Has the Anti-War Left, Left?

[quote]John S. wrote:
It’s been how long since he has been in office and he is expanding the wars, unless the anti-war, civil liberty group is full of people with down syndrome what exactly are they not getting? Until I see them protest again I am standing by most of them where paid activists.[/quote]

Exactly what the fuck are you talking about? Where is the expansion of the Iraq War?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hirMu7qwFrK3kKfb8r3eqz6G2ClA

If you’re going to spout bullshit make sure it’s got at least a couple facts behind it.

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Part of why Obama won was the republican nominee was so weak.[/quote]

You will get no arguments from me on that one.[/quote]

The powers that control america , does so by giving us two choices. we really need to be able to vote for none of the above

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
It’s been how long since he has been in office and he is expanding the wars, unless the anti-war, civil liberty group is full of people with down syndrome what exactly are they not getting? Until I see them protest again I am standing by most of them where paid activists.[/quote]

Exactly what the fuck are you talking about? Where is the expansion of the Iraq War?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hirMu7qwFrK3kKfb8r3eqz6G2ClA

If you’re going to spout bullshit make sure it’s got at least a couple facts behind it.[/quote]

Expanded Afghanistan, expanded the war into Pakistan. Do some research and then come back.

Didn’t Obama promise 16 months and we would be out of Iraq? Again he is a liar, come on say it with me Obama lied people died!

To all those who wonder why I question the movement, take a good hard look at Irish, he is what I think most of the anti-war left was, a bunch of bullshit that stopped carrying the second Obama got into office.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Expanded Afghanistan, expanded the war into Pakistan. Do some research and then come back.

Didn’t Obama promise 16 months and we would be out of Iraq? Again he is a liar, come on say it with me Obama lied people died![/quote]

He has expanded the war in Afghanistan, but the massed protests were predominantly against the Iraq War. That’s the war that I was against, and that’s the war that he is ending- as he said he was going to.

And what US troops have gone into Pakistan? The Pakistanis have elevated the war themselves by committing troops, but we’re still in Afghanistan fighting. This is not like Nixon lying about going into Cambodia- we are fighting in those borderlands, as we have been for near a decade now.

Admit it- you fucked up when you posted this, and you know it.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
Expanded Afghanistan, expanded the war into Pakistan. Do some research and then come back.

Didn’t Obama promise 16 months and we would be out of Iraq? Again he is a liar, come on say it with me Obama lied people died![/quote]

He has expanded the war in Afghanistan, but the massed protests were predominantly against the Iraq War. That’s the war that I was against, and that’s the war that he is ending- as he said he was going to.

And what US troops have gone into Pakistan? The Pakistanis have elevated the war themselves by committing troops, but we’re still in Afghanistan fighting. This is not like Nixon lying about going into Cambodia- we are fighting in those borderlands, as we have been for near a decade now.

Admit it- you fucked up when you posted this, and you know it. [/quote]

We are sending drone strikes into pakistan, Obama has done far more then bush did.

The protests where against both wars and you know it, stop trying to spin it into what the liberal media tried to spin it into. Many may have supported sending in a small force into Afghanistan to capture him but not a full on invasion.

Obama promised in 16 months we would be out of Iraq, guess what its been past 16 months we are not out, get out there and protest or admit you are a partisan hack.

Again say it with me, Obama lied people died!

[quote]John S. wrote:
We are sending drone strikes into pakistan, Obama has done far more then bush did.
[/quote]

That’s ridiculous. Bush started both wars.

Ahh ok, so now you’ve got your finger on the pulse of the American liberal. You know what we wanted, right from the start.

And of course, it’s the media’s fault.

Man, you guys aren’t even original anymore.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
We are sending drone strikes into pakistan, Obama has done far more then bush did.
[/quote]

That’s ridiculous. Bush started both wars.

Ahh ok, so now you’ve got your finger on the pulse of the American liberal. You know what we wanted, right from the start.

And of course, it’s the media’s fault.

Man, you guys aren’t even original anymore. [/quote]

Read the first statement again, and go check some facts, Obama has sent more drone strikes into pakistan then bush, that is a fact.

The real anti war movement was started by the independents, the liberal hijacked it and are now claiming like you claimed it was only against Iraq. I am calling out the anti-war left, you know left=liberal(american).

Can’t wait for your next post.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Read the first statement again, and go check some facts, Obama has sent more drone strikes into pakistan then bush, that is a fact.
[/quote]

If you meant drones into Pakistan, then yes I will agree. But Afghanistan, during the Bush years, was not the primary focus- Iraq was- even though Afghanistan SHOULD have been.

[quote]
The real anti war movement was started by the independents, the liberal hijacked it and are now claiming like you claimed it was only against Iraq. I am calling out the anti-war left, you know left=liberal(american).

Can’t wait for your next post.[/quote]

I, and many liberals like me, saw no need for the Iraq War. For you to claim that independents started it is kind of laughable, but you believe what you want I guess.

Sure, some felt that way about Afghanistan also, but I was as on the fence about beginning it as I am about continuing it. The Taliban, and Al-Queda, were directly responsible for 9.11, so I could understand the argument about the necessity of invading. However, I’ve always considered the wars two seperate entities, and always got on Bush for not putting more troops in to fight in Afghanistan initially instead of relying on the corrupt-as-fuck Northern Alliance to do the ground fighting for us.

And being as there’s really not many liberals besides me that visit the Blowjob Barn in this dark ugly cellar of T-Nation, I doubt anyone gives a rats ass who you “call out.”

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I, and many liberals like me, saw no need for the Iraq War. For you to claim that independents started it is kind of laughable, but you believe what you want I guess.

Sure, some felt that way about Afghanistan also, but I was as on the fence about beginning it as I am about continuing it. The Taliban, and Al-Queda, were directly responsible for 9.11, so I could understand the argument about the necessity of invading. However, I’ve always considered the wars two seperate entities, and always got on Bush for not putting more troops in to fight in Afghanistan initially instead of relying on the corrupt-as-fuck Northern Alliance to do the ground fighting for us.

And being as there’s really not many liberals besides me that visit the Blowjob Barn in this dark ugly cellar of T-Nation, I doubt anyone gives a rats ass who you “call out.”[/quote]

Oh believe me I talk about this more then just on T-Nation, I live in a liberal town and I say the same thing to them all the time. Gets them so mad being called out on their hypocrisy. You may have considered the wars two separate things, but when I talk to the real anti war people they are against all the wars. Many liberals around here oppose afghanistan, they say they would have supported a small force going in and getting the people responsible but a full on invasion of a country was not justified.

The anti war movement sprang out of the independents and the liberals seeing a chance to regain power jumped on the bandwagen.(this is where you point out the GOP is doing the same thing with the tea party)

Not sure why you keep bringing Bush into this, have you still not gotten over you bush derangement syndrome yet? Its been 18 months man its time to get over it and look at what the current president is doing. If you haven’t realized it yet I am not a fan of Bush, infact I call Bush and Obama the same guy, and have refered to Obama many times as Bush’s third term.

Again I will point out, Obama on the campaign trail promised all troops out of Iraq 16 months after he got into office. What is your response to this. If we are not out by August, another promise he made after the elections, will you be inclined to start protesting him?

At what point do you as a liberal say enough is enough? Or is it as long as Obama is president you won’t say anything?

[quote]John S. wrote:
Oh believe me I talk about this more then just on T-Nation, I live in a liberal town and I say the same thing to them all the time. Gets them so mad being called out on their hypocrisy. You may have considered the wars two separate things, but when I talk to the real anti war people they are against all the wars. Many liberals around here oppose afghanistan, they say they would have supported a small force going in and getting the people responsible but a full on invasion of a country was not justified.
[/quote]

Oh I get it. So now there’s “real” antiwar people and “fake” antiwar people, huh? And you, again, clearly have your finger on the pulse of what every liberal thinks, enough that you could declare some real and some fake. Got it.

Maybe that’s how the people you talk with feel, but it’s not been the general feeling with the people, and liberals, that I’ve talked to.

No, I don’t care about the teabaggers or what they’re doing, its irrelevant to this discussion. Plenty of liberals opposed the war, and again, you have no fucking idea why they did, you just know whatever your dimwit college friends have told you.

So please don’t generalize about who or why we opposed the war. Thanks.

Oh right, there’s a new guy in office so all history is irrelevant, especially the past decade that led us to where we are now. Thanks for pointing that one out.

I did not expect him to just get up and leave Iraq. The draw down that we are currently undergoing is fine for me. And I know a little bit more than to hold any politician, even ones I like, to their word when they’re on the campaign trail.

But regardless, I will not be happy if by the end of his term, we still have troops in Iraq. I didn’t want them there in the first place and I don’t want them there now.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Oh I get it. So now there’s “real” antiwar people and “fake” antiwar people, huh? And you, again, clearly have your finger on the pulse of what every liberal thinks, enough that you could declare some real and some fake. Got it.

Maybe that’s how the people you talk with feel, but it’s not been the general feeling with the people, and liberals, that I’ve talked to.

No, I don’t care about the teabaggers or what they’re doing, its irrelevant to this discussion. Plenty of liberals opposed the war, and again, you have no fucking idea why they did, you just know whatever your dimwit college friends have told you.

So please don’t generalize about who or why we opposed the war. Thanks.

Oh right, there’s a new guy in office so all history is irrelevant, especially the past decade that led us to where we are now. Thanks for pointing that one out.

I did not expect him to just get up and leave Iraq. The draw down that we are currently undergoing is fine for me. And I know a little bit more than to hold any politician, even ones I like, to their word when they’re on the campaign trail.

But regardless, I will not be happy if by the end of his term, we still have troops in Iraq. I didn’t want them there in the first place and I don’t want them there now. [/quote]

What I call real are the ones still out there holding up signs protesting the war, still holding rallies, that is what I call a real activist. I can tell you what the movement started on because after Obama got back into office the ones who started it(the independents) are the ones still out there trying to make a statement.

Don’t generalize why we think? So don’t group a person who idenitfies himself as a collective? I don’t think anything else needs to be said about your second statement.(and I talk with people much older then you I don’t associate with college kids that often, and when I do its to drink not to talk politics.)

did not say the past was irrelevent, but you are unable to critize Obama for doing what Bush did. You continue to point to Bush and say look what he did, but when Obama does the same thing you let it go. I am asking you to realize a new person is in office making the same mistakes as the last one.

So since you like to use Bush so much allow me to use him for a second. When bush was winding down the war, he had a withdraw date of July 2010, you where all raging that we should just get out we had no reason to be there and 2010 was way to long, now your guy gets in office and you are fine with it? So it would be fair to say you have had a change of heart and now approve of Bush’s exit stratagy?

[quote]John S. wrote:

What I call real are the ones still out there holding up signs protesting the war, still holding rallies, that is what I call a real activist. I can tell you what the movement started on because after Obama got back into office the ones who started it(the independents) are the ones still out there trying to make a statement.
[/quote]

Oh clearly. I see them on every street corner “making their statements.” How did I miss them?

And I’m saying he isn’t. Instead of putting more troops in Iraq, he’s reducing the number greatly and quickly and focusing on the bigger, more dangerous war in Afghanistan- which I’ve said is what I wanted Bush to do in the first place.

How that is the same, I don’t understand, because it strikes me as a strategy of going after who actually is responsible for terrorism, as opposed to blindfolding themselves and pointing to a country on the map they wish to invade.

Bullshit. In april 2007 Congress passed a spending bill that would have set a timetable for withdrawl- and Bush vetoed it.

"As recently as May 2007, Bush had defiantly declared: “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength.”

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5glz91oS2gfjNeEnc434cozHuQynA

Once again, get your facts straight.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Oh clearly. I see them on every street corner “making their statements.” How did I miss them?

And I’m saying he isn’t. Instead of putting more troops in Iraq, he’s reducing the number greatly and quickly and focusing on the bigger, more dangerous war in Afghanistan- which I’ve said is what I wanted Bush to do in the first place.

How that is the same, I don’t understand, because it strikes me as a strategy of going after who actually is responsible for terrorism, as opposed to blindfolding themselves and pointing to a country on the map they wish to invade.

Bullshit. In april 2007 Congress passed a spending bill that would have set a timetable for withdrawl- and Bush vetoed it.

"As recently as May 2007, Bush had defiantly declared: “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength.”

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5glz91oS2gfjNeEnc434cozHuQynA

Once again, get your facts straight.[/quote]

Because the anti war movement has joined with the campaign for liberty movement. You are still seeing them, when you see that group(and there is a few others) you are seeing the anti war movement.

He is not rapidly reducing troup strength in Iraq, because he knows the second he pulls all the troops out the car bombs will come back in full force. Sure we don’t need as many there now as we did during the war but if you think he is pulling all the troops out you are going to be dissapointed.(I happen to have a friend who just got called over there).

And for your final point, I will go to Media matters to show you just how wrong you are. http://mediamatters.org/research/201006270005 p.s. I was wrong about the withdrawl date it was no troops would be in Iraq after december 31st 2011, with it starting in July 2010.

I believe this sinking ship shows where your argument is going, please re-group and try again.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Because the anti war movement has joined with the campaign for liberty movement. You are still seeing them, when you see that group(and there is a few others) you are seeing the anti war movement.
[/quote]

Haha. Campaign for liberty huh? You’re making this up, right?

You might want to tell these guys, because they (apparently foolishly) believe that the war’s ending. And judging the war by your friend is like judging global warming by the thermometer in your yard. You’re smarter than that, aren’t you?

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/drawdown-in-iraq-the-lights-are-going-out/

[quote]
And for your final point, I will go to Media matters to show you just how wrong you are. http://mediamatters.org/research/201006270005 p.s. I was wrong about the withdrawl date it was no troops would be in Iraq after december 31st 2011, with it starting in July 2010.

I believe this sinking ship shows where your argument is going, please re-group and try again.[/quote]

LOL. Yes I saw that before you even posted it. 2011 was too late, absolutely, to begin the withdrawl. And I’m glad that by the time he reached literally his last few months in office, he was willing to talk about withdrawing.

I guess it’s easy to call my argument a sinking ship when you’re just making up facts as you go along and basing your argument on friends’ army assignments, huh? Whatever you like.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
Because the anti war movement has joined with the campaign for liberty movement. You are still seeing them, when you see that group(and there is a few others) you are seeing the anti war movement.
[/quote]

Haha. Campaign for liberty huh? You’re making this up, right?

You might want to tell these guys, because they (apparently foolishly) believe that the war’s ending. And judging the war by your friend is like judging global warming by the thermometer in your yard. You’re smarter than that, aren’t you?

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/drawdown-in-iraq-the-lights-are-going-out/

[quote]
And for your final point, I will go to Media matters to show you just how wrong you are. http://mediamatters.org/research/201006270005 p.s. I was wrong about the withdrawl date it was no troops would be in Iraq after december 31st 2011, with it starting in July 2010.

I believe this sinking ship shows where your argument is going, please re-group and try again.[/quote]

LOL. Yes I saw that before you even posted it. 2011 was too late, absolutely, to begin the withdrawl. And I’m glad that by the time he reached literally his last few months in office, he was willing to talk about withdrawing.

I guess it’s easy to call my argument a sinking ship when you’re just making up facts as you go along and basing your argument on friends’ army assignments, huh? Whatever you like.[/quote]

The water is already up to your neck and you are still refusing the life preserver, oh well when 2012 rolls around and you still see troops/contractors in Iraq maybe then you will abandon ship.

I have not made up any facts, you are the one who said bush never gave a withdrawl date, till I showed you, you where wrong.

take a few days off do some research and try again.

[quote]John S. wrote:

The water is already up to your neck and you are still refusing the life preserver, oh well when 2012 rolls around and you still see troops/contractors in Iraq maybe then you will abandon ship.

I have not made up any facts, you are the one who said bush never gave a withdrawl date, till I showed you, you where wrong.

take a few days off do some research and try again.[/quote]

Ah so now he’s expanding the Iraq War, even though there’s troops LEAVING! The shit never stops with you huh?

I hope you’re majoring in political science, because only a politician could twist words like that and then call them facts!!

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

The water is already up to your neck and you are still refusing the life preserver, oh well when 2012 rolls around and you still see troops/contractors in Iraq maybe then you will abandon ship.

I have not made up any facts, you are the one who said bush never gave a withdrawl date, till I showed you, you where wrong.

take a few days off do some research and try again.[/quote]

Ah so now he’s expanding the Iraq War, even though there’s troops LEAVING! The shit never stops with you huh?

I hope you’re majoring in political science, because only a politician could twist words like that and then call them facts!![/quote]

Just take the life preserver man, its much better then drowning.

Be a little bit fair, John. If Obama was to order the invasion of Iran tomorrow, you know that you would see people protesting here, in the streets and all over the place. And Iran poses unarguably more of a threat to the U.S. national security than Iraq ever did. And then there was the whole Bush rhetoric that is nowhere to be heard from Obama.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Be a little bit fair, John. If Obama was to order the invasion of Iran tomorrow, you know that you would see people protesting here, in the streets and all over the place. And Iran poses unarguably more of a threat to the U.S. national security than Iraq ever did. And then there was the whole Bush rhetoric that is nowhere to be heard from Obama.[/quote]

I will actually agree with Lixy here, but I would back Obama if he decided to go into Iran. We have the strategic stranglehold on them right now. If I was president, if they so much as sneezed they would become a “glass parking lot.” I heard that in the request to forum mods. Obama needs to grow a backbone and remind the world that we are the strongest country in the world. He has shown we are weak by wanting to please everyone, but his citizens.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]lixy wrote:
Be a little bit fair, John. If Obama was to order the invasion of Iran tomorrow, you know that you would see people protesting here, in the streets and all over the place. And Iran poses unarguably more of a threat to the U.S. national security than Iraq ever did. And then there was the whole Bush rhetoric that is nowhere to be heard from Obama.[/quote]

I will actually agree with Lixy here, but I would back Obama if he decided to go into Iran. We have the strategic stranglehold on them right now. If I was president, if they so much as sneezed they would become a “glass parking lot.” I heard that in the request to forum mods. Obama needs to grow a backbone and remind the world that we are the strongest country in the world. He has shown we are weak by wanting to please everyone, but his citizens. [/quote]

Everyone knows we’re the strongest. Going out of way to show them makes enemies of all nations, and leads to our own downfall.