>> ^xxovercastxx:

WP isn't the only one in a pocket reality. He did not advocate anything and, even if he had, he wouldn't be a war criminal. Get a grip.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Afghanistan-We-re-f-ing-losing-this-thing#comment-1025305'>^rougy</a>:<br />
You just advocated committing war crimes.<br> <br> You are a war criminal.<br><br><br><div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/Afghanistan-We-re-f-ing-losing-this-thing?loadcomm=1#comment-1025300" rel="nofollow"> Winstonfield_Pennypacker said</a>:<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/Winstonfield_Pennypacker"><img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/w/Winstonfield_Pennypacker-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"></a><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">I don't make the facts NR - I just accurately identify them. You win wars by targeting the infrastructures which allow your defined enemy to fight. These infrastructures are usually housed in dense civilian population centers and employ civilians as workers. If you go to war then you will inevitably blow up civilians and their stuff. Am I a fan of it? No. But that's how it is.<br></div></div></div></em>


Fuck you. He advocated targeting civilian populations. That is a war crime.

And you advocated the same thing. You think it's a good idea to kill innocent Afghanis, people who have not attacked the USA, nor will they ever, and that is a war crime as well.

You're both a couple of cunt war criminals and you should be hanged.

Grip on that.

You should both be killed.

Hey, I'm just doing what you're doing, same philosophy, exactly, but from the side of sanity.

See, in order to stop this war, we'll have to kill its supporters.

>> ^netean:

look at us. we can be just like the american's in EVERY way... winning the hearts and minds of regular Iraqis.
STOP THE WAR


You're an idiot...who were imperialist pricks first, huh? Yea that's right...

it's us Americans that learned from the best...

>> ^Trancecoach:
until we can put a stop to war--all war--the hypocrisy of state-sanctioned murder will result in a sociopathic citizenry.


you got it

until we can put a stop to war--all war--the hypocrisy of state-sanctioned murder will result in a sociopathic citizenry.

>> ^acidSpine:
Come to Australia. We've got more god-forsaken desert than you can beat a war drum at. You guys could bulldoze shit and build fuck off walls that would make the Chinese blush to your hearts content.

Australia will let 7-8 million immigrants in?

>> ^alizarin:
How does "stop committing war crimes" lead to "I have to move"? Just stop committing war crimes.

Aside from the white phosphorous, which is illegal and over which there was a big debate and investigation here recently, everything else in this "creepy music" video is just war. Funny how no one is bothered by rockets being placed inside a UN facility, but later are horrified at it becoming a military target.

>> ^Asmo:
Are you a war criminal? If so, move directly to jail or hell, your choice.
If you aren't, how about standing up against Israelis who are? Then mebbe one day there will be a lasting peace between the Israelis and the former owners of the country you now occupy.

Lovely optimism. Nice cut-and-dry war-criminal/innocent terminology there too. I've been hearing about lasting peace ever since I was old enough to understand that some people will blow themselves up for the opportunity to kill me. I would also love to hear about American plans to restore the rights of the former owners of the currently-occupied United States, aka the Native Americans.

--------------------------------------

What most people don't seem to grasp, is that there's no one to make peace with at the moment. Fatah controls the west bank mostly, and Hamas controls Gaza. Those two organizations are currently AT WAR with each other. Neither group can be said to be in power over a clear majority of the Palestinian population, and Hamas has made it clear that it will never accept any agreement Fatah makes with Israel.

I want peace. Every Israeli you ask will tell you the same thing. But I want to live, also. I want to be safe. And at the moment, I can't feel safe if I know there's a chance my bus could explode or that a random rocket might land on my roof.

Imagine for a moment that Iraq wasn't on the other side of the world, but rather, shared a border with the US. Let's say in the south. Instead of Mexico.
Now imagine suicide bombers were crossing into Texas on a daily basis, and some terrorist group was firing rockets from Tijuana on San Diego at a rate of 10-15 rockets a day. What would you want your government to do?

>> ^demon_ix:
OK, you win. I'll pack up my stuff and move to.... Wait, where exactly do you want the Israelis to move to?


How does "stop committing war crimes" lead to "I have to move"? Just stop committing war crimes.

>> ^archer:
>> ^ForgedReality:
He's spending more money that we do not have that us taxpayers are going to have to be paying back for many years to come. We're trillions of dollars in debt, and yet he feels it's justified to go spend billions more on wars we can't afford to be in right now; wars in which we really have no right to be involved.
The national debt grew by 46% during the GWB years, from 5,727,776,738,304.64 on the day he was sworn in
to 10,628,881,485,510.20 on the day he left office.
That, in contrast Clinton's eight years with a modest 27% increase from 4,188,092,107,183.60
to 5,727,776,738,304.64.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov
The debt now stands at 11,648,548,144,569.70, about 1 trillion since Bush left office and Obama came on stage.
With actual facts, I'm not sure I understand the "justification" to stop spending. Apparently a Republican president can start two wars and fight them indefinitely while nearly doubling the national debt, while a democrat must immediately stop both wars and be a fiscal conservative.


1) 46%? Better check that arithmetic.

2) Anyone who claims to know exactly how a given amount of debt will affect the economy, or how much debt we can accrue before a total collapse of the fiscal system is full of it. The global economy and the United States' role in it is totally unprecedented, and everyone is just guessing. Clinton's advisers guessed that balancing the budget would boost confidence and spur economic growth. Cheney is on record saying that there's no problem with deficits forever. Obama's guys think borrowing money from China to fuel a recovery makes sense.

Even with hindsight we don't know how much Clinton's policies caused the Boom of the 90's, or Bush's spending caused the recessions of his presidency. There were too many other factors at work to lay all the credit at the feet of the government. Similarly, we may be able to rack up debt for decades with few consequences, or our creditors could get fed up and the US could be forced to default within 6 months.

If the best economic minds in the country don't know how best to balance spending and debt. It's unlikely that any sifters or the talking heads we listen to do either.

>> ^ForgedReality:
He's spending more money that we do not have that us taxpayers are going to have to be paying back for many years to come. We're trillions of dollars in debt, and yet he feels it's justified to go spend billions more on wars we can't afford to be in right now; wars in which we really have no right to be involved.

The national debt grew by 46% during the GWB years, from 5,727,776,738,304.64 on the day he was sworn in
to 10,628,881,485,510.20 on the day he left office.

That, in contrast Clinton's eight years with a modest 27% increase from 4,188,092,107,183.60
to 5,727,776,738,304.64.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov

The debt now stands at 11,648,548,144,569.70, about 1 trillion since Bush left office and Obama came on stage.

With actual facts, I'm not sure I understand the "justification" to stop spending. Apparently a Republican president can start two wars and fight them indefinitely while nearly doubling the national debt, while a democrat must immediately stop both wars and be a fiscal conservative.

Well one of the arguments that conservatives use consistently is that they dont trust the government to run their healthcare. Stewart was arguing that the program being run by the government was in fact a good, well constructed program. Now what we need to do is create a similar program that is less costly.

Orrrr we could just stop fighting wars we dont belong in and save money for healthcare that way.
I keep hearing about the 1 trillion dollar price tag on a new health care plan, but the Iraq War to date has cost the US $860 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01glanz.html?pagewanted=all
Not to sound like a hippy douche but we need to get patriotic about something BESIDES war.

In reply to this comment by rebuilder:
Oh FFS. I think public healthcare is a fine idea, but this clip is just a load of bull. Kristol is saying that U.S. soldiers get expensive, quality medical services paid by the state that, if offered to everyone, would be too costly, but the soldiers have earned it. Stewart ignores the cost issue and uses this as proof the state should, in fact, provide a similar level of care to everyone.

Whether or not the state can provide good healthcare services at a high cost is not the issue. The question is whether the state can provide it at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. I think yes, but I can still see there is no good argument being made here for that point of view.

Well one of the arguments that conservatives use consistently is that they dont trust the government to run their healthcare. Stewart was arguing that the program being run by the government was in fact a good, well constructed program. Now what we need to do is create a similar program that is less costly.

Orrrr we could just stop fighting wars we dont belong in and save money for healthcare that way.
I keep hearing about the 1 trillion dollar price tag on a new health care plan, but the Iraq War to date has cost the US $860 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01glanz.html?pagewanted=all
Not to sound like a hippy douche but we need to get patriotic about something BESIDES war.

"As the one guy who's never smoked dope, Penn Says, STOP the war on drugs now!"

That pretty much sums up the Libertarian idea, doesn't it?

I especially like the part where he says we'll need Lieberman's help to stop the Iraq war.

1. Lieberman voted against the Democrats on Iraq, with gusto.
2. Lieberman not only campaigned against Obama, he even stumped for Republican Senate candidates.
3. We don't need Congress to stop the war when the Commander in Chief is President Obama.

I'm somewhat comforted at the thought that they can strip his committee chair in mid-session, but I think politically they don't want to engage in something like that, since there'd be a press feeding frenzy.

It's like ripping off a bandaid, they just need to do it quickly, and move on.

I appreciate the Real News' attempts to retain a bipartisan, objective view by doing hard-hitting reporting on both Democrats and Republicans, and pointing out the shortcomings of both.

However, they always seem to have "experts" who vastly overreach in their conclusions. Yes, the Democratic party leadership made the Machiavellian decision to feign powerlessness to stop the war so they could use it again in 2008.

Yes, Rahm Emanuel cracked heads and kept the Democratic party in line with that strategy, even down at the electoral level.

However, there's no reason to assume that Rahm agreed with the Iraq war. Now that there's no strategic advantage in continuing it there's no reason to doubt that he will be cracking the heads of pro-war Democrats to get them to help stop it.

Further, there's no reason to assume that Obama picking Emanuel means that Obama is in favor of continuing the war -- it just means he wants a Machiavellian ball-breaker as his Chief of Staff.

As someone who's been reading/watching/listening to almost every piece of news about Obama for nearly two years, I gotta say this guy is talking out his ass when he moves from the facts into speculation. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.

As for holding Obama to his promises about restoring justice and the Constitution, he's absolutely right. I'm watching for his Treasury Secretary at the forefront right now, but I'm going to be watching who he picks for AG just as closely, once we start hearing noises about it.

Prophet? I don't get it.

>> ^NordlichReiter:


The war then was a different war then the war now in that we needed to stop the war. Every one, even the enemy.
The wars now are for prophet, and for those in power to ensure that they still have jobs, because all they know is how to steal liberties under the false banner of democracy.
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither - ben franklin.

EDIT: Bold Comment written as is on purpose.

The war then was a different war then the war now in that we needed to stop the war. Every one, even the enemy.
The wars now are for prophet, and for those in power to ensure that they still have jobs, because all they know is how to steal liberties under the false banner of democracy.
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither - ben franklin.


EDIT: Bold Comment written as is on purpose.