Did I hear some *lies there?

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by acidSpine.

It's easy to see the argument for leaving, but it's also easy to imagine the repercussions.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238,00.html

The common denominator for US Politicians is that they don't have to fight the wars which they send others to wage for them.

War is tough. It sure is, from that nice comfy chair in the Oval Office.

>> ^RedSky:

It's easy to see the argument for leaving, but it's also easy to imagine the repercussions.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238,00.html


I know that leaving wouldn't be a perfect option however it's still the only option. Many many more people will die if we stay. We went through the same thing in Vietnam when people thought we should stay, it's wrong and we shouldn't. Although there will probably be some horrific deaths, there will be thousands more if we stay. We must leave.

Lets not forget the fact that this is coming from Time Magazine...it's not surprising how slanted the article is because they want us to stay there.

Hope and Change
Hope and Change
Hope and Change
Hope and Change
PLEASE PLEASE some Hope and Change


NOT

liar liar pants on fire

Yep, you voted in a good one.... HA HA

This is actually Obama on Iraq vs. Obama on Afghanistan, folks. And the additional troops sent to Iraq that Obama is talking out against in the 2007 C-span videos actually seems to have helped immensely (contrary to what I expected).

Obama has been saying for years that we needed to refocus on Afghanistan.

I am so angry about the intellectual dishonesty that HuffPo exhibits here.

Edit: In the text of the HuffPo article that this video accompanies, they actually do mention that the C-SPAN footage was referring to Iraq. So, less angry.

>> ^Yogi:

I know that leaving wouldn't be a perfect option however it's still the only option. Many many more people will die if we stay. We went through the same thing in Vietnam when people thought we should stay, it's wrong and we shouldn't. Although there will probably be some horrific deaths, there will be thousands more if we stay. We must leave.

To be honest, I'm beginning to think more and more that it's your mess, and your responsibility to fix it. Going into Afghanistan was just as ridiculous as going into Iraq. What were the odds that a slow, advancing military force was going to seriously disrupt a fluid cross-national terrorist organisation, let alone catch a single terrorist in its dragnet? Yes, the Taliban openly sponsored Al Qaeda but this doesn't change the fact there is no shortage of decrepit states and governments to which terrorist organisations can relocate like Somalia. It was obvious that if going in the objective was to topple a government, nation building would follow.

Yes, the US has a massive budget deficit and is in no position to fund wars, but equally I don't think you can morally justify bailing and seeing the people who trusted in your willingness to establish a semblance of a functioning state with human rights be rounded up and executed. Biden's plan of leaving a limited force to target terrorist activities will simply not be enough to prevent this. While the kind of parliamentary/ presidential democracy they're going for really has little chance of working because of the lack of pan-national trust and how dependant the political system is on patronage, I think a more decentralised model has a chance, and that's really what I think they should be aiming for.

>> ^RedSky:

>> ^Yogi:
I know that leaving wouldn't be a perfect option however it's still the only option. Many many more people will die if we stay. We went through the same thing in Vietnam when people thought we should stay, it's wrong and we shouldn't. Although there will probably be some horrific deaths, there will be thousands more if we stay. We must leave.
To be honest, I'm beginning to think more and more that it's your mess, and your responsibility to fix it. Going into Afghanistan was just as ridiculous as going into Iraq. What were the odds that a slow, advancing military force was going to seriously disrupt a fluid cross-national terrorist organisation, let alone catch a single terrorist in its dragnet? Yes, the Taliban openly sponsored Al Qaeda but this doesn't change the fact there is no shortage of decrepit states and governments to which terrorist organisations can relocate like Somalia. It was obvious that if going in the objective was to topple a government, nation building would follow.
Yes, the US has a massive budget deficit and is in no position to fund wars, but equally I don't think you can morally justify bailing and seeing the people who trusted in your willingness to establish a semblance of a functioning state with human rights be rounded up and executed. Biden's plan of leaving a limited force to target terrorist activities will simply not be enough to prevent this. While the kind of parliamentary/ presidential democracy they're going for really has little chance of working because of the lack of pan-national trust and how dependant the political system is on patronage, I think a more decentralised model has a chance, and that's really what I think they should be aiming for.


I disagree, I don't believe it was ridiculous or a mistake. I believe it was instituting a war of aggression which is considered the greatest international crime under the Nuremburg principles. So what happens when someone commits a War of Aggression against someone else? Do we call for them to stay and clean up the mess? No that's ridiculous because asking a population to accept the rule of those who caused them to be in this predicament is laughable. We wouldn't force the Nazi's to stay in Poland and clean up their mess...they have to leave and pay them reparations.

Which is I think the best thing we can do, leave and let possibly the UN or Red Crescent work with Afganistan trying to figure it out while paying reparations. And invading army isn't required to clean up their mess when their presence is what's causing the mess.

@Yogi, I disagree that Afghanistan was a "war of aggression."

Hypothetical situation: Let's say Sarah Palin and the Tea Party take over America's government, and a bunch of non-government militias start bombing France for being godless socialists. Let's say the Palin administration completely refuses to take action to stop them on her own. Worse, let's say she praises the militias and even provides them a bit of money & supplies to keep up the war on Socialism, which she says is evil.

In this situation, hasn't the USA declared war on France? Does France have no right to take military action in response?

I mean sure, Sarah would just nuke them with a wink and a smile, but it doesn't seem like France would be guilty of war crimes if they attacked the US for what's being done by those ostensibly non-government militias.

I'm not saying what we did and are doing with Afghanistan is good -- I think we should leave ASAP -- but I think calling it a war crime is a bit much.

Iraq is a whole other kettle of fish...

@Yogi

I think it's irrelevant what you call it, the pros and cons of any action given the current situation is all that matters. In making the comparison to Poland and Germany I don't think you're honestly considering them. There is every reason to believe should the US leave there will be mass bloodshed as a result of the current established balance of power and any purported reparations will be captured by the corrupt to fuel a continued cycle of violence.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by ctrlaltbleach.