SO, Obama wants a record amount in war budget.

[VinnieKulick]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_ ... ar_funding


I'll wait for the "we're spending too much on war and should be giving it to poor people" posts.

[pooldude]

Back when he was one of the lone voices opposing GW's march to war in Iraq, Mr Obama said all along we needed to keep our eye on the ball in Afghanistan.

He's doing the correct, if unpleasant, thing by keeping the pressure on the Taliban & Al-Qaeda.

Conservatives need to realize that liberals can also be equally strong on defense, & protecting America's best interests.

[Ugmo]

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=213950

[VinnieKulick]

How is our GDP so high if we're on the verge of a depression?

[tin00can]

So much for the "the dems are soft on defense and hate the military" argument, eh Vinny?

Fuck, you republicans are never satisfied. I'd think you would be glad Obama is giving the military more than they want, but no, even that isn't good enough. Congrats, republicans! In one year of Obama's term, you have already managed to become even more douche-like in the complaints about the president than the democrats did in Bush's entire first four years. I didn't think they'd do it, but they did.

[cc117]

So much for the "the dems are soft on defense and hate the military" argument, eh Vinny?

Fuck, you republicans are never satisfied. I'd think you would be glad Obama is giving the military more than they want, but no, even that isn't good enough.

It's a good idea but it's not their idea.

[VinnieKulick]

Please point out where I ever said a single word about the Dems being soft, or hating the military.

I was just pointing out all the people who in the other thread about healthcare who kept saying "but we spend so much on defense" that this president is doing the same.

[TravisBickelsMohawk]

Why? That was the insinuation all along with your original post.

You're not that hard to figure out.

[VinnieKulick]

Why? That was the insinuation all along with your original post.

You're not that hard to figure out.

Really?

[Ugmo]

Please point out where I ever said a single word about the Dems being soft, or hating the military.

I was just pointing out all the people who in the other thread about healthcare who kept saying "but we spend so much on defense" that this president is doing the same.

Yeah, that's easy: in an ideal world we wouldn't have to spend so much on defense, but alas some fuckwit got us into two very expensive wars that have to be dealt with.

[VinnieKulick]

Again, blaming BUSH for shit that Obama is doing.... makes perfect sense.

[Ugmo]

Again, blaming BUSH for shit that Obama is doing.... makes perfect sense.

In this case it certainly makes perfect sense. Who started those wars? Why the fuck wouldn't I blame Bush for them? You're asking why we have to spend so much on defense. The answer is because we are involved in two horrendously expensive wars. Did Obama start them?

I love the new conservative tactic of competely whitewashing everything Bush fucked up, shifting the blame to Obama and then throwing a little girl fit when it's pointed out that that blame is misplaced because the problems we are facing were created by his predecessor. Like Bush automatically gets absolved of all blame as soon as he leaves office. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

[VinnieKulick]

1. Obama coutld cut and run and not have to fund the wars.
2. Obama could reduce military spending in other areas.
3. I never whitewashed anything Bush did. Were we right in going into Iraq? In the long term yes, in the short term, no.

[KneelandBobDylan]

1. Obama coutld cut and run and not have to fund the wars.
2. Obama could reduce military spending in other areas.
3. I never whitewashed anything Bush did. Were we right in going into Iraq? In the long term yes, in the short term, no.
4.

1) If Obama "cut and ran," as you say, conservatives would still bitch.
2) Name some things that could be cut that would really put a dent into military spending. I'm waiting.
3) So what you're saying is we were right to attack a sovereign country with ZERO ties to 9/11.

The more you type the lower your I.Q. appears to be.

[Nevermind]

Again, blaming BUSH for shit that Obama is doing.... makes perfect sense.

In this case it certainly makes perfect sense. Who started those wars? Why the fuck wouldn't I blame Bush for them? You're asking why we have to spend so much on defense. The answer is because we are involved in two horrendously expensive wars. Did Obama start them?

President Bush, the republican party. and the democrat party "started those wars".
It's always amusing to see the democrat party, who voted to send those troops into Iraq, get a pass.
Obama has been president for almost a year now. The democrat party continues to fund those wars to this day. Both of those wars now belong to Obama. He has the power to end them today, and he chooses not to. He owns them.

[Ugmo]

1. Obama coutld cut and run and not have to fund the wars.
2. Obama could reduce military spending in other areas.
3. I never whitewashed anything Bush did. Were we right in going into Iraq? In the long term yes, in the short term, no.
4.

- Okay, yes he could cut and run, but that would be f-ing stupid, since 9/11 was the result of letting terrorism thrive in Afghanistan in the first place. And let's be perfectly honest here: if he were to cut and run, conservatives would whine that he's going easy on terrorism. He is withdrawing from Iraq for all intents and purposes within the next year or so, but it has to be a controlled withdrawal, because otherwise all hell could break loose there again.

- I don't really know if that makes sense. Have you looked at the figures as to what goes where? Apparently we're stretched pretty thin as it is, so are we sure it would make sense to make cuts elsewhere before the current problems are taken care of?

- Either way, the reason we are still in Afghanistan is because we took our eyes off the prize the first time. If this thing had been handled correctly we wouldn't be in either Iraq or Afghanistan right now. But we are, and the reason we are is because of Bush's bumbling. So starting a thread ostensibly blaming Obama for the cost of the wars we're in is the equivalent of whitewashing Bush's mistakes.

[ijwthstd]

The war in Afghanistan was lost years ago.

[Ugmo]

President Bush, the republican party. and the democrat party "started those wars".
It's always amusing to see the democrat party, who voted to send those troops into Iraq, get a pass.
Obama has been president for almost a year now. The democrat party continues to fund those wars to this day. Both of those wars now belong to Obama. He has the power to end them today, and he chooses not to. He owns them.

Sure, the Democrats deserve blame for letting Cheney shoehorn them into Iraq, but it was his baby. It wure wasn't the Democrats' brilliant idea to invade Iraq. Let's not forget the climate of the time, in which everyone who questioned Bush on terrorism was basically branded as unpatriotic. But yes, they are complicit to an extent.

As to your second point, I hope you're joking. As KBD says, like you wouldn't bitch if he cut and ran. Please. Right now he's trying to do what should have been done all along, rather than dicking around in countries that aren't a threat to us.

[bane]

Again, blaming BUSH for shit that Obama is doing.... makes perfect sense.

In this case it certainly makes perfect sense. Who started those wars? Why the fuck wouldn't I blame Bush for them? You're asking why we have to spend so much on defense. The answer is because we are involved in two horrendously expensive wars. Did Obama start them?

I love the new conservative tactic of competely whitewashing everything Bush fucked up, shifting the blame to Obama and then throwing a little girl fit when it's pointed out that that blame is misplaced because the problems we are facing were created by his predecessor. Like Bush automatically gets absolved of all blame as soon as he leaves office. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

You've got your partisan blinders on again Ugmo. We were essentially out of Afghanistan until Obama took over. I won't argue with his logic for upping the ante over there because I think it's the right thing to do, but blaming Bush for that one is just wrong. Iraq? Sure, but the current situation in Afghanistan is Obama's baby.

[VinnieKulick]

There is always ways to cut military spending. Eliminate uniform allowances for a two year span, put new ship construction on hold for a number of years, etc. It could be done.

Obama could leave Iraq and Afghanistan and let the region police it.
We were right to go into Iraq for their refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors, UN Resolutions, etc.
Linking it to 9-11 was wrong.

In the long run, we're better off with a friendly government in the region who can lend us a hand at some of the things that we would like to see done in the region.

[Ugmo]

You've got your partisan blinders on again Ugmo. We were essentially out of Afghanistan until Obama took over. I won't argue with his logic for upping the ante over there because I think it's the right thing to do, but blaming Bush for that one is just wrong. Iraq? Sure, but the current situation in Afghanistan is Obama's baby.

Now hold on there... we were essentially out of Afghanistan already in March 2003 - that's exactly the problem! It's Bush's baby because he never finished the job, and it's now an open festering wound that needs to be dealt with.

[seanz]

THIS AIN'T THE SUMMER OF LOVE


Gotta show those Qur'an loving mothafuckers What We're Made Of!!

[bane]

You've got your partisan blinders on again Ugmo. We were essentially out of Afghanistan until Obama took over. I won't argue with his logic for upping the ante over there because I think it's the right thing to do, but blaming Bush for that one is just wrong. Iraq? Sure, but the current situation in Afghanistan is Obama's baby.

Now hold on there... we were essentially out of Afghanistan already in March 2003 - that's exactly the problem! It's Bush's baby because he never finished the job, and it's now an open festering wound that needs to be dealt with.

Finish the job? Are you fucking high? There is no such thing as "finish the job" in Afghanistan. We went in and knocked the fuckers out of power that were sheltering Osama and his homeboys, but if you think we can ever "finish the job", you're either very naive or completely uneducated on that part of the world. Short of nuking it and making it uninhabitable for anybody we will NEVER "finish the job". It's a frozen desert full of fucking tough as nails and very anti social goat farmers with access to AK47's that hate every thing we represent. Unless you're willing to lay down your very liberal sensibilities and let us go in there and kill everything that walks, we can NEVER "finish the job".

You may be able to argue that we never should have been there in the first place, but they were sheltering the people that blew up the world trade center, so unless you think we should have covered our heads and said "well, we bombed a bunch of Arab villages 10 years ago and we know you're pissed, so we'll just call it even", then of course we should have gone in there. Bush went in, kicked their fucking asses, and pulled out. That's exactly what you and every other liberal I know said that we needed to do. You were screaming about: "Oh the sanctity of life!!" "Oh the civilian casualties!!!" So, he pulled out. Then of course, he fucked up and and went to Iraq.

I won't argue that going to Iraq was a mistake. I thought it was a mistake when it happened, and I still think it was a mistake now, but, Iraq was the same ballgame. He knocked their government out of power, and the job was done. The problem is, once that was done, there was a vacuum. If we pull out, we have anarchy and a bunch of pissed off motherfuckers that are a perfect breeding ground for more terrorists that hate our guts. Hmmmm. Kinda sounds like what happened in Afghanistan doesn't it? You can't have it both ways dude.

I think Obama is doing the right thing by going back to Afghanistan, even though I also know that we will never "win" there. I also think going into Iraq in the first place was a mistake, but, we're there, the damage is done, and we have to do fucking damage control. That's the reality.

So all that in mind, I don't blame Obama for increasing the budget for Afghanistan. It's the right thing to do, but saying, "Bush started it", is fucking bullshit. Bush didn't start Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden did.

/end rant.

[chickenona]

I love the new conservative tactic of competely whitewashing everything Bush fucked up, shifting the blame to Obama and then throwing a little girl fit when it's pointed out that that blame is misplaced because the problems we are facing were created by his predecessor. Like Bush automatically gets absolved of all blame as soon as he leaves office. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Just ask Clinton.

[Ugmo]

Finish the job? Are you fucking high? There is no such thing as "finish the job" in Afghanistan. We went in and knocked the fuckers out of power that were sheltering Osama and his homeboys, but if you think we can ever "finish the job", you're either very naive or completely uneducated on that part of the world. Short of nuking it and making it uninhabitable for anybody we will NEVER "finish the job". It's a frozen desert full of fucking tough as nails and very anti social goat farmers with access to AK47's that hate every thing we represent. Unless you're willing to lay down your very liberal sensibilities and let us go in there and kill everything that walks, we can NEVER "finish the job".

You may be able to argue that we never should have been there in the first place, but they were sheltering the people that blew up the world trade center, so unless you think we should have covered our heads and said "well, we bombed a bunch of Arab villages 10 years ago and we know you're pissed, so we'll just call it even", then of course we should have gone in there. Bush went in, kicked their fucking asses, and pulled out. That's exactly what you and every other liberal I know said that we needed to do. You were screaming about: "Oh the sanctity of life!!" "Oh the civilian casualties!!!" So, he pulled out. Then of course, he fucked up and and went to Iraq.

I won't argue that going to Iraq was a mistake. I thought it was a mistake when it happened, and I still think it was a mistake now, but, Iraq was the same ballgame. He knocked their government out of power, and the job was done. The problem is, once that was done, there was a vacuum. If we pull out, we have anarchy and a bunch of pissed off motherfuckers that are a perfect breeding ground for more terrorists that hate our guts. Hmmmm. Kinda sounds like what happened in Afghanistan doesn't it? You can't have it both ways dude.

I think Obama is doing the right thing by going back to Afghanistan, even though I also know that we will never "win" there. I also think going into Iraq in the first place was a mistake, but, we're there, the damage is done, and we have to do fucking damage control. That's the reality.

So all that in mind, I don't blame Obama for increasing the budget for Afghanistan. It's the right thing to do, but saying, "Bush started it", is fucking bullshit. Bush didn't start Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden did.

/end rant.

- Did you realize that there is only a very small number of Taliban in Afghanistan? I didn't realize that until recently. It's in the low thousands, as in maybe 5 or 6 thousand. The vast majority of them are in Pakistan, and they are able to cross over a very porous border. Moreover, the people of Afghanistan mostly hate the Taliban as much as we do. Finishing the job means doing what we've been attempting to do - stabilizing the country, humanitarian work, trying to build democracy there. Putting in place the conditions that make it impossible for the Taliban to gain a foothold there. Now that's not going to be easy, and the process is probably only in its infancy, but it needs to be done (which I believe you agree with). This isn't like the British or the Soviet Union - we're not trying to conquer them, which I agree would be impossible.

- I never had any intention of arguing that. I fully agreed with going into Afghanistan. It was certainly the right thing to do at the time. But how can you possibly argue that Bush didn't take his eyes off the prize? He diverted his attention and resources away from Afghanistan toward Iraq at a time when the Taliban had not yet been defeated there. That point about anyone screaming about the sanctity of life is utter BS dude. Nobody was complaining about that in Afghanistan, least of all the liberals, who had been completely horrified by the Taliban's rein in the first place. My criticism is that Bush left Afghanistan before the Taliban had been defeated there, and that is documented. It's not my opinion, it's a fact that he turned his attention to Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan.

The reason I am blaming Bush for this is because I believe Afghanistan wouldn't be nearly the mess it is right now if Bush hadn't decided to cut the campaign short and invade Iraq. So instead of one expensive war done right, we now have two expensive wars done wrong, and that is 100 percent the Bush administration's fault.

[bane]

I guess it depends on your definition of "defeated". They were out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan when we pulled out the first time. They're out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan now. They'll be out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan 5 years from now. We're not going to invade Pakistan (at least I hope we won't), so, they're as defeated as they're going to get. The rest is the equivalent of the DEA's drug war here in the states. Unwinnable.

[VinnieKulick]

(shh, we're already crossing into Pakistan)

[Ugmo]

I guess it depends on your definition of "defeated". They were out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan when we pulled out the first time. They're out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan now. They'll be out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan 5 years from now. We're not going to invade Pakistan (at least I hope we won't), so, they're as defeated as they're going to get. The rest is the equivalent of the DEA's drug war here in the states. Unwinnable.

I think the idea is to engage in "nation-building" - a horribly expensive and time-consuming pasttime that in this case unfortunately is necessary. The idea is to enable a government there that is stable enough to handle extremists by themselves. That's why it was so baffling why, just a year after invading Afghanistan, Bush turned his attention to Iraq.

Pakistan is a scary place, but at least there is a functioning government there that is committed to fighting extremists.

I have to revise my earlier comments though: apparently the number of Taliban left in Afghanistan is in the hundreds. Can't remember where I heard that - it was a guest on The Daily Show I believe.

[VinnieKulick]

Bush turned his attention away because we set up a puppet government and figured in a few years, they'd be running like "USA East". But that didn't turn out, as those people would rather LIVE than fight a lot of the time.

[Ugmo]

Bush turned his attention away because we set up a puppet government and figured in a few years, they'd be running like "USA East". But that didn't turn out, as those people would rather LIVE than fight a lot of the time.

That was the end result, but I don't think that's why Bush turned his attention away. He took his eyes off Afghanistan because Cheney had a hard-on for Saddam. Let's call it like it is here!