields
9. Using child soldiers

The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:

1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Taking hostages
4. Summary execution
5. Pillage
6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

I don't really have a side in the matter, but you're muddling the two wars. Not many people in this country had a problem with Afghanistan even to this day. The public polls show that they feel it's justified and that we should be sending more troops.

The war criminal stuff is primarily over Iraq (although some I'm sure use Afghanistan). It was over the fact that he lied to the public about why we went to war. It was over the fact that Iraq was never a threat and we had no business going in there.

If Obama had sent 20,000 more troops into Iraq, you'd be justified. But just because someone believes the Iraq war is a farce doesn't mean they are opposed to any and all military operations. Not to mention that it's not exactly easy to just step out of a war. We've learned from the past that just getting up and leaving an area before finishing a job can hold dire circumstances, regardless of whether you believe the war was justified or not.

The discontent is over Iraq, always has been.

this is also a pretty funny point. the idea that "Bush lied". which is a position you are forced to adopt because of how many Democrats voted to go into Iraq. otherwise, it becomes a collective mistake with personal accountability... much easier to point the finger far off in the distance and say "the problem is over there"

did Bush lie? i don't know. don't care. Congress gave him authority and constantly gave him money to do it. all the bi-partisan intelligence committees and government agencies didn't seem to feel one guy was just making shit up. so at a minimum, you have to admit that the "lie" involved more than one political party and one person.

Most dont think we should attack Pakistan. And public opinion does not matter. The public supported Hitler when he invaded France. :2 cents:

The left also forgets he lied using Clintons bad intel...

So... using your tortured logic... because he inherited all of that shit and can't just drop the whole thing without causing even more chaos (not to mention he said for 2 years during the campaign that he would focus more on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan)... he is guilty of War Crimes... something you never accused Bush of and certainly wouldn't have accused McCain of.

You are purely demonstrating the exact meaning of HYPOCRITE.

WTF ever... I think you had better read about the history of that statement a little more.

I also think that people don't realize how little power the President has over this mess. There is no magic wand that can fix things like this. It's just a natural part of the economy. Sure they can instill policies that may soften the blow, but that's about it. It doesn't matter if we elect the most brilliant man alive, he wouldn't be able to fix this mess we're in.

But I do think the persona of a President is important. I guarantee if you have a President get up in front of the country, look confident and self-assured, people may not panic as much. If you have a President get up in front of the country and look worried, scared, and nervous, the people notice.

no... when you accidentally bomb a village and kill 20 innocent people, you are guilty of the same thing. that's the point. there is no good murder of innocents and bad murder of innocents and you can reason that someone inherited the direct need to murder innocents.

all i'm saying is lets give peace a chance.

I agree with that... they DID vote to support him... but actual history and the real information says that the whole thing was cooked up by Cheney and his crew... even down to outing a CIA agent and producing fake documents. Bush is ultimately responsible for that because it happened on HIS watch and he actively worked to cover it up rather than being transparent and assisting investigation.

I have accused Bush of war crimes and I would have accused McCain of them. And yes if he does not stop immediately he is guilty. And NEW bombing of a sovereign nation on civilian homes is a war crime.

Umm... I am just saying... where was your outrage when Bush was doing the same thing?

The thread was about public opinion and calling those who support more troops in Afghanistan hypocrites. I'm pointing out that the war criminal stuff was over Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Show me proof that that happened... you can't because it didn't. Do the Taliban have families in the camps they occupy? Yes... do they use civilians as shields... yes.

Ok gotcha.

To be that far off on what was going on in Iraq would either mean he lied or was grossly incompetent. Democrats who voted for it deserve just as much blame as the Republicans. Hillary can attest that she paid the price for her decision.

And while you can blame others, George Bush was the President and the man ultimately responsible for following through. He was the man who took in the intelligence and told the people something that blatantly false. The buck stops with him. While you may not care, a lot of parents, spouses, siblings, and friends lost people over in that war that was a giant mistake.

Do you live under a fucking rock? Proof is all over the place. Obama ORDERED for more than one air strike on civilians HOMES in PAKISTAN. What dont you understand about that?

And on the topic of who to go after, the three major players in the terror game are Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If this country wants to deal with terror, they'd have done something with those 3 countries.

War can not be the answer with Saudi or Pakistan. We will bankrupt ourselves and/or go into a depression. Just like the terrorist said they would make us do.

It's not true...

Militant Compound...

I know, but something should have been done. Saudi Arabia is like a factory for terrorists and Pakistan has nukes. While going to war with them isn't viable, holding hands with them on the White House lawn is not the approach I'd take.

If China was invading the US they would call your house a "militant compound" too :2 cents:

Again... where was your outrage before... you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and not using logic at all in your arguments. I am not really surprised though... because you have proven yourself to be ignorant on alot of facts before and your posts on the subject are a litany of right wing talking points.