Post story on Obama and Gitmo

• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;750848 wrote:I just meant that the "only 5000" comparison was useless. Believer, there are plenty of folks upset with Obama over those issues. You can be upset at both Bush for getting us into these wars and Obama for continuing them. It is possible.

  If you really pay attention to what I've been saying that's precisely my meaning.
  
  The 5,000 number keeps being brought up as if deaths in combat are somehow unique to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Regardless of the reasoning or justifications behind ANY war....soldiers and civilians die.
• I Wear Pants

  The tone I read from this thread was "only 5000" as in it's comparitively low so we should stop bitching. I don't accept that. These are fruitless wars, especially at this point and we should not be in them. I don't want more people I know coming home from the service in a box.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;750876 wrote:The tone I read from this thread was "only 5000" as in it's comparitively low so we should stop bitching. I don't accept that. These are fruitless wars, especially at this point and we should not be in them. I don't want more people I know coming home from the service in a box.

  Stop bitching? Not at all.
  
  The 5,000 dead are tragic. I served for 9 years and was fortunate enough to be sandwiched between Vietnam and Desert Storm. There wasn't a day that went by where I didn't wonder if I'd be called upon to face enemy fire. These deaths are FAR from being insignificant to me.
  
  I also just said we need to get the hell out.
  
  However, please try to understand this: I'm simply tired of still hearing the "Bush killed 5,000" rants from the lefties while your boy Barry has reneged on his promises to get us out and has instead maintained and even expanded military actions in the region. The media constantly bombarded us with the death counts while Bush was in office and yet we rarely see the same coverage now that their Chosen One is running the show. Why is that? Have the deaths miraculously stopped now that BHO is Commander-in-Chief? Or are they simply backing off in order to keep BHO's armor from appearing too tarnished? After all, we have a re-election campaign coming up....right?
  
  In the end while even ONE death is too many, the "Bush lied, people died" crowd try to act as if these "Bush-caused" deaths are something new and unique in warfare.
  
  When I was a kid, I remember hearing death counts as high as hundreds per day some nights on the evening news during the Vietnam days. Deaths in war are nothing new as tragic as that is. They always will despite the reasons for entering the war or who made the decision to do it.
  
  The fact is the 3 wars now belong to Obama. Where is the anti-war left who helped BHO take office? Why aren't they out by the thousands chanting, "Hey, hey ho ho Barrack Obama has to go"?
• Footwedge

  "The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn’t a cheap war." Dick Cheney....on the deceased soldiers from desert storm.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Footwedge;750922 wrote:"The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn’t a cheap war." Dick Cheney....on the deceased soldiers from desert storm.

  
  Ok?
  Different Cheney from a different time.
  The Cheney before and after 9/11 were completely different.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;750922 wrote:"The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn’t a cheap war." Dick Cheney....on the deceased soldiers from desert storm.

  
  Would it have been better had we done it with the 10,000+ dead that people were predicting in the lead up to the first gulf war? People were relieved the casualties were so low. Or maybe you think the world would be a better place today with Saddam in control in Iraq and the Kuwaiti oil fields solidly in his possession?
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;750965 wrote:Would it have been better had we done it with the 10,000+ dead that people were predicting in the lead up to the first gulf war? People were relieved the casualties were so low. Or maybe you think the world would be a better place today with Saddam in control in Iraq and the Kuwaiti oil fields solidly in his possession?

  I think the world would be a better place with the US soldiers who died in Iraq not being dead. That way part of the local highway wouldn't be named after a kid from my high school.
  
  And the "Bush-Lied People Died" anger comes from being told by the President, Congress, Military, and Media (which apparently wasn't so "radically left" during Bush's term because they fed us as much bullshit as anyone) that if we didn't invade Iraq we'd all get killed by WMD and the terrorist would win and it'd be 9/11 everyday when the reality was obviously quite different. I'm not one that thinks it was a purposeful deceit on Bush's part because I think he believed he was doing the correct thing, however, that doesn't excuse the whole operation from being pathetically ill-informed.
  
  There weren't any WMD which was one of the main reasons used to convince us we should go into Iraq, when it came to be that there wasn't WMD many were left to wonder why we sent those troops to die. I have to wonder the same. I don't think the United States is one shred safer or better off because of the Iraq war. Perhaps even less so.
  
  But again, those failures are now passed onto Obama and he's continued them. So he's got to take that blame and in my circle of friends who were upset at Bush they're now upset at Obama. Real people who were pissed about the Iraq war under Bush are still pissed about it under Obama. You've got to learn to ignore the fringe people. They make no sense on either side.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;751031 wrote:I think the world would be a better place with the US soldiers who died in Iraq not being dead. That way part of the local highway wouldn't be named after a kid from my high school.

  I agree with your post but I wanted to comment on this particular statement. One thing is for sure these dead soldiers and their families their world would be a better place. This statement would be true of any war dead and their families. I know your world view is very idealistic. Mine is more realistic. The world is dangerous place.
  
  That part of the local highway would unfortunately one day be named after some other young man and there may not be enough miles of highway for all the names. Everything is based on who controls the world's most vital resources. Directly or indirectly. The United States has used their power and influence around the world to maintain some level of control over those resources. Our standard of living is contingent on that control.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't think resources has to be some adversarial game anymore to be honest.
  
  Not that it's going to stop being so anytime soon but I genuinly think that with the state of nuclear, solar, wind, tide, etc power as well as the ability to produce more food per acre than ever before that if we really wanted to (and I mean we as in the global community not just the US) we wouldn't have to get in wars over shit like oil.
  
  I'd say my worldview isn't idealistic but hopeful and yours isn't realistic but cynical. I think we can be better, you've accepted that we aren't.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;751231 wrote:I don't think resources has to be some adversarial game anymore to be honest.
  
  Not that it's going to stop being so anytime soon but I genuinly think that with the state of nuclear, solar, wind, tide, etc power as well as the ability to produce more food per acre than ever before that if we really wanted to (and I mean we as in the global community not just the US) we wouldn't have to get in wars over shit like oil.

  What you think about resources does not matter. Reality is what matters. Nuclear, solar, wind, tide, it don't matter mankind would fight over who controls it. We would fight over a pile of shit if it would produce power.
  

  I Wear Pants;751231 wrote:I'd say my worldview isn't idealistic but hopeful and yours isn't realistic but cynical. I think we can be better, you've accepted that we aren't.

  I will go along with your description of my world view as "cynical" and yours as "hopeful". My cynicism is based on thousands of years of documented human history. Your hopefulness is based on some future hope that mankind will get their shit straight. I have accepted nothing other than the facts.
• I Wear Pants

  This is true. But I don't accept that what has been true must always be. If we're not striving to be better than really what's the point?
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;751281 wrote:This is true. But I don't accept that what has been true must always be. If we're not striving to be better than really what's the point?

  
  We should strive to be better. The reality is there will be those that will not. Bow to their will or force them to submit. There are your choices. For now hope the good guys are in control of the world's resources.
• majorspark

  

  BGFalcons82;750486 wrote:therefore we need to come home and admit defeat....again.

  The war is not lost until Harry Reid says so.