The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

Randomly jumping in again, if you'll excuse me.

No excuses necessary.  I basically did the same thing to YOUR conversation.

[D]

Can someone send me a PM when something gets done on his watch?

Thank u

[D]

Does anyone else find it weird that the conservatives (and I mean in a broad sense, not necessarily the ones posting here) are staunchly against abortion, but are also staunchly against universal health care?

Don't kill babies...but deny them health care, later on,  so they'll die quicker, later.

Yes, I know..it's an oversimplification.  But it's still an odd juxtaposition....more so because it seems to put a price on the "morality", IMHO.  They'll take the moral position...right up until it start to cost too much coin to take.  Then...it's money over morality.

And yes,obviously I do think providing health care is a moral issue.

Im not really a conservative, and I do think Universal is a wonderful idea if done properly. If the idea is good but the execution or the way its administered is bad, I'm not going to sit back and approve of it just because in theory its a great idea.

I heard something the other day about putting people in prison if they don't buy the insurance? Give me a fucking break if that is true. What happened to freedom of choice and Civil Rights etc.

[D]

Onto Bush

ON one hand people call him an idiot, a retard and flat out dumb but on the other hand accuse him of master minding one of the greatest "war Crimes' in US History.....

I think Bush jumped the gun before getting 100 percent of the info, but I don't think he did it maliciously to "avenge dad" or "Gain oil"

[freedom78]

Can someone send me a PM when something gets done on his watch?

Thank u

SCHIP was signed into law, expanding health coverage to millions of uninsured children and pregnant women, on February 4th.

If you'd like, I could still send you a PM.

I heard something the other day about putting people in prison if they don't buy the insurance? Give me a fucking break if that is true. What happened to freedom of choice and Civil Rights etc.

It's not true. 

Onto Bush

ON one hand people call him an idiot, a retard and flat out dumb but on the other hand accuse him of master minding one of the greatest "war Crimes' in US History.....

I think Bush jumped the gun before getting 100 percent of the info, but I don't think he did it maliciously to "avenge dad" or "Gain oil"

If this was to "gain oil" I suggest we fly another of those ironic "Mission Accomplished" banners.

[D]

Good thing Bush is no longer in office... if so we'd probably have 30k more troops deployed.... oh wait.. shit

[freedom78]

Good thing Bush is no longer in office... if so we'd probably have 30k more troops deployed.... oh wait.. shit

He did say during the campaign that he'd send more troops to Afghanistan...

[Smoking Guns]

Good thing Bush is no longer in office... if so we'd probably have 30k more troops deployed.... oh wait.. shit

He did say during the campaign that he'd send more troops to Afghanistan...

We should have pulled out of there as well, but, if this helps us finish our mission, lets freaking finish it.  I want these men home, they have been fighting for the better part of 10 years.  We need rest. 

[pilferk]

Good thing Bush is no longer in office... if so we'd probably have 30k more troops deployed.... oh wait.. shit

See, and therein lies the contradiction. and why there is such bad feelings about us remaining in Afghanistan.

There is a fundamental difference between fighting a war in a country that, ultimately, did absolutely nothing to us, posed no real danger to us, and really we had no good reason to be in and the war in Afghanistan, the country that aided and colluded with the people who perpetrated 9/11.

The problem is that Bush's Iraq debacle has clouded the public's mind in that regard.  They're beginning to think of Afghanistan as another Iraq....and that couldn't be further form the truth.  But given what this country was put through, you can see why the doubt and dissent exists.  But people need to look past it.

Now, I'm not a particular fan of the "surge" philosophy.  I'm not even sure I agree with Obama's tactics on this one...I have to think about it and digest for a bit.  But the one thing I do know:  there is absolutely NO comparison between Bush's Iraq "surge" and Obama's Afghanistan "surge". 

[D]

I just thought troops were coming home under Obama's watch?

Im not getting back into Iraq cause revisionist history has made it impossible to argue cause nobody wants to even try to see the Bush point of view.

I understand Bush's thought process about Iraq which is why I don't trash him for it.

[Smoking Guns]

The bush surge WORKED!  And I hope this surges works as well.  We need to win this shit and win it quick.  I am sick of us over there.  We have had troops in Afghanistan since 2001.  All the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia but were welcomed to hide out in Afghanistan.  The bombers were not "Afghanistan" people, or the masterminds weren't anyway.  Kill who we need to kill and get the eff out. 

[freedom78]

The bush surge WORKED!  And I hope this surges works as well.  We need to win this shit and win it quick.  I am sick of us over there.  We have had troops in Afghanistan since 2001.  All the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia but were welcomed to hide out in Afghanistan.  The bombers were not "Afghanistan" people, or the masterminds weren't anyway.  Kill who we need to kill and get the eff out. 

The Bush surge worked to cut down violence, which was only its purpose after the goal posts were moved a few times. 

Anyway, we need to distinguish between a mission of decapitating al Qaeda versus establishing democracy and nation building.

[Smoking Guns]

The bush surge WORKED!  And I hope this surges works as well.  We need to win this shit and win it quick.  I am sick of us over there.  We have had troops in Afghanistan since 2001.  All the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia but were welcomed to hide out in Afghanistan.  The bombers were not "Afghanistan" people, or the masterminds weren't anyway.  Kill who we need to kill and get the eff out. 

The Bush surge worked to cut down violence, which was only its purpose after the goal posts were moved a few times. 

Anyway, we need to distinguish between a mission of decapitating al Qaeda versus establishing democracy and nation building.

Lets just shut off alqaeda and build our own nation.

[freedom78]

The bush surge WORKED!  And I hope this surges works as well.  We need to win this shit and win it quick.  I am sick of us over there.  We have had troops in Afghanistan since 2001.  All the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia but were welcomed to hide out in Afghanistan.  The bombers were not "Afghanistan" people, or the masterminds weren't anyway.  Kill who we need to kill and get the eff out. 

The Bush surge worked to cut down violence, which was only its purpose after the goal posts were moved a few times. 

Anyway, we need to distinguish between a mission of decapitating al Qaeda versus establishing democracy and nation building.

Lets just shut off alqaeda and build our own nation.

A sentiment with which I agree.

If states truly want help with building a democracy, then by all means I'm for helping.  But it can't simply be imposed any more than you could impose a monarchy on the US and hope for things to go smoothly.  Iraq, with its ethnic tensions, and Afghanistan, with its entrenched warlords, both make for tough places for democracy to flourish.  You can put the institutions in place, but the real test of democracy is whether the institutions can survive a crisis and whether those who lose elections are willing to cede power to those who win.  This is a very human issue and not one that can be imposed. 

[pilferk]

I just thought troops were coming home under Obama's watch?

Then you weren't paying attention during his campaign, because he was very clear that he felt we needed to switch our focus FROM Iraq, to Afghanistan.  That doesn't sound like "troops coming home", at least to me.  Troops leaving Iraq?  Yes.

Im not getting back into Iraq cause revisionist history has made it impossible to argue cause nobody wants to even try to see the Bush point of view.

Which is interesting because Bush apologists are the KINGS of revisionist history.  I'm OK with not revisiting it, but lets be honest:  His reasoning changed frequently depending on what information the public and Congress actually had on any given day.

I understand Bush's thought process about Iraq which is why I don't trash him for it.

Then you're one of the only ones.  ESPECIALLY in retrospect, now that all the info is on the table, all the "tell all" books are written, and many of the members of his administration have come forward with the details of the time.

[pilferk]

The bush surge WORKED!  And I hope this surges works as well.  We need to win this shit and win it quick.  I am sick of us over there.  We have had troops in Afghanistan since 2001.  All the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia but were welcomed to hide out in Afghanistan.  The bombers were not "Afghanistan" people, or the masterminds weren't anyway.  Kill who we need to kill and get the eff out. 

Define "worked".  It cut down violence....maybe.  But there were other elements at work (some diplomatic involving treaties with some of the tribal leaders), too. 

It did NOT accomplish the other (higher priority, if you were to believe the Bush admin at the outset of the strategy) goals.  In fact, if anything, it simply maintained a status quo in those areas.

Saying it "worked" is a bit simplistic....

[pilferk]

Lets just shut off alqaeda and build our own nation.

I agree, largely, too.

But the point is: Afghanistan is where AQ is, so that area needs to be addressed.  I'm not sure THIS is the way to address it...I have my worries.  But you can't simply leave this place to it's own devices.  We've seen that.

AQ was never in Iraq..or rather, they weren't there until we walked in and started "nation building".  Then we handed them a front to fight on, recruitment tools to build an army against us, and they flocked to it AFTER the fact.

[polluxlm]

I agree, largely, too.

But the point is: Afghanistan is where AQ is, so that area needs to be addressed.  I'm not sure THIS is the way to address it...I have my worries.  But you can't simply leave this place to it's own devices.  We've seen that.

What is it that we've seen? What are these implications of letting an independent nation be independent?

AQ was never in Iraq..or rather, they weren't there until we walked in and started "nation building".  Then we handed them a front to fight on, recruitment tools to build an army against us, and they flocked to it AFTER the fact.

Hell, even a junior student of sociology and history could have figured that one out, and we all know the US of A presently employs boatloads of smart men to predict these scenarios, so perhaps it's time to accept the possibility that somebody wanted this to happen?

[pilferk]

What is it that we've seen? What are these implications of letting an independent nation be independent?

It's not the nation building I'm keen on....it's the prevention of the Taliban creating a safe haven and support network for AQ.  I'm OK with them being independant, and us not having a hand in their government.  I'm NOT OK with them being a proven danger to us.  We need to make sure they're not in a position to do it again.  THAT'S what I meant.

Functionally, it probably results in the same thing.  Ideologically, though, it's a bit different.

Hell, even a junior student of sociology and history could have figured that one out, and we all know the US of A presently employs boatloads of smart men to predict these scenarios, so perhaps it's time to accept the possibility that somebody wanted this to happen?

Maybe.  But I'm not a conspiracy theorist (as I've said before) so I'm not willing to say, concretely, that was the case. I actually suspect Bush was just too stubborn to accept the information given to him on the topic.  In other words: Yes, I think there were some pretty smart men predicting the outcome...and I think some of them were telling Bush that.  I just think he completely ignored their advice and did what he wanted to do.  That's more "in character" for what we've seen.  I'm not one to believe that it was all part of some devious master plot....I just don't think he had it in HIM, and I'm not sure his cronies were bright enough to concoct it, either. 

But I likewise won't discount that they were trying to create a front for whatever reason, either.  It's a possibility.  I guess what it comes down to is you give them credit for being more intelligent than I do.

[freedom78]

It's not the nation building I'm keen on....it's the prevention of the Taliban creating a safe haven and support network for AQ.  I'm OK with them being independant, and us not having a hand in their government.  I'm NOT OK with them being a proven danger to us.  We need to make sure they're not in a position to do it again.  THAT'S what I meant.

Functionally, it probably results in the same thing.  Ideologically, though, it's a bit different.

Motive counts, in my mind.

Hell, even a junior student of sociology and history could have figured that one out, and we all know the US of A presently employs boatloads of smart men to predict these scenarios, so perhaps it's time to accept the possibility that somebody wanted this to happen?

Maybe.  But I'm not a conspiracy theorist (as I've said before) so I'm not willing to say, concretely, that was the case. I actually suspect Bush was just too stubborn to accept the information given to him on the topic.  In other words: Yes, I think there were some pretty smart men predicting the outcome...and I think some of them were telling Bush that.  I just think he completely ignored their advice and did what he wanted to do.  That's more "in character" for what we've seen.  I'm not one to believe that it was all part of some devious master plot....I just don't think he had it in HIM, and I'm not sure his cronies were bright enough to concoct it, either. 

But I likewise won't discount that they were trying to create a front for whatever reason, either.  It's a possibility.  I guess what it comes down to is you give them credit for being more intelligent than I do.

I think they knew it was a possibility, and their central failure in dismantling the Iraqi military apparatus is one of the key reasons it played out as it did.  It can be difficult to distinguish, from 1,000s of miles away, the difference between the largely foreign driven terror movements and the largely homegrown resistance movement.  Maintaining the Iraqi military and keeping them paid would have greatly reduced the latter and given us an additional weapon to counter the former.  God knows how many lives, billions, and years were lost because of that one mistake. 

However, whether they knew it or not, I suspect it wasn't a primary concern.  The central goal of neo-conservatism is democracy.  This can be traced back to one of its philosophical founding fathers, Francis Fukuyama, who argued that states evolve toward an end-game of liberal democracy (not left-liberal...liberal meaning trade, freedoms, etc.).  Combine this with a second neo-con belief, which is that democracies don't war with other democracies, and you have a recipe for a very skewed idea of world peace...a peace that can be created by force.  Keep in mind that the idea of Iraqi democracy was meant to be a way to establish democracy in the region.  Bush gave countless speeches and comments where he addressed not just Iraqi and Afghan democracy but wider Middle East democracy.