US President Obama expands Afganistan War

[twocows]

Yeah, and it's called the Constitution. The problem isn't that the military doesn't have sovereignty over itself, the problem is that there's an ineffective Commander In Chief. The checks and balances for the military are the Congress. Regardless, that has nothing to do with what I said. Public opinion shouldn't guide wars, those fighting them should.

Bush bypassed a major congressional check. IIRC, there needs to be a 2/3 vote in both houses for there to be an official war, so instead we have an unofficial one that even the officials are referring to as a war. The way I see it, the 2/3 of both houses rule was in place to make sure that there was actually a clear and present danger before engaging in warfare. I'm not saying anything about whether the war is justified or not, but it's quite sad to know that the government can just route around laws meant to keep it in check.

 

[Merzbau]

Is anyone really surprised by this or did people really believe the hype and think that Obama wasn't a politician? No, he's not the same as Bush, and he's one of the least corrupt I've noted in recent years, but he is a politician and a human being.

And you all know what to expect out of us humans. We're not good people.

 

[Netto Azure]

Bush bypassed a major congressional check. IIRC, there needs to be a 2/3 vote in both houses for there to be an official war, so instead we have an unofficial one that even the officials are referring to as a war. The way I see it, the 2/3 of both houses rule was in place to make sure that there was actually a clear and present danger before engaging in warfare. I'm not saying anything about whether the war is justified or not, but it's quite sad to know that the government can just route around laws meant to keep it in check.

Sorry though, I just had to point out this part of the speech:

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorised the use of force against al-Qaeda and those who harboured them - an authorisation that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al-Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

As I said, I am still quite torn over this as while I am willing to give this a chance, things cannot be open-ended. :/

Is anyone really surprised by this or did people really believe the hype and think that Obama wasn't a politician? No, he's not the same as Bush, and he's one of the least corrupt I've noted in recent years, but he is a politician and a human being.
And you all know what to expect out of us humans. We're not good people

Nah as I pointed out earlier, his campaign was based under the notion that the Iraq War is a "War of Choice" with Afganistan a "War of Necessity."

And I guess people just forget the 20,000+ additional troops sent at the beginning of the term.

Not much of a surprise, but the nation is just as divided as opinions here.

Lastly:

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your commander-in-chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.

 

[twocows]

Sorry though, I just had to point out this part of the speech

Must have been thinking of Iraq, then. I have trouble remembering stuff that happened years ago, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

 

[Taemin]

I don't have much against Obama, but I hate that we're staying in there until 2011 now.. ><;

I was really hoping that he would pull the troops out soon, not send more in, and give them two more years to stay there, thus destroy more of their lives. D:

 

[Feign]

My qualm against Obama is actually Stateside... That is to say, the person he made as head of the FDA, used to work for (or still is, not quite sure) Monsanto...

 

[Agent Cobalt]

Just so I get this straight, would a soldier be willing to sacrifice their own life under the orders of a superior, regardless of that order?

No. A soldier can refuse an order he deems illegal or immoral. Other than that, soldiers live to fight and die if need be to secure the objectives of their nation. Otherwise why have a military and chain of command?

Cobalt, you make it sound as though there shouldn't be any room for mediation, that is to say, that Obama should send all the troops required. Yet you speak of the soldiers as a commodity... a tool... I realize there is a war occurring though and decisions will be made...

There is no room for mediation. I'm speaking of soldiers as soldiers; war is our job and it's what we're trained for. The only one treating soldiers like commodities is the Commander In Chief willing to prolong a war and let more troops die needlessly rather than sending the amount requested to end the fight quicker.

I'm not even sure what soldiers are fighting for down over there... If it is freedom from the oppressed people then you'd think those that follow in said belief would eventually make the Taliban (etc) become extinct...

That's what.

The thing is... an idea can never die... and it would seem that this is what the Taliban are fighting for (the rest being power).

Ideas can't die, no. However, ideas can still be beaten. Last I checked, the Axis Powers and Soviet Empire are gone.

Kind of like the whole - when you kill one thing three more sprout right back up.

That's just nonsense. That's never been the case in any war. When you kill one, there's one less. Never before has -1=+3 and it never will be the case. If it were, all those Japanese we slaughtered on Iwo Jima would have spawned even more. Pretty sure it was downhill from there.

Then how to you combat an idea...? Currently the only logical solution (it would seem) would be to blanket the area or leave it to their own devices...

Cut off their supplies, resources, territory, and influence and kill them off as quickly as possible and they'll be decimated beyond recovery.

Bush bypassed a major congressional check. IIRC, there needs to be a 2/3 vote in both houses for there to be an official war, so instead we have an unofficial one that even the officials are referring to as a war. The way I see it, the 2/3 of both houses rule was in place to make sure that there was actually a clear and present danger before engaging in warfare. I'm not saying anything about whether the war is justified or not, but it's quite sad to know that the government can just route around laws meant to keep it in check.

lolwut? Congress voted for war September 14th back in 2001. You... don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing unconstitutional about the war. Congress voted for it, and the President as Commander In Chief has the authority to execute it.

Must have been thinking of Iraq, then. I have trouble remembering stuff that happened years ago, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

Iraq was different than Afghanistan. Congress voted for both of them.

 

[Feign]

No. A soldier can refuse an order he deems illegal or immoral. Other than that, soldiers live to fight and die if need be to secure the objectives of their nation. Otherwise why have a military and chain of command?There is no room for mediation. I'm speaking of soldiers as soldiers; war is our job and it's what we're trained for. The only one treating soldiers like commodities is the Commander In Chief willing to prolong a war and let more troops die needlessly rather than sending the amount requested to end the fight quicker.

A lot of aspects of war could be deemed immoral (subjective), so I'm not sure what a soldier would deem to be immoral when in a hot zone... Though of course there are those isolated incidents like in G. Bay (I think it was), where guards forced prisoners do cruel things...

[/quote]

That's what.

While I admit I don't know much about it, I do find it fishy about how the attack took place in the first place... American's freedom stateside is being hampered down when not much has changed to begin with (a la homeland security).

Ideas can't die, no. However, ideas can still be beaten. Last I checked, the Axis Powers and Soviet Empire are gone.That's just nonsense. That's never been the case in any war. When you kill one, there's one less. Never before has -1=+3 and it never will be the case. If it were, all those Japanese we slaughtered on Iwo Jima would have spawned even more. Pretty sure it was downhill from there.Cut off their supplies, resources, territory, and influence and kill them off as quickly as possible and they'll be decimated beyond recovery.

Though especially in Japan, that was a show of force that included a number of innocent lives... Even an ethnocentric person would shut up...

Why is it though that all the insurgents (or whatever they are called) are not becoming extinct?

 

[Uecil]

dont they realise that theyre are never gonna get along with everybody and winning a war does not give power it leaves the other countries torn and broken and the winner country will end up looking like loosers just fighting over power like in 1957 april 12 the USA and the USSR had a race for power and in 1975 it ended with the USA winning and thats why its known cant they just have another space race?

 

[Code]

I support this. America should finish what they started. I think what he is doing is good. I actually wish I was American, because then I'd have something to be proud over, but this whole thing puts the reason Obama received the Nobel Prize into question.....Give it to someone who deserves it!!!....To me it seems a little like opposite Racism, but I'm not too good when it comes to politics....
The reason I wish I was an American right now is because of Norways "Support". Can you guess how many soldiers yesterdays political discussion wanted to send to Afghan? 30. Yes, 30. not 3000, not 300. 30. Yes. After Obama sends 30.000 to afghan, we sit on our arses twidling our thumbs to afraid to send 30 soldiers to afghan.
I laugh at the Norwegian military and Politics. If Norway was being invaded, America would send troops to help without hesitation. If America was in trouble (though I doubt it will be in the near future. XD) Norwegian Politicians would be having a 3 month debate whether to help out or not, and ultimately decide not to help.
This is how incompetent the fools leading my country are.

 

[beauty. proletariat]

This is just sad. Sad sad sad. D:

Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, and going into Pakistan is even worse, getting more countries involved.

Get the taliban then him? I disagree. Losing Osama bin Laden would be a huge loss for them. A huge confidence depressant. Many people will aim to leave the taliban in fear of losing and they would get killed by what would be their 'friends.'
THEN, after such a loss, we can go to afgan and send out thousands of troops to make it short and sweet.

Then again, it could be that idk what im talking about since media mediates subjective-ness.

 

[twocows]

lolwut? Congress voted for war September 14th back in 2001. You... don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing unconstitutional about the war. Congress voted for it, and the President as Commander In Chief has the authority to execute it.

Iraq was different than Afghanistan. Congress voted for both of them.

I seem to recall quite clearly that Congress did not get a 2/3 majority in both houses for going to war with Iraq.

 

[Agent Cobalt]

I seem to recall quite clearly that Congress did not get a 2/3 majority in both houses for going to war with Iraq.

Yes it did. The House passed it 296-133, and the Senate 77-23. The war was voted on by Congress for God's sake.

 

[twocows]

Yes it did. The House passed it 296-133, and the Senate 77-23. The war was voted on by Congress for God's sake.

Oh. OK, then. I could have sworn it wasn't, but my memory's never been that great.

 

[Feign]

Yeah... there is no telling where Osama is, or in fact he is actually alive, which at this point is pretty irrelevant...

On another note, it's funny what one might define as freedom from oppression in what it does to another country. Take for example the USSR, while communism was hampering them down, their birth rate and death rate were at reasonable levels (birth rates going up and death rates going down). Now fastforward to '91, and thereafter, and the exact opposite is happening... All other problems notwithstanding of course...

It would seem that some sort of world order is the kind of thing that could solve this... I don't mean like the UN, but something more meaningful... Of course people are ethnocentric (or otherwise concerned about their own country).

One thing I hear lots of Conservatives say is that America is in Afghanistan/Iraq/Middle-East just for the pure reasons of freeing the oppressed people (which comes to the same thing as exacting revenge on those responsible for the first attack). I simply cannot believe that to be the only reason... (I don't have any conspiracy theories, but I have done some reading but this thread isn't really for that).

One thing I find interesting about the media, and perhaps in simplicity of generalizing is when someone says "America is going to war" or "Americans are opposed to the war." etc...

However this brings in the one of the final thoughts, if a war won't solve the problem (of course including peace talks), what is the alternative? Do we just leave them to their own devices?

If only it were easier to bring in everyone who were helping to instigate the war, and understand the reasoning, then getting them to admit that wars are pointless...

Power is a interesting thing... People seem to forget they are mortal... Like simply they just want power... Not only that... But times will always change...

 

[Agent Cobalt]

A lot of aspects of war could be deemed immoral (subjective), so I'm not sure what a soldier would deem to be immoral when in a hot zone... Though of course there are those isolated incidents like in G. Bay (I think it was), where guards forced prisoners do cruel things...

Well that's just nonsense. There's nothing immoral about this war; the only legitimate complaint would be that we once again sent troops to fight and die with no intention of letting them win. Nothing bad happened at Gitmo. You're probably thinking of the Abu Ghraib prison.

While I admit I don't know much about it, I do find it fishy about how the attack took place in the first place... American's freedom stateside is being hampered down when not much has changed to begin with (a la homeland security).

What are you talking about? Is this some Truther nonsense? Do you really question what happened on 9/11? And America's freedom is only being hampered down by American representatives; the people get what they vote for. I don't even know what specifically you're referencing so I'll leave it at that.

Though especially in Japan, that was a show of force that included a number of innocent lives... What do innocent lives have to do with this? Yes some innocents died in the war with Japan. Innocents die in every war. Barring intentional war crimes, there's no avoiding that in war. I don't even understand your point here. You're still acknowledging that we beat Japan right? So what's there to argue?

Even an ethnocentric person would shut up...

What?

Why is it though that all the insurgents (or whatever they are called) are not becoming extinct?

Because we're not taking this seriously like in WWII. They're hiding out in the Waziristan mountains on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We also aren't getting enough international and home support.

dont they realise that theyre are never gonna get along with everybody and winning a war does not give power it leaves the other countries torn and broken

I don't know, Germany and Japan seem to have recovered quite well. In fact, they're economic powerhouses.

and the winner country will end up looking like loosers just fighting over power like in 1957 april 12 the USA and the USSR had a race for power and in 1975 it ended with the USA winning and thats why its known cant they just have another space race?

...the Cold War ended in 1991.

 

[Jolene]

I don't like how the media has made everyone think that the war is pointless. I used to think it was pointless as well, but I changed my mind when I had to write a short story for my English class and I decided to write it about the Afghanistan war. I was going to write it from the point of view of an Afghan civilian who thought that the war hadn't accomplished anything, and it was going to be all anti-war and stuff. But I wanted to try and make it truthful, so I did some research by looking on lots of Afghanistan blogs. I wanted to find out what life is like for the people there, and actually most of them said that the war had made things a lot better for them. So I changed my story and made it about a girl who tries to persuade her brother not to carry out a suicide attack on the US army because they could make the country better.

 

[Feign]

Well that's just nonsense. There's nothing immoral about this war; the only legitimate complaint would be that we once again sent troops to fight and die with no intention of letting them win. Nothing bad happened at Gitmo. You're probably thinking of the Abu Ghraib prison.

Yeah that was the prison I had meant...

What are you talking about? Is this some Truther nonsense? Do you really question what happened on 9/11? And America's freedom is only being hampered down by American representatives; the people get what they vote for. I don't even know what specifically you're referencing so I'll leave it at that.

I haven't fully investigated that stuff, nor do I believe the majority of it. I just think there is more to than what was investigated upon the whole debacle. Right now, all I see it as is a severe lack of communication...

Though especially in Japan, that was a show of force that included a number of innocent lives... What do innocent lives have to do with this? Yes some innocents died in the war with Japan. Innocents die in every war. Barring intentional war crimes, there's no avoiding that in war. I don't even understand your point here. You're still acknowledging that we beat Japan right? So what's there to argue?

I was leading on to the fact that despite ethical differences, it would be a lot simpler simply to use a bigger weapon... Though I mentioned the innocent people, because in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those bombings were intentional, whilst for the most part when warfare is encountered killing innocent people (while inevitable) is usually trying to be avoided.

What?

Lets say one's culture is decimated by the enemy, that person would probably think twice on trying to go for a counter-attack.

Because we're not taking this seriously like in WWII. They're hiding out in the Waziristan mountains on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We also aren't getting enough international and home support.

Could it be argued that the soldiers aren't doing a good enough job? Or the resources are being pooled all wrongly? Wouldn't carpet bombing the hell out of the mountains do anything, I mean the US is already in debt, buying a few more bombs shouldn't be that bad... Assuming the baddies don't have AAs of course.

---
Also I am not so much arguing, as much as trying to understand... This is because I don't see the point of war (defense is another issue, though as much as it is apart of war I'd focus on the instigator). The main reason for me is merely because we are mortal... There are better things to do then to expand power...

Sorry if this sounds short winded, I'm in class XD and can't really focus as well, with what I want to say.

I don't know, Germany and Japan seem to have recovered quite well. In fact, they're economic powerhouses....the Cold War ended in 1991

Well compared to back then yes, however both countries are suffering from a declining birth rate. I believe it was Japan and Germany and another country.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

The Axis Powers may no longer exist, but Nazis sure do. Neo Nazis may not be in huge numbers but they still exist.
On a separate note, I'm not entirely sure on how the American system works, but I heard that in the Iraq war we (including Britain here) went in despite the fact that the UN deemed it an unjust cause. I may have just made that up, I'm not sure, but I'm certain that one of the things needed to be in the UN is to only fight in wars that they have voted to back up (so's the abolition of the death penalty but that's another story).

 

[Agent Cobalt]

I haven't fully investigated that stuff, nor do I believe the majority of it. I just think there is more to than what was investigated upon the whole debacle. Right now, all I see it as is a severe lack of communication...

That's pretty much what it came down to. Lack of communication between levels of government and intelligence, incompetent leadership in the 90's, and so on. I implore you, before you side with any conspiracy theorists like those Loose Change nuts, visit sites like Popular Mechanics which use real science and evidence to debunk the myths and lies of conspiracy theorists. If you don't know the science or about architecture then the wild claims you get from Loos Change and whatnot might seem plausible, but not after learning the facts.

I was leading on to the fact that despite ethical differences, it would be a lot simpler simply to use a bigger weapon... Though I mentioned the innocent people, because in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those bombings were intentional, whilst for the most part when warfare is encountered killing innocent people (while inevitable) is usually trying to be avoided.

Uhh, no, the civilian casualties, while high, were not intentional. There were military targets in those cities. The atomic bombings, like the bombing of Dresden in Germany, has been twisted into a purposeful attack on civilians. We were annihilating military targets. Yes, the cities had many people in them, but it had to be done to avoid further casualties and force Japan's surrender.

And considering the enemy in this war is largely in the mountains of Pakistan, a nuclear power, I don't see it happening. I'd rather focus on missiles, predator drones, and boots.

Lets say one's culture is decimated by the enemy, that person would probably think twice on trying to go for a counter-attack.

Why's this about culture? <=/

Could it be argued that the soldiers aren't doing a good enough job? Or the resources are being pooled all wrongly? Wouldn't carpet bombing the hell out of the mountains do anything, I mean the US is already in debt, buying a few more bombs shouldn't be that bad... Assuming the baddies don't have AAs of course.

The soldiers have done a phenomenal job. Again, we accomplished more in our invasion alone than the USSR and British accomplished their entire occupations. And yes, resources (like troops) could be used more wisely. Like increasing manpower and making a troop surge. >_<

As for carpet bombing, it's been done by the Russians, but they did it against civilians. Not sure how effective it'd be for us doing it in mountains. For one it's part of Pakistan and they're always complaining about their sovereignty. Second, it'd probably be more effective using what we're already using- predator drones. They can take out specific targets rather easily.

Well compared to back then yes, however both countries are suffering from a declining birth rate. I believe it was Japan and Germany and another country.

What's that have to do with anything? <=/
They're still shining examples of the liberalization and reconstruction. They're rich, technologically advanced, civilized, and free. Birthrates... that's kind of on them.