Obama the warmonger.

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#1
I thought that, in light of the most recent tragic loss of American lives in Afghanistan, this was fitting:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/08/08/obama-gets-a-blank-check-for-e

Obama Gets a Blank Check for Endless War
Record numbers of U.S. troops are dying under Obama, but the anti-war movement is nowhere to be found.

Ira Stoll | August 8, 2011

The Obama administration is on pace to have more American soldiers killed in casualties related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than the George W. Bush administration did in its first term.

Already, hundreds more American troops have been killed in Afghanistan during the less than three years of the Obama administration than during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration. According to the iCasualties.org Web site, whose count more or less tracks that of other sites devoted to these statistics, 630 American soldiers died in the Afghanistan operation in the years 2001 through 2008, when Mr. Bush was president, while 1097 American soldiers have died in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Even if you allocate the 30 or so American soldiers killed in January 2009 entirely to Mr. Bush, who was president until the January 20 inauguration, it is quite a record.

Include Iraq, and the comparison tells a similar story: about 1,300 Americans killed in operations related to Iraq and Afghanistan combined during the first two and a half or so years we’ve had of the Obama administration, versus less than 600 American casualties in the first full three years of the George W. Bush administration.

It all raises at least two related questions. First, where are the antiwar protests? And second, where is the press?

In a phone interview, the national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, which organized some of the largest antiwar protests during the Bush administration, Michael McPhearson, said part of the explanation is political partisanship. A lot of the antiwar protesters, he said, were Democrats. “Once Obama got into office, they kind of demobilized themselves,” he said.

“Because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush,” said Mr. McPhearson, who is also a former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and who said he voted for President Obama in 2008. “The politics of it allows him more breathing room when it comes to the wars.”

Mr. McPhearson says antiwar protests of the sort that drew hundreds of thousands of people during the George W. Bush administration now draw 20,000 at best. He said his group’s strategy now is to emphasize the cost of the wars and the Pentagon amid Washington’s focus on trimming the deficit.

As for the press, a New York Times article on the helicopter downed over the weekend in Afghanistan included the sentence, “Although the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan has steadily risen in the past year, with a 15 percent increase in the first half of 2011 over the same period last year, NATO deaths had been declining — decreasing nearly 20 percent in the first six months of 2011 compared with 2010.” Why compare it to 2010? Why not to 2009, or to 2008? A Chicago Tribune news article, by contrast, declared that the helicopter downing “comes at a time of growing unease about the increasingly unpopular and costly war.”

By the standards of American history, the deaths in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are small, a mere fraction of those suffered in World War II or the Civil War or even Vietnam or Korea. And there are measures of success or failure in war other than American casualties. It doesn’t only matter how many Americans die; it also matters how many enemy soldiers die, and whether America is achieving its war aims.

The approaching tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, is a sober time to weigh these issues for those of us New Yorkers and other Americans who supported the wars in part out of hope that they would decrease the chances of major terrorist attacks here at home. Mr. Obama can make the case here, as he does with the economy, that he is merely cleaning up and winding down the bad situation he was left by his predecessor. With the war as with the economy though, eventually even Mr. Obama will have to take ownership, or have it assigned to him by the voters.
That's right, more Americans have died in Afghanistan in his 2.5 years of leadership, than in the entire 8 years under Bush. "He's a warmonger, he's sending our children off to die in wars for oil, politicians never send their own kids to war..." Things you will never hear about Obama.
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#3
The liberals and democrats are anti republican war. They aren't anti war as long as their guy is running them and even then they just say that its not really a war (Libya) or they say its Bushes fault.
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#5
Sheehan still protests and says all the people that were with her when Bush was president went away even though the wars are still here. The last time she got media attention was when she went to Dick Cheney's in early 2010.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,546
513
Kingdom of Charis
#6
Sheehan still protests and says all the people that were with her when Bush was president went away even though the wars are still here.
She may be a cunt, but at least she's a consistent cunt.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
18,071
5,481
838
Wilmington, NC
#7
B..b..b..but he killed Bin Laden!
I find it odd that, gutsycall.com...which used to link to Obama's website but was pulled after the right started complaining (more mocking)...now links back to the Obama campaign website. Again, not saying it's run by a dem operative, but, puhlease.

I also find it odd how the White House is involved in the Osama movie and how they're going to release the movie about Obama's gutsy call a month before the election.

WH Working With Hollywood To Release Obama Warrior Movie Month Before Election
Maureen Dowd, NY Times

The White House is counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made “The Hurt Locker” will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.

The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration.

It was clear that the White House had outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood when Boal got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently — to the surprise of some military officers — at a C.I.A. ceremony celebrating the hero Seals.
Pure coincidence, I'm sure. Boy, I sure hope the movie doesn't paint Obama as the indecisive dolt that he apparently was. But, since the Obama campaign, err, Obama administration is providing all of the classified details of this mission...oh, I'm sure it's not going to be a problem.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#8
I find it odd that, gutsycall.com...which used to link to Obama's website but was pulled after the right started complaining (more mocking)...now links back to the Obama campaign website. Again, not saying it's run by a dem operative, but, puhlease.

I also find it odd how the White House is involved in the Osama movie and how they're going to release the movie about Obama's gutsy call a month before the election.

Pure coincidence, I'm sure. Boy, I sure hope the movie doesn't paint Obama as the indecisive dolt that he apparently was. But, since the Obama campaign, err, Obama administration is providing all of the classified details of this mission...oh, I'm sure it's not going to be a problem.
Dude, you're way over reacting. He is just trying to be transparent.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

TheDrip

I'm bi-winning.
Jan 9, 2006
5,051
3
228
#9
I also find it odd how the White House is involved in the Osama movie and how they're going to release the movie about Obama's gutsy call a month before the election.
Sam Jackson as Obama, and he personally kills Bin Laden with a throwing knife to the eye, then saying "Bin Laden been gotten, motherfucker".
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,546
513
Kingdom of Charis
#10
Sam Jackson as Obama, and he personally kills Bin Laden with a throwing knife to the eye, then saying "Bin Laden been gotten, motherfucker".
Say Bush again. Say Bush again! I dare ya. I double dare ya, muthafucka!
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#11
The Code Pink gang has been too busy giving money to Hamas terrorists to protest.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#12
Include Iraq, and the comparison tells a similar story: about 1,300 Americans killed in operations related to Iraq and Afghanistan combined during the first two and a half or so years we’ve had of the Obama administration, versus less than 600 American casualties in the first full three years of the George W. Bush administration.

It all raises at least two related questions.
Unfortunately, the one question that should have been raised was "Why the fuck are you counting the first three years of the Bush presidency?"

We didn't invade Afghanistan until almost a year into Bush's presidency. And Iraq until the end of March of 2003 and even the first couple of months of both wars were relatively low casualties because of the "shock and awe" type of warfare involved.

Since this "journalist" would rather push an agenda than actually do his job I'll do it for him. From March 2003 until February 2006 there were 2,298 Americans killed in Iraq, the first "full three years" of the Iraq war. To correlate it to Obama's numbers of 2.5 years, the figure is 1,884. And that's just Iraq. "Only" about 150 Americans died in Afghanistan in the 2.5-3.0 years of that war but we also had less than 20,000 troops there the first three years of that war.

And I pulled the numbers from the same place he did:
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/ByMonth.aspx

Shame too, the guy made a couple of otherwise decent points.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
18,071
5,481
838
Wilmington, NC
#13
I was thinking more along the lines of Denzel as Obama...and it'll have a bit of a Thirteen Days feel to it, where Obama will struggle with the thought of possibly putting men in harm's way, but ultimately makes that gutsy call and he runs the entire operation from the White House.

Cuba Gooding Jr was pretty riveting as Radio from the 2003 movie, "Radio". I think that would be the perfect "character" to play the role of Obama. And maybe have him show up in the first 5 mins of the movie, then only re-appear in the final 15 minutes...ya know...cuz Obama spent like, 16 hours "sleeping on" this decision.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#14
Unfortunately, the one question that should have been raised was "Why the fuck are you counting the first three years of the Bush presidency?"

We didn't invade Afghanistan until almost a year into Bush's presidency. And Iraq until the end of March of 2003 and even the first couple of months of both wars were relatively low casualties because of the "shock and awe" type of warfare involved.

Since this "journalist" would rather push an agenda than actually do his job I'll do it for him. From March 2003 until February 2006 there were 2,298 Americans killed in Iraq, the first "full three years" of the Iraq war. To correlate it to Obama's numbers of 2.5 years, the figure is 1,884. And that's just Iraq. "Only" about 150 Americans died in Afghanistan in the 2.5-3.0 years of that war but we also had less than 20,000 troops there the first three years of that war.

And I pulled the numbers from the same place he did:
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/ByMonth.aspx

Shame too, the guy made a couple of otherwise decent points.
Yeah, I thought that part of the story was bullshit too, that 's why I only commented on the part about Afghanistan. That is like saying "there were no deaths in Iraq in Bush's first 8 months in office, there were 60 (or whatever) in Obama's first 8 months." It's a little misleading.
You did comment that in the first three years of Afghanistan, we only had about 20,000 troops there. That is true, but if you are using that to defend the Obama numbers, you have to remember that he is the one who decided to have an Afghanistan surge and send all those extra people there, in the first place. So if the numbers are way higher in Afghanistan, it is because Obama raised them and he has to own the results.
 

Devo37

Registered User
Sep 11, 2010
180
25
233
Queens, NY
#15
don't worry. as soon as obama gets elected, he's gonna end these wars!

oh wait...
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#16
You did comment that in the first three years of Afghanistan, we only had about 20,000 troops there. That is true, but if you are using that to defend the Obama numbers, you have to remember that he is the one who decided to have an Afghanistan surge and send all those extra people there, in the first place. So if the numbers are way higher in Afghanistan, it is because Obama raised them and he has to own the results.
Yes, and he campaigned on it too.

The Gutsy Call Keeed said:
Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face.
So if the people who voted for him knew he was going to be drawing down our troops in Iraq to refocus on Afghanistan, why should they be all that outraged? He flat out told everyone in a national debate that he'd be sending extra troops and committing more resources there if he was elected. And when he was "dithering" about even more troops with the Afghan Surge, there were leftist protestors who were upset about that.

Plus, sometimes the media will cut either the new guy, or a new plan, a break if they think it may be working. Even Fox News did after "The Surge" started showing some success...

A War We Just Might Win

By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Published: July 30, 2007

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
Sorry. Did I say Fox News? I meant the NY Times. :icon_cool
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
18,071
5,481
838
Wilmington, NC
#17
So if the people who voted for him knew he was going to be drawing down our troops in Iraq to refocus on Afghanistan, why should they be all that outraged?
I dunno...maybe because he was also telling the gullible fucks that voted for him, that he was going to immediately start withdrawing troops...

[yt]p12cAclNCRU[/yt]

The problem was, this liar would tell HIS audience one thing at a campaign stop...then give a more balanced solution at the debates. Talk about "dithering".

Remember that Obama zombie at that school picking on that kid whose father was in Iraq? She was blabbing on about how McCain would continue those wars and Obama was going to bring them home. That's exactly what the Obama voters were tricked into thinking because Stupid told them so.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#18
I dunno...maybe because he was also telling the gullible fucks that voted for him, that he was going to immediately start withdrawing troops...
The problem was, this liar would tell HIS audience one thing at a campaign stop...then give a more balanced solution at the debates. Talk about "dithering".
Remember that Obama zombie at that school picking on that kid whose father was in Iraq? She was blabbing on about how McCain would continue those wars and Obama was going to bring them home. That's exactly what the Obama voters were tricked into thinking because Stupid told them so.
Speaking of lies Obama told, remember this whopper?
[video=youtube;SaQUU2ZL6D8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8[/video]
"That's why I am pledging to cut the deficit, that we inherited (blame Bush, of course), by half by the end of my first term in office.."
Well, since the current deficit is over $1 trillion and he has a little over a year left, I guess the $500 billion cut must be just around the corner.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
15,475
4,834
693
South Jersey
#19
Speaking of lies Obama told, remember this whopper?
[video=youtube;SaQUU2ZL6D8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8[/video]
"That's why I am pledging to cut the deficit, that we inherited (blame Bush, of course), by half by the end of my first term in office.."
Well, since the current deficit is over $1 trillion and he has a little over a year left, I guess the $500 billion cut must be just around the corner.
All of these things sound great when you have no intention of following through with them. I keep telling my wife I'm going to get my degree as a medical doctor fighter pilot shark wrangler by our 5th anniversary. She is so excited and I love her for her encouragement and support.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#20
all of these things sound great when you have no intention of following through with them. I keep telling my wife i'm going to get my degree as a medical doctor fighter pilot shark wrangler by our 5th anniversary. She is so excited and i love her for her encouragement and support.
lol
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
18,071
5,481
838
Wilmington, NC
#21
Speaking of lies Obama told, remember this whopper?
[video=youtube;SaQUU2ZL6D8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8[/video]
"That's why I am pledging to cut the deficit, that we inherited (blame Bush, of course), by half by the end of my first term in office.."
Well, since the current deficit is over $1 trillion and he has a little over a year left, I guess the $500 billion cut must be just around the corner.
That was a terrific performance. He was really good back then...that was during the whole stimulus scam, where he and the progressives were quickly trying to sneak $800B in stimulus spending through. Ya know, that whole, "Hey everybody, I know it's 11 o'clock at night, but here's that 2,000+ page stimulus package...read it and oh, we'll vote on it in about 12 hours. Sleep tight, and have a good night!"
 
Sep 28, 2010
3,331
32
98
#22
Code Pink..........ew.

What a bunch of Hanoi Janes.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#23
Literally the only reason I voted Bush in 04 was because of his pro-war stance. Otherwise, I would have voted for just about anyone else, just to get his embarrassing dumb ass the hell away from representing the US. I figured with a democratic administration in for 4 or 8 years, we'd kind of pull back and regroup our armed forces a little bit, let the savages think we're turning over a new leaf, and regain some faith from the rest of the world (they're sissies who are afraid to face reality, but there are lots of them). Well that obviously didn't happen, but I'm far from unhappy that this administration continued to keep the pressure on. It's something I really didn't expect and I'm pleasantly surprised.

We now return you to silly partisan blame game horseshit.

I'm coming to believe that you partisan bickerers are close to losing your collective minds. Way to stay focused on the things that actually matter, you petty bitter psychopaths.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#24
I dunno...maybe because he was also telling the gullible fucks that voted for him, that he was going to immediately start withdrawing troops...

[yt]p12cAclNCRU[/yt]

The problem was, this liar would tell HIS audience one thing at a campaign stop...then give a more balanced solution at the debates. Talk about "dithering".
That video was almost a year before the debates. Fail.


Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
18,071
5,481
838
Wilmington, NC
#25
That video was almost a year before the debates. Fail.


Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Does that even matter? Good try. As I said...this is a guy that would pump out the big far left soundbytes at his campaign stops in front of his supporters and then talk up more balanced solutions in front of national audiences. I don't give a fuck if they were two years apart...his supporters were gullible, stupid fucks. He spews this unrealistic bullshit, then they tell all of their friends/neighbors/co-workers/family that this is the guy that's going to end these wars while the other guy will keep us there for 100 years. Fast forward a year later at a debate...Obama's got to act moderate in front of a national audience...you think every one of those drones that think he's going to end the wars is going to pay attention to what he's saying about the wars now? Some will and will end up totally confused, sure. And some others will, but they'll just think he's just saying that to appear more moderate. In general though, it will go completely over the rest of their heads and they'll continue to think that this guy is pulling us out of the wars on his first day and close Gitmo. And that's what the Obama campaign was banking on...moderates thinking he's going to be smart about moving forward in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his zombies thinking that he's going to follow on his promise of pulling our troops out on his first day. Question is, will the same zombies come out and vote for him again in 2012? I think they will because the left is going to scare the shit out of them, making them think the GOP challenger is some monster.