Thought Obama was going to end the war?

[Jand3rson]

You thought wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike

"Although Obama has abandoned many of the "war on terror" policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders."

I wish I could see the look on the faces of all the people who voted for Obama with the sole intention that he was going to end the war and pull us out in the blink of an eye.

Pot stirred.

[ragged325]

This isn't some hot-button issue for me so I'm not going to get worked up about it. There are not many people that did not think we should go into Afghanistan and try to get Osama bin Laden. The problem people had was when we veered into Iraq. I don't see how people would be bothered by Obama trying to go after Osama bin Laden.

[Miasma]

^

[Jand3rson]

I'm not bothered by it either. But of the millions of people who critcized and hated Bush for actions like these, how many of Obama's faithful supporters are going to turn a blind eye to the exact same type of tactics? Will they criticize and hate Obama for it, or will they make whatever excuses they can to justify it, and maintain that new savior of America can do no wrong?

[ragged325]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Again, no one had a problem with the war in Afghanistan or the hunt for bin Laden. People didn't like that Bush tried to say that Iraq was behind 9/11 and was where the war needed to go. Obama has always said that we should have stayed focused on the hunt for bin Laden and al-quaida. Consider the pot not stirred.

[Dave]

Josh, if you had listened to Obama during the campaign, you'd know this is exactly what he was planning to do all along. No surpise.

[Jand3rson]

I'm not saying it's a surprise. Whether or not we're in Iraq is not the point. I'm saying that the 2 missile strikes killed 18 people. Of those 18, FIVE were suspected militants. Suspected.

No one is going to care now how many civilians are killed on the side, as long as the bad guys, or at least the people we think are the bad guys, get theirs, too. It's completely subjective reasoning. When it was being done by a president everyone hated, before we even went into Iraq, it was criticized to high hell by all the democrats and liberals because so many civilians were being killed. Now that it's still being carried out, but by a president all the democrats and liberals love, it's being considered "necessary", and "what he said he was going to do all along".

[E30 Wagen]

i think the public is most angry with Bush for misleading them about the threat of Hussein and his supposed stockpiles of wmd's, and refusing to admit that his plan to "liberate" Iraq had turned into a five year occupation of the country that we were paying 10 billion a month for.

It's a given that we're still going to be on the look out for Bin Laden, it just obviously can't be a priority.

[Jand3rson]

I guess. But you still can't ignore the point I'm trying to make.

[ragged325]

I think you're supporting the Fox, "straw man" argument that says that Democrats (which I'm not) are a bunch of pacifists who wanted to hand the terrorists flowers. That was never the case. Personally, I'm not a follower of Jesus and don't really believe in turning the other cheek. People were pissed off because they read the news and were adults during the Gulf War and understood that Saddam was a complete asshole and ruthless dictator, but not part of 9/11. They were upset that Bush was taking resources from the fight to get bin Laden and wasting them in a separate war.

[ban1]

If it was not Afghanistan it would be some other hole in the wall. Like Africa or South America. Southwest Asia aint the only hot zone in the world. Most people in that have been there say it beats Africa. Were you don't get all the tax free pay and you still have the threat of beening harmed.

[Jand3rson]

I think you're supporting the Fox, "straw man" argument that says that Democrats (which I'm not) are a bunch of pacifists who wanted to hand the terrorists flowers. That was never the case. Personally, I'm not a follower of Jesus and don't really believe in turning the other cheek. People were pissed off because they read the news and were adults during the Gulf War and understood that Saddam was a complete asshole and ruthless dictator, but not part of 9/11. They were upset that Bush was taking resources from the fight to get bin Laden and wasting them in a separate war.

I agree. But I'm not trying to support any argument, and I'm not a democrat, either (or a republican). I'm just making a point on the observation I've made. If it's "wrong", so be it. This is just what I'm seeing. I will say that my thread title is probably a bit off.

[kishg]

Josh, if you had listened to Obama during the campaign, you'd know this is exactly what he was planning to do all along. No surpise.

yup. in fact this was a central part of the campaign, end iraq, focus resources on going after the real perpetrators of 9/11. not sure why the OP is confused on this..

[z31maniac]

Makes me as happy as a pig in shit.

Means my job should be safe for at least a few more years.

[Vedubin01]

Just watch, Guantanamo will not be closed by the due date set by his executive order. His new $1 trillion bail out package will fall short of any stimulus and will only put this country deeper in debt. His double standards in picking his cabinet is sickening. From Tax cheats heading up the IRS and the federal reserve, to the lobbyist now working in the fields they lobbied, to Clinton being accepted after finding out their origination was accepting foreign monies.

Its only just begun........