Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Question for Obama and Romney supporters: Why are we still in Afghanistan?

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 6, 2012, 1:37 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are we bombing so many countries?

Please address who you support in the election... congress too... and then explain the purpose of still being in Afghanistan and the countries we are bombing and whether or not you support that the war is still going and how the person you're voting for reflects your stance on war.

If you don't support the wars... why are you voting for people that are continuing the wars?

The wars need to end. Vote for actual peace. Bombs and sanctions are not peace.

140 Comments

140 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

What's between Afghanistan and Iraq?

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You mean the place surrounded by warships in the ocean? The place Congress is preparing for war with in HR 4310?

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Actually Obama has bombed 6 countries since being in office and 5 in the last 12 months.

When is he going to stop doing that? Why couldn't he stop bombing countries in one term as the commander in chief?

Why is he surrounding Iran with warships?

When is he going to stop hiring mercenaries like Black Water?

Why won't he pardon Bradley Manning or put people in the DOJ that will prosecute Bush and his CIA torturers?

Please answer all questions.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Again?

Haven't done this dance? Don't you remember my answers? ok here we go again.

When is he going to stop doing that? IDK. Why couldn't he stop bombing countries in one term as the commander in chief? Politics?

Why is he surrounding Iran with warships? So he doesn't have to bow to the right wing war mongereres pressure to invade.? (To keep your suv in cheap gas?)

When is he going to stop hiring mercenaries like Black Water? he already cut back. I guess next year.

Why won't he pardon Bradley Manning? Who said he won't? or put people in the DOJ that will prosecute Bush and his CIA torturers? politics?

Hows dat?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

response to your answers

Answer 1 - You blame politics for the president bombing countries...? A president bombing countries because of "politics" is a war crime actually. Maybe you might want to change your answer? Do you support Obama's use of drone strikes?

Answer 2 - Gas prices are up. I blame oil pigs more though.

Answer 3 - I respond with another question. Why is he still using forces like these when they have a horrendous track record and cost ridiculous amounts of money? Do you support organizations like Black Water? Also there is no evidence they will not be used next year. Evidence points to YES they will be used again next year.

Answer 4 - He hasn't pardoned Bradley Manning and he shows no intention of doing so. Politics is not an answer.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Answer 1 - You blame politics for the president bombing countries...? A president bombing countries because of "politics" is a war crime actually. Maybe you might want to change your answer? I can't answer for the President!

Do you support Obama's use of drone strikes? Nope, but you know that already, I've said it repeatedly.

Answer 2 - Gas prices are up. I blame oil pigs more though. huh??

Answer 3 - I respond with another question. Why is he still using forces like these when they have a horrendous track record and cost ridiculous amounts of money? He has cut it. IDK why he has not stopped!

Do you support organizations like Black Water? NO!

Also there is no evidence they will not be used next year. Evidence points to YES they will be used again next year. We'll just have to. Since he has cut them and stated he wanted to cut there use & the military budget I think he will cut it.

Answer 4 - He hasn't pardoned Bradley Manning and he shows no intention of doing so. Politics is not an answer. You asked, I gave you my opinion.

I guess we disagree. Surprise surprise! But not only is politics AN answer, it is MY answer and you saying "it is not an answer" is not relevant.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Bombing countries because of "politics" is a war crime.

Claiming "politics" is not an answer. Running a political add on tv is politics. Bombing countries is not the same as "politics" ... if it is... like I said... it's a war crime.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Politics is an explanation and MY answer. Let's not argue about semantics.

I think war crimes must be decided in a court. Unless trevor has become the world court on these things I guess that is just your opinion.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Stop defending war crimes.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I have never defended a war crime because no action of Pres Obamas has been found to BE a war crime.

So I can't stop what I ain't done.

Ganging up on me again? Gettin a little frustrated with my certitude? Confidence? Stamina.?

Aaaaaah Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

Isn't it hypocritical to say obama is not a war criminal because a court hasn't tried him but not be upset when Al Awlaki was murdered without trial. Thankfully the ACLU isn't blind and is taking the obama administration to court on behalf of the murdered citizens family.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I know they are taking him to court. Good. I support that. That is the right approach.

In regards to Al Awlaki, The US military has killed thousands of civilians during Pres Obamas term. Millions during the Bush admin. Is Al Awlaki more innocent or unworthy of death because he is an American citizen?

Are we ok with the million civilians killed who didn't happen to be Americans.? I have no more regard for this guy than any one else we have killed.

I mean I love my country, and I suppose we are special but everyone deserves a fair trial. If we don't give a shit about non Americans why this guy?. It's kinda phoney to be outraged just because he is American.

He was the same as the rest of the people we've been killing for 11 years. You think there were American citizens among that lot, damn right!

Gimme a break. Let it go through court. In the mean time I will agitate for the end of war. So that that we stop drone bombing everyone. Not just American citizens.

I'm against drone bombing anyone, including Al Awlaki. So sue us!

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

My issue is if they take any Americans right to a trial then what's to stop them from doing the same to other Americans. Most dems I know refuse to admit that obama can do any wrong. The way I look at it is he will attack our rights in the first term then what would he do for a second term.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well we have to protest. That's all.

replace pro ndaa conservatives with anti ndaa progressives. And protest all pols for the change we need.

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

all wars are criminal

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"War is over if you want it" JL

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You do have incredible stamina. Ignorance is good like that.

You are no better than the conservatives that used to claim that Congress voted for Iraq therefore it's a just invasion.

Fuckin sell outs.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"ignorance" please refrain from the personal attacks it just betrays your weak position. It adds nothing to the debate. Please stick to the substance. I don't come here to insult people.

I do not support drone bombings! I have and will continue to protest them. I disagree Pres Obama is a war criminal.

We disagree. get over it.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

People who dont "know what innocent killings" Im talking about get ask much respect as they deserve.

Calling the president a war criminal is something that Nader and Carter agree with. It's a fact. Deal with it. Your upbringing has been a lie. Get over it before your ignorance brings the war here.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You are clearly unstable. Carter is Voting for Pres Obama and is urging everyone to do the same. Nader as always is irrelevant. You know nothing of my upbringing.

I know enough not to give any credence to unstable, out of control rantings of someone who throws out unfounded accusations.

You don't know that the Pres is a war criminal. You think he is. In my country we believe in innocent until proven guilty.

So I will extend that to my President. You can rant and rave without any evidence.

Peace

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Nice denial as usual. I guess you arent as up to date as I on the topic of Americans being assasinated by our military overseas.

And ofcourse you would like to pretend Gitmo isnt there.

You;ve managed to destroy another day for many people with your blatant Democractic shilling, blind patriotism from faith in a corrupted institution.

Keep it up. Soon you will have chased away all the free thinkers, and you can finally get what you want.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You give me too much credit. Bushes Gitmo is there! Pres Obama attempted to close it, Republicans blocked.

Al Awlaki was an enemy of the United States! It ain't a war crime to kill someone who is agitating, planning the murder of Americans. Are you defending that piece of shit?

You continue the constant personal attacks on me for the simple reason that I won't agree with your extremist unproven accusations that Pres Obama is a war criminal.

I am against the drone bombings, I have and will continue to protest against the Pres for that and other issues.

I will not join you in your unfair anti dem partisan political campaign attacks of the pres.

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

VQgag's posts are too inane to have much effect other than annoying people.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You dont know what innocent people?!!!!!!

So if the courts dont do anything, you are fine with it?!!!!!!!!!!

Holy shit.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Get a grip. If you can't control your emotions they will control you.

I am against the drone bombings, I have and will continue to protest against them.

Otherwise the name callings against me, and the President are not really useful.

I rather be a little more mature. Please join in whenever you feel.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

So you dont think its a war crime to kill innocent people over money and resources. Got it.

I'll never "get over" listening to people like you defend illegal actions by governement. Too many of you out there already. You will find out eventually what your pathetic attitude towards all of this means, as we are already seeing the consequences on a national level.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"pathetic attitude"? Please stop harassing me. If you can't control your emotions enough to have a civil, respectful discussion you should refrain from commenting.

I don't know what innocent people your talkin about. I will let a court decide the guilt of my President, not hchc. Ok?

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"You don't know that the Pres is a war criminal. You think he is. In my country we believe in innocent until proven guilty."

TEll that to the three AMERICANS that were assasinated overseas.

TEll that to the people STUCK in Gitmo for year after year.

Take your naive nonsense to another forum. We want change here.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am fighting for change! You don't get that by unfounded extremist accusations that are simply rooted in anti dem partisanship.

I support the progress this Pres has made in the face of your republican resistence!

  • Your Pres Bush: 1 million+ US military killings

  • During Pres Obama: reduced to only thousands US military killings.

That's change you can believe in. LMFAO! That's how you move in the right direction, That's how you undo your republican war mongering!

This momentum WILL continue and all US military killing will end!

And eventually your republicans will relent and even Bushes Gitmo will be closed.

Regardless of your obvious partisanship!

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

A little melodramatic no? We've killed millions overseas. The US military has killed thousands during Pres Obamas 3 1/2 years. l I mean 3 Americans? I'm sure there was a lot more than that. Who are these alleged Americans.? Maybe it was an accident. You know collateral damage. Friendly fire. Oops! Maybe the war zone is a dangerous place?

Who knows! you keep losing your cool and calling me names 'cause I won't agree with you that my Pres is a war criminal. Do you think if you repeat it over and over again, or insult me, or use exclamation points and bold that you will change my mind.

It's not like you offer any facts. You just want to bully me. Please refrain from the abusiveness, insults and schoolyard bullying tactics of your candidate Romney.

Thanks

[-] -3 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

I am fighting for change!

Are you? You always push the status quo, i.e. Obama.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Untrue. I always push protest, pressure, & agitation for progressive change!

I always push for replacing pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives.

And I havebeen protesting on thestreet and fighting forchange for morethan 30 years! So... there you go.

Maybe what you are referring to is my extra effort to challenge what I have seen as unfair inaccurate anti dem partisan political campaigning by some closeted republicans on this forum.

I will challenge the extremist labeling of war monger, and war criminal because I disagree.

Is that what you are talkin about?

[-] -3 points by conservatroll (161) 2 years ago

I'm glad to see the beating you took yesterday has been taken to heart. You are correct, personal attacks have no place in debates!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I guess if I don't agree with every anti dem partisan political campaign attack they have to gang up on me and abuse me.

I think it makes them look like bullies.

I suppose I could attack them to. but why?

How about you you want a piece of me also?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You never seem to mind when I call George Bush a war criminal.

When I see dead civilians and a dead American 16 year old boy from drone strikes under Obama's administration... those are facts... and they are war crimes.

The DOJ won't even convict those responsible for torture... this system is corrupt.

I can't wait for a court to call these people war criminals because they won't do it. I've seen images of the facts.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am anti republican/conservative policies! that's why I don't object to Bush being called a war criminal. You didn't know that?

Wow!

Drone strikes: I'm against them. I have protested against them. I will again. I will not call Pres Obama a war criminal because I don't agree.

Sorry. Furthermore Pres Obama will never be found in a court of being a war criminal. Sorry again.

Corruption: Money out of politics!

We must replace pro citizens united conservative with anti citizens united progressives

The system IS corrupt. We must continue protesting, pressuring, agitating for progressive change.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

I'm curious to hear what you think the reasoning behind signing the ndaa and to the murder of US cicilians by drone strikes

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

How do you know they were cicilian?

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

Sorry. I meant civilian. I was talking about the drone strike in Yemen that killed the father and son. US citizens that did not receive the fair trial that the constitution guarantees (even though eric holder said that due process isn't judicial process).

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Al Awlaki? Your attacking the Pres for killing a self professed enemy of the united states? Didn't he plan the killing of Americans? Didn't he train other killers of Americans?

I am against drone bombings, I have and will continue to protest this and all unnecessary military action.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

and NATO bombing and Navy Shelling

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No more war!

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

I don't remember him being found guilty in court. Innocent until pr(ven guilty.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

He is probably not innocent! but he clearly ain'tv a war criminal!

[-] 4 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Are you still in Afghanistan? Get! Out!

[-] 2 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 1 year ago

12th Anniversary of the Afghan War for pipelines and minerals coming up.

12 years of killing and mayhem. Wow. What a country we are. Representative democracy? Do the people who do this represent the people?

I hope not.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/05/911-anniversary-afghanistan-war-syria/2771437/

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

It was always about Iran- for the last 30 years and maybe much longer.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we were supporting Saddam Hassan in Iraq to fight Iran in the 80s

while Saddam gassed the Kurds

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Yes. We point to events surrounding the hostage situation and Iran points to interference from Eisenhower. Even the best of leaders make huge mistakes. I have no clue what is going to happen with Iran in the coming years but I don't have a good feeling about it.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I believe there will be peace

I just have to convince the everyone else

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

LOLOL Matty !!! You seem to sleep less then me matey !! Hope you're altering your focal length, stretching & drinking enough water !

Take care ; stay well ; stay aware.

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Ever heard of Mohammed Mossaddegh ; Kermit Roosevelt or "Operation Ajax" ? IF you are American - I'm guessing, probably not. Google can be you friend IF you ask it the right questions !

respice ; adspice ; prospice ...

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

That's what I was referring to. Our relationship with Iran is complicated. Their leadership doesn't like our democrats and their close ally Russia doesn't care for our republicans. It's a mess. Too bad everyone can't mind their own business...

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Re. Iran : Some hard facts may bring some 'Light' to matters, rather than all the unpleasant 'Heat' being generated by the constant fear and loathing :

a) Iran has The World's 3rd Largest known 'Total' & 2nd Largest 'Liquid' Oil Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iran ,

b) Iran has The Worlds 2nd Largest known Gas Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_reserves_in_Iran

c) Further consider and cogitate upon the fact that in Feb. 2008, Iran opened a Hydro-Carbon Bourse at The Kish Mercantile Exchange (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm and also http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28646.htm ) - trading in a basket of currencies, including Euros, Roubles, Yuan and Iranian Rial BUT NOT in U$ Dollar$ and thereby challenging both Reserve Currency, Dollar "HegeMoney" as well as the Monopoly of the existing Oil and Petroleum Bourses.

d) The Iranian Central Bank is State Controlled & Entirely Government Owned and NOT Privately Owned [ http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2011/12/15/senate-passes-sanctions-on-irans-central-bank/?mod=google_news_blog & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran ] . Thus do 'a-d' here actually constitute the Real "Casus Belli" ?!

e) The same NeoCon, Neo-Colonial, Paleo-Imperial WARMONGERS who beat the drums for The Unconscionable, Illegal & Immoral WAR on Iraq (where The Only "WMD" = Words of Mass Deception !!) are now beating the Drums of War and this time Iran is in the Imperial crosshairs.

f.) Pls. Research PNAC : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC etc.

fiat lux et fiat pax ...

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well then it's a good thing we have a Pres who has thus far resisted the 1% plutocrat war mongers who are pressuring us to invade Iran right?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

politician in San Diego tell the military industrial complex not to worry

they don't foresee any cuts in the near or far future from either mainstream party

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Pres has already cut the military budget and plans more! I suppose not as much as I want. But perhaps if people protest enough the cuts will be more. The people must take control!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I hadn't heard. How much were those cuts?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Very little. Lotsa resistance from republican 1% plutocrat MIC tools.

$50 billion per year w/ another $50 billion per year if congress acts. And he has more planned. He stated at the time of announcing these cuts that the threat of war is receding" This is the way to undo the war/fear mongering the repblicans created after they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I read the US pays 5000 private security troops in Iraq

certainly less than the 100,000 troops that were there

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

isn't it Iraq that pays them?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, along with several consulates, will have some 15,000 workers, making it the largest U.S. diplomatic operation abroad. Those diplomats will be protected by a private army consisting of as many as 5,000 security contractors who will carry assault weapons and fly armed helicopters.

No U.S. Troops, But An Army Of Contractors In Iraq

those would be US paid

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yes I've heard. I'm against using sec contractors. Pres Obama has cut our use. And plans to cut it out entirely.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

he's been in power 4 years already

[-] -3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Consider : "Thus far" is the operative and very pregnant term here !!!

verb. sat. sap. ...

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It is what it is. I'm not gonna attack him for invading Iran when he has been struggling against Isreali right wing war mongers, and US republican war mongers for years.

He has been fighting AGAINST the invasion!!!! I support fighting against the war mongering pressure to invade!!!

How can I attack the guy who is fighting against the invasion. If I did that I would be serving the right wing war mongers who are pressuring for invasion.

No? C'mon, you are clearly smart enough to understand this. I have read and been impressed with many of your posts.

Pres Obama has many problems but why would anyone join the war mongers in attacking the guy resisting their pressure to invade?.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I heard he's stopped the invasion plans of Brazil and Russia as well

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Haven't heard of those. But he hasn't invaded Iran yet so I suppose we can be thankful of that right. Or we can complain that he has not resisted well enough! either way I support protesting against invading Iran.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

-Russia is in Northern Asia, and Brazil is in South America

he hasn't invaded China nor Greece yet

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Woo Hoo! But the pressure has been to attack Iran. And that is what we're talkin about so again it is a good thing that he hasn't invaded iran.

Or should he invade since he is being attacked for it anyway?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

there are some many countries he hasn't invaded

he deserves another peace prize

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That's right. None! Now we just have get the people to stop calling him a war monger when he is resisting the war mongers!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

he didn't invade North Korea

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

You need to learn when 'enough is enough' - so re-read and reflect upon your comment starting with - "I'm not gonna attack him for invading Iran" !!! HowTF d'you know what he has been fighting for or against ?!! Obomber is NOT uniquely 'Peace Loving' ffs - he's just The Fkn POTUS & Emperor du jour !

Finally, please stop trying to provoke me - because it will work ...

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am not trying to provoke you. That is the 2nd threat you have made. Why?

Because you can't handle a different opinion.? I know Pres Obama has resisted the right wing pressure to invade because I have seen the pressure (and so there must be much more) and I can see that we have not invaded.

Why do YOU not see that reality.?

Please don't attack me personally because we differ in opinion. Let's keep it civil and respectful. I am being civil and respectful. Because that is what I prefer, even with people I disagree with.

I am not your enemy.

[-] -2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Enough already ! Your simultaneous petulance & impetuousity, spread over more than one thread ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-you-dont-have-the-courage-to-vote-for-the-party/#comment-827617 ) is self defeating !! Consider - "reality" is subjective & I can handle lots of 'Non-Right Wing Imperialist' opinions but you are now talking to 'The Hand', lol !!!

ne quid nimis ...

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1972) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

VQ is right and reasonable, what is your problem? Your charges are completely merit-less. Where are your solutions?

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

'@ T & Team' - My solutions for your mendacious duplicities involve a long walk and a short plank but only after you have been found and tried at 'The Pirate Court' ~:^

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1972) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Wrong! And I resent your reckless reactionary accusation. More merit-less charges. Do they ever stop? The request for your grand solutions is still pending. Mine are registering and Voting! Yours seem to be trashing, just trashing, perhaps trashy trashing. Is recrimination your cover?? or your solution?? Or both?

[-] -3 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

Oh my! Team Twinkle, AKA Partisan Powers is having a fallout! I'm going to make some popcorn and watch this closely! shadz66, I hope you're not angry because your team has left you trailing with the lowest score? Courage, you're not that far from VQkag2.

[-] 1 points by Renneye (3987) 2 years ago

Victor/Victoria! Popcorn! Oh goody! I have entertainment! I think you'll get a kick out of this trashy!

http://beyondthephysical.blogspot.ca/

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

TCH ; Tch ; tch & look 'April' looks like she's trying to volunteer for your 'Twinkle Team' Too !! Thanx for your PM as that's your hidden 'M.O' of course + have you any evidence at all of my 'partisanship' ? lol ;-)

sub rosa ...

[-] 1 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

Twizzlers are licorice.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

A swizzle stick is a drink stirrer. It's a little early for that. Maybe later though.

[-] -1 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

Evidence for your partisanship? Your comments and association to Partisan Powers make that clear. You spend your days and evenings singing from rooftops the glories of Obama.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Twizzlers anyone?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

What are 'Twizzlers' ? Drink stirrers ?! If so, I get you now - cos you're 'stirring' right & I'll have a wee chortle too before asking you, why you haven't made an honest wo/man of 'T' yet ?!

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by justcause (44) 2 years ago

why are you still in a lot of nations that most people don't even know that you're in?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

right

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Opium baby Opium! also all the Kush that floods the streets,. CIA is the kingpin of hte world arms AND drug trades!!

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Why are we STILL in Afghanistan? There is much more in Afghanistan than you let on. What about black water like organizations getting huge contracts?

If the problem just moves to Yemen and the bombs and civilian death only add to anti-American sentiment... isn't it all counter productive to the "goal" ?

What about if Ralph Nader was elected in 2000? Your "what ifs" about McCain are not excuses for current situations that have gone the way they have.

Divide and conquer has been a perfect strategy to perpetuate war plan we still see happening today.

The alleged 2014 withdrawal is too long. End the war years ago and use the tax dollars to build bridges in America instead of blowing up bridges in foreign countries.

Learn from the Reagan/Bush/Clinton era mistakes that helped create this problem in the first place. Don't rehash their failed policies.

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

People would still believe in the Supreme Court?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

a judge to interpret the law is necessary

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

a flack to misapply it isn't

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The supreme court appointed Bush Jr before he got his pick.

Corruption runs deep.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

That is why I suggested that if Gore would have had a wider margin, the S Court couldn't have stolen it, which would have preserved some of its credibility.

Then no Alito, nor Robertson.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Well never know how wide the margin was because the Supreme Court stopped the vote counting.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

We actually do but it doesn't matter. It would have had to be significant to avoid the SC hearing the case.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

It would be harder to steal an election in a landslide.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Yeah but they would get points for trying.

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I'd rather see them get jail time for trying.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

We already have the world record for per capita jailbirds but we could let out a few folks who are in for possession to offset them

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we all know the elections are rigged

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What would have happened if Nicolas Cage won the election in 1988?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

We have an indirect democracy. It is another layer more indirect now. We have to boycott the zillionaire's businesses who own the politicians now instead of voting. Sure voting still matters, voting against the guys that the zillionaire's most want to win, but not so much.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

That's funny you ask this because all through the year 2012 Obama has been ordering troops out of Afghanistan and says all of them will be pulled out by 2014. Sounds like the end of US involvement in Afghan if you ask me.

Its the same thing he did when he pulled out of Iraq, he took two years to allow smooth transition. I don't know what alternative world you live in but if this is the news on BBC, NDTV in India, Al Jazeera, CNN, Current TV, Fox... I don't know why so many news people would lie or why Obama would make so many speeches claiming the withdrawel from Afghan

Or maybe if you are a literalist, yes we are still technically in Afghanistan. But the war is over

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The war is over? Why are we still there? How long has it been since the last person shot?

What about the private contracts with hired mercenaries like Black Water?

What problem is being solved by still being in Afghanistan? With all the suicide bombings still happening do you think it will still be smooth in 2014?

Smooth transition in Iraq? LOL... that's a lie. Maybe for big oil it was smooth.

[-] 2 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Obama has declared the war over so what's your issue? That Karzai won't let America pull all their troops out at once? That Karzai wants a transition because he is afraid he will lose power?

Then your problem is with Karzai, not Obama. Know what's going on before posting uninformed posts that only discredit important issues like stopping the overall war on terror. You only end up doing us all a disservice.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well said. Don't expect to convince anyone to understand or treat you with respect.

But Hang on & show no fear.!

Peace

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

And I don't expect you to understand that these wars are costing trillions and innocent people are still dying.

Next you'll say that the drone strikes aren't acts of war.

If war isn't still happening why are troops there? You don't need troops like that where there isn't a war.

Why are people still attacking troops? Is this not war?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And I don't expect you to understand that these wars are costing trillions and innocent people are still dying.

  • It's a horrible waste!

Next you'll say that the drone strikes aren't acts of war.

  • Not if the govts of the countries have given permission.

  • Haven't I already corrected you on this one.

If war isn't still happening why are troops there? You don't need troops like that where there isn't a war.

  • Where? Iraq? Pres Obama ended that war. Do some research boss! We have troops all over the planet that doesn't mean we're at war in (Germany, Japan, ...) C/mon give me a break!

Why are people still attacking troops? Is this not war?

  • I don't think so. Don't worry we will take care of anyone who attacks our troops!

Anything else you wanna re hash?. When are you gonna stop harassing me with the same non sense. We disagree! Get over it!

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Chance for Peace

Also Pakistan asked the government to stop bombing them last year and they continue to do it. But feel free to make excuses for the drone strikes you allegedly do not support.

After seeing what happens when you say NO to the USA do you think middle eastern countries are going to fight back? Yeah they "approve" of the bombings in their country. They live right next to the destroyed Iraq and destroyed Afghanistan.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I agree 100% with the very eloquent list of military costs and how to better use it. Well said. And although I don't speak for Pres Obama I will say he agrees also.

I believe the reduction in military spending. The wars he has ended, the reduction in US military deaths he has acheived, the wars he has resisted, and the nuclear weapons he has reduced show that he is working towards the elimination of US military actions, and towards the goals you claim to support.

Pakistan has allowed and still allows the bombings. This precludes the label of war. Sorry. I'm against the drone bombings but I can't pretend that it is war if the country in question allows it.

Please stop with this silliness. We disagree. on whether bombing countries that allow us to is war. Why can't you understand this?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Stop lying about Pakistan.

Pakistani objection to US drones puts ‘nations at war’, says Democrat - Dennis Kucinich - http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/29/pakistani-objection-to-us-drones-puts-nations-at-war-says-leading-democrat/

The people of Pakistan do not approve of the innocent life that has been taken away by these drone wars.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The people of pakistan need to elect new leaders because their leaders do approve of our drone bombing.

I am against the drone bombings. I disagree with your mischaracterization that it constitutes war. Because the pakistan govt has allowed it.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

how can they approve when their leader asked the US government to sop bombing them?

You didn't even read the link that backs this up as fact.

instead you just live in your fairy land where bombs are peace

Pakistan has loudly protested each drone strike, calling them a ‘total contravention of international law’ which are a ‘violation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty.’

‘If a nation, which at one time asked for our help, resents our help, then any action that takes place effectively loses the protection of the request for cooperation. And then it becomes a clearly outlined act of aggression. And so, if it is as Pakistan says it is, and if in fact Pakistan has made this request and asked us to stop and we continue this bombing, then we are at war with Pakistan,’ Kucinich told the Bureau.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Y or N

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Then why haven't theydeclared war? Last year they punished our drone bombing by cutting off a supply line. They recently opened it up.

I'm sorry. You are mistaken. You're trying to convince me they are against the bombings but if they were they would cut off the supply line again at least.

Please stop. You are wrong!

We agree the drone bombings are wrong, but it can't becalled war if the targeted country allows us to continue. Sorry.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on your untrue extremist accusatorial attacks.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

They're not going to attack us because they have no capability of even attacking us.

Plus they live right next to Iraq and Afghanistan which are destroyed. Their only option is protest.

But go ahead and keep denying the FACT that they have asked the US government to stop bombing them.

For someone who allegedly does not support the drone wars you sure seem to make up a lot of excuses for the drone wars.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I ain't made any excuse. I am against the drone bombings.

I disagree with YOU!

I disagree with your labeling of these drone bombings as being equal to war.

It ain't.! It can't be if the country in question allows us to drone bomb!

They were not afraid to close the supply line!, And we did as they asked. We didn't force them to let us e the supply line.

If they tell us to stop we will.

And you know what trevor. This Pres is gonna stop!. This Pres will stop after the election. He can't do it now because of this right wing fear induced country would never re elect him!

But he has already begun the process of ending the war on terror. and as soon as he gets re elcted he WILL end all these military actions. and cut the military budget, and merc use, and bring ho,e all over the planet, and drastically cut nuclear weapons. That is what I want, that is what he wants, that is what he will do if the people pressure him to do it (after the election) and support these actions

If he does not get re elected then Romney will invade Iran, escalate the drone bombings, and resurrect the endless war on terror rhetoric that repubs use to fear monger their agenda passed the people. They've already said they would increase the military budget.

Get it?. War boy!

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

LOL, yeah Trev, didn't you know that Obama has to do what Karzai tells him to?

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Karzai is not my president.

Trillions of dollars have been wasted on this war.

The continuation of bombs and sanctions in these countries is only fueling anti-american sentiment. How many more suicide bombings need to happen for people to understand this.

When these actions kill as many civilians as they do... they are counter productive.

My problem is not only the continue of Bush era policies in Afghanistan... but also with all the countries he's bombed.

Drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen - http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-drone-strikes-target-rescuers-in-pakistan-and-t/

Libya - http://occupywallst.org/forum/and-you-tell-everyone-war-is-humanitarian-effort/

[-] 0 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yemen and Libya are now free countries. They are happy to be free of their dictators all part of the Arab Spring. They have no problem with America. US had little to do with those revolutions, it was the power of the people.

Karzai wants to maintain power until the 2014 elections when he can't run for office anymore. He makes the excuse its for American security but really we don't have any purpose there anymore since Bin Laden capture.

Pakistan isn't important now that BL is dead. But they need some way to gain America's trust again (for harboring BL) because the country is dependent on American $$ just to remain afloat.

You could be helpful to these people in these countries by showing that the common person there is not an enemy of the USA or anyone. They are just people wanting to live good lives like anyone else.

Creating a sense of conflict when there isn't any is only a way to make matters worse for the very people you claim you are trying to help.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

'Libya is Free' & I'm the Lost Prince Of The Persian Peacock Throne !!!

Know an apologist for The Empire by the duplicitous double speak !!

"War Is Peace" and Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies !

cave bellum se ipsum alet ...

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

These guys don't even think bombing a country is an act of war.

I also know that VQ doesn't think murdering civilians in non-battle zones is a war crime.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

The extent of the abject quiescence in The USA, with Imperial Outrages Abroad & Domestic Bankster Larceny is really very, very shocking indeed.

No matter how often I see it - I still can't get used to it.

spero meliora ...

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Show them they are not enemies of the USA by not bombing their countries and stop killing civilians.

Civilians are still dying. There is actual conflict in these countries.

[-] 0 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Your upset about drone attacks, not the Afghan war. It took me a while to figure this out. You really need to clear up your mind and stop lopping all kinds of issues together. Some college courses on clear thinking might help as well.

Now write up a new post with a clearer message and maybe I won't give you such a hard time.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I am upset about our government still keeping troops and hired guns like Black Water organizations in Afghanistan as well.

I am very clear.

These wars need to end now.

You have not given me a hard time at all.

In regards to actions on Libya - "The American people get myths, rhetoric and unemployment while war profiteers get the gold."

"Resources which should be used to build bridges in America continue to be used to bomb bridges elsewhere."

"The NATO command recklessly bombed civilians in the name of saving civilians." - Dennis Kucinich

You should read my posts. Especially the link about the illegal use of drones and the war crimes committed against civilians.

Yemen is not free. Their vice-dictator is just in charge now. They might be slightly less oppressed. Also Obama and our government were not bombing their dictator. They were bombing the countryside and worked with the dictator to do so.

[-] 0 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Your problem is with drone attacks.

All aspects of the Bush wars have been greatly reduced. Two wars have ended. The only thing Obama introduced was drone attacks to replace armed combatents on the ground.

Now we can make a general statement that we are against all war. And who wouldn't be? But the Pentagon has strategic control and there are internal politics and international treatese like the one US has with NATO. Even though Obama is commander in Chief, he can't act as dictator.

He also understood that he could build a case to end the Bush wars only if he caught Bin Laden. He's making a case against the Defence budget. The defence budget is so high that money goes from taxpayers to profiteer defence contractors like blackwater and haliburton. When the Dept of Defence has money to waste, they will use contractors for anything and everything.

Contractors profit because the largest amount of tax dollars go to defence. Wars are fought because large amount of tax dollars go to defence and contracters make profits. If we cut the money supply, that is revenue coming into defence from our taxes, we will shrink the military industrial complex.

Obama is cutting that defence revenue. Clinton made this clear in his speech last night at the DNC. In this political beauracracy, no president has the dictatorial power to end the military industrial complex. No president can overturn the pentagon, or destroy the CIA, or force republicans or people to vote a certain way, or mangle the necks of supreme court judges to force change.

Its going to take time. Too many many people involved for it to happen overnight or in 4 years. Your anger with Obama is misplaced.

Unless you are upset about the drone attacks. This is Obama's solution to work with NATO whithout sending troops and with the intention of keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. Obviously for most of us, it still isn't justification. But I still believe in Obama.

Here is a man who had a black Muslim father and a white Christian mother. This man grew up in a Muslim culture as a child in Indonesia. He spent most of his life as a community worker helping the poor and the disenfrachised. His experiences are the most broad and eclectic of any leader ever to be a US president.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Preach your talking points elsewhere. Voting records and the bombs tell the truth.

Defense spending is 60% of federal discretionary spending this year. But Obama is going to miraculously change that because of Bill Clinton's speech? The same guy that helped repeal Glass Steagall and had a foreign policy that lead to the deaths of over a million in Iraq.....

The president can speak out against the CIA instead of authorizing their drone strikes.

It's funny seeing the commander in chief have people make excuses for the wars at the DNC

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I can talk my points anywhere I want to. It's still a free discussion platform. And the world isn't as simple as you make it. For the meat and potatoes crowd, sure. But we're better than that.

Here is a rueters article that tells what Obama will cut in the defence budget and how it will curtail the power of the pentagon:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/us-usa-budget-pentagon-idUSTRE81A0IF20120213

He proposed this back in February long before Clinton's speech.

As for Clinton, he had nothing to do with Glass Steagall. If anything, he was forced to sign a passed Republican bill called the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act which was a percurser to the Glass Steagall repeal. You may ask how he could possibly be forced to sign a bill, and that is because the presidential veto power was taken away from him due to the bill being passed overwhelmingly by the house and senate. His signature was not an approval but a symbolic gesture to the Congressional rules.

You should study more about how your government works. It may make you understand the intricities of the world. Or maybe you can read Alexander Dumas The Three Musketeers. Look, I'm just trying to help you, please don't take any offence

[-] 0 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Oh yeah, and another thing Trevor, notice how I don't ever stinkle you. I'm looking out for you buddy. Free speech - hooray!

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

LOL he was forced to sign it. ahahahahahahahahahahah

ahahahahahaha

hold on... I'm not done holding my sides.

hahahahaha

oh the excuses.

The important aspects were repealed in the Financial Modernization Act aka the GLB Act. Which he signed and passed with bipartisan support. My own asshole republican House Rep and Democrat Senator voted for that shit too.

Talking points are nothing. Voting records are everything.

He could have at least wrote a note right? Hahahahaha... "forced to sign it."

[-] 0 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Research, my friend. You gotta look things up. That's what the internet is for. Also, find reliable backed up sources. It's a big adult world out there, we can't be children anymore.

http://www.davemanuel.com/fact-check-did-bill-clinton-repeal-the-glass-steagall-act-120/

Well, hopefully you'll grow up one day, I'm sure of it. I'm rooting for yah!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Hopefully you'll understand facts one day.

Voting records hold way more truth than talking points.

Show me the picture of the gun to his head while he signed it. Clinton seems so happy signing for it in this picture - http://www.dissentmagazine.org/files/clintonbubble-feature.jpg

But hey... I blame Congress for the Financial Modernization Act too.

But feel free to make excuses for a guy who's not even running for office. Is that better than holding people accountable for their role in signing bad legislation into law?

[-] 0 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

That's meat and potatoes thinking, dude. Look, we sign lots of things without a gun to our head.

Why does someone sign a lease when he knows his landlord is ripping him off?

How simple do you think life really is?

Thank god we aren't all robots with only five input channels. No one can tell you what swimming is like without you jumping into a pool of water.

People on the outside of the swimming pool like to get into arguments, one says the swimmer is breathing water, the other says he isn't breathing at all.

So this picture of Clinton is final proof for yourself and your done thinking. Brilliant! Your software is working according to program.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

All sources are from 2006 or earlier.

"But the big plum of finance de-regulation occurred in the waning years of the Clinton Administration, under no other than Treasury Secretary Rubin, now at Citigroup.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11553

"An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

While the Clinton administration generally supported Glass-Steagall "modernization," but there are concerns that mid-term elections in the fall could bring in Democrats less sympathetic to changing the laws.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

"President Clinton fought for and won financial modernization legislation, signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in November 1999."

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

[Removed]