Obama: Hawk

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Simon Anders, Dec 3, 2008.

  1. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Obama is now, as promised but not so noticed, setting the stage for putting more troops in Afghanistan. He has gathered himself a somewhat hawkish team and is making the kind of noises the arms industry - amongst other industries - likes to hear

    The War on Terror.

    This noise is guaranteed income for certain industries.

    This noise can also mean decreased rights for people at home and abroad.

    So as Obama nestles into office, not just progressives, but even liberals should immediately be on their critical toes. Because any silence based on 'he is our guy and we can't deal with the concept that he isn't' will shift center yet further right.

    I did read Tiassa's thread, but his seems a slap at the hallucinations of the right. A good place to slap.

    I would like slap in the other direction, the fantasy projectors on the left, liberal to progressive who think we have a two party system. If you are right, I hope you will be vocal and clear and try to influence the theoretically liberal president to actually be liberal.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, I noticed that. I've been unhappy since he began with Rahm Emmanuel and moved through Gates, Jones and Clinton. I'm not expecting any miracles here
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Miracles would be, well, miracles.
    But under Clinton we had a steady centralization of power. I see no signs that our new liberal will be bucking this trend.
    Hell, the whole thing feels like a tag team with two families of wrestlers - families that are related to each other- throwing the rest of us to the mat over and over.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. draqon Banned Banned

    guys and gals...maybe Obama will not make miracles but Hillary surely will.
  8. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Politicians are all the same. People wanted to get rid of the Bush administration, but they looked to the wrong place for their hopeful "change". They still put their hopes into another politician.

    Screw Obama. Screw all politicians. Cue "Won't Get Fooled Again". New dog, same set of fleas..

    - N
  9. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    "No, Ham, you're delusional..."

    What interesting developments... Cozying up to the military machine.... Tres Interressant..
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    It has absolutely been noticed. He's been running on the "More troops in Afghanistan" platform since the start. We may not like the war, but the biggest mistake made in this "war on terror" crap was Iraq, not Afghanistan. At least there are actual terrorists in Afghanistan.
  11. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    What about all the people on the "Support our troops bring them home" platform?
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Ho hum, the king is dead, long live the king.

    Doesn't matter, Republican or Democrat, they all want war.

    Like who?
  13. EntropyAlwaysWins TANSTAAFL. Registered Senior Member

    Are you honestly trying to say you believe there are no terrorists at all in Afghanistan? :bugeye:

    You cant possibly be that naive S.A.M.
  14. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    yes, Iraq was the biggest mistake - at least in terms of lives lost etc. but perhaps the long term effects of the loss of rights at home will be even worse. But might he also not be making a mistake by sending more troops to Afghanistan. It seems like this may take place before troops come home from Iraq.

    Of course there are actual terrorists in Iraq. People do blow up civilians quite regularly. But I assume you mean terrorists who killed US civilians.

    It is not clear to me that these people are still in Afghanistan, they could be in Pakistan or dead or elsewhere - or that more troops will get at these people. It also seems like the presence of US troops increases the supply of terrorists, and decreases the world outlook on the US.

    I realize Obama was clear about his intentions. Nevertheless his campaign was anti-war, anti-us troops abroad. And I think the get rid of Bush, end Iraq yearning helped people gloss over what may be about to happen.

    What I see right now is no clear exit strategy from Iraq and the beginnings of a clear entrance strategy in Afghanistan.

    The US now has rights in relation to Iraqi oil and its production. Huge sums of taxpayer money have flowed into admin private sector friends. Now huge sums will start flowing toward many of the same private sector people via Afghanistan. I can't help but wonder if this is simply stage 2 in the machinations of one group amongst the elite. Oil issues are also relevent to us presence in Afgh. Let alone the arms industry.

    Obama's appointments do not dissaude me from this either.
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    So name them. Which terrorist in Afghanistan is of importance to the US that they are occupying the country for seven years?
  16. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    This just in - too recent to even link:
    From the Herald Tribune
    Obama shifting his tone on troops in Iraq. Yes, note the country.

    He is now saying that he will take out all combat troops, when this is possible, but that non-combat troops - a neo-oxymoron in this case - will be left behind.

    He is not even in the White House yet.

    edit: the number of non-combat troops is estimated in the tens of thousands. Most planners expect at least 30,000 troops to remain - after the 16 month deadline - and some estimates are as high as 70,000.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2008
  17. EntropyAlwaysWins TANSTAAFL. Registered Senior Member

    There are/were al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, ergo there are/were terrorists in afghanistan.
    Whether or not said presence justified the invasion of Afghanistan is an entirely separate issue.
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    I don't even know what "liberal" and "progressive" means. Obama is doing just what I would expect him to do as a good Democrat.

    Of course people should be thinking critically of our leaders, that's a given.
  19. Balerion Banned Banned

  20. superstring01 Moderator

    Agreed. I love every one of his appointments so far. Gates is a sound choice. Too difficult to change horses mid-stride. Besides, Obama is the commander in chief. Keeping Gates is an administrative choice, not a tactical one.

    Clinton has enough street cred to run State well. Richardson is the best possible choice for Commerce, and Napolitano is, IMHO, one of the best governors in the last 20 years and another amazing choice, especially for Homeland Security.

    We'll see about the rest.

  21. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    u seem surprised my dear sam

    the Zakmiester has been warning you guys for some months that there will be no difference just cos Obama is a Halfy!!!



Share This Page