T Nation

Obama: Every Bit the Warmonger Bush Was


#1

I want to pull out of everywhere now. I wanted "change." Where is it? Why are we still trying to civilize the Arabs and Pashtuns?

Discuss.


#2

Maybe just maybe, none of them where Warmonger's.


#3

Uhh.. there's quite a lot of change. Whether you people like it or not is the question.

Shitty "prompt", but I don't expect much more from you PR.


#4

Politics 101: Say one thing, do another.

Out of sight, out of mind. Seems health care is the new crisis we all need to be rescued from, not our boys and girls being overseas.


#5

Because we still want their stuff.

And because they're bad.


#6

...oh, and because the President doesn't actually dictate foreign policy, he only does what his handlers tell him to.

But of course, you already knew that.


#7

I know the far left conveniently closed their ears when Obama said he would pull out of Iraq and put more resources into Afghanistan, but I thought the far right would have noticed. Obama campaigned on putting more resources into Afghanistan. If you didn't notice, well, that says more about you than anything else:

Try googling "Obama campaign Afghanistan." It took me about 30 sec to find the above.


#8

Some in the anti-war/non-interventionist crowd are asking this question. Some feel betrayed, while others say, "I told you so." Heck, some were never anti-war as much as they were anti-republican. Either way, the media isn't going to give them the kind of coverage they did when a Republican was in charge.


#9

I do think the "far right" noticed. That is, if we define the far right by the Hannity and Limbaugh types. Not only did they notice, but I think it's one of the few areas in which they cheer Obama on. Have to win in Afghanistan! Though they do point out how little attention the anti-war movement gets in the media now.

If we look at the Ron Paul/Buchanan types (libertarian and Paleo "far right"), they too noticed. That is, the non-interventionist (or at least close to it) right. Noticed, and warned the anti-war movement that they would be dissapointed.

It seems to me that the lefty anti-war types were inexplicably caught by surprise. And, they can't figure out why they're not getting the same kind of attention they had with the previous administration.


#10

Interesting. I don't generally watch/listen to them, so I didn't realize they actually gave credit for anything. I tried a google videos search quickly, but didn't come up with anything.

Agreed. I have no idea how people are "surprised" by Obama's stated actions. As to why they are not getting more airtime... I think part of it might be media bias, but I think a lot more has to do with the economy and healthcare.


#11

It's very simple. During your campaign, tell people what they want to hear to get elected. Once elected, do whatever the hell you want and pray the public stays stupid and quiet, and won't question your motives or actions.


#12

I love this forum so god-damn much.


#13

Yeah, let me rephrase that. Not so much giving him credit, as not opposing a build up or reconcerted effort in Afghanistan. They might possibly say he isn't doing enough, but they're certainly not going to paint him as a warmonger for his Afghanistan efforts. In short, they're not going yell about him not pulling out.


#14

He stated from the beginning of his campaign that they're going to stay in Afghanistan for a while.


#15

They either a) have no stuff as in the case of the Pashtuns or b) have stuff that is not worth the trouble, as in the case of the oil in Iraq. And everyone knows it. I think these guys get into office and say to themselves, "Hey, I've got a powerful military! How can I use other people's kids to look tough on ________?"

Anyways, Afghanistan started in 2001 - almost a freaking decade ago.


#16

The Ron Paul/Buchanan types ARE the far right, and they basically agree with the far left on foreign policy. "Invade the world, invite the world, in hoc to the world" is not a sustainable national policy.

Hannity and Limbaugh are neo-con blowhards and Republican shills.


#17

We need 2 more brigades for a war started 9 years ago? What are we, the Soviets? We need to give the Pashtuns $1 billion of our money in the middle of Great Depression II?

This empire thing is working the wrong way. In a normal empire, you're supposed to tax the conquered people so that the people of the homeland make more money. So instead of discouraging poppy growth and giving them money, we should encourage poppy growth and TAKE their money (or at least part of it) - the money they get from the proceeds. We've got it completely ass-backwards.

But something tells me the check I'd receive in the mail wouldn't be worth it. And I really don't want Pashtuns moving here claiming some bogus "refugee status" because we've occupied their territory. Look at Britain and all the Pakistanis moving their now. We don't need to move the Taliban into our backyards.


#18

Longer than that. More like 1979. Which is over three freaking decades.

But don't take my word for it, let's hear from the guy who was calling the shots at the time... and who is arguably still calling the shots today, Z Big Man himself.

(From an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998


#19

It's laughable that Brzezinski claims he helped bankrupt the Soviets through "their Vietnam" - what unbelievable hubris. The Russians had been conquering Central Asian countries for 500 years before Afghanistan. The Soviets bankrupted themselves the same way we're bankrupting ourselves: spending money they don't have on systems that produce nothing but poverty.

I honestly feel like a sap for ever going into the military when I read crap like this.


#20

Well, with the possible exception of natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, and precious and semiprecious stones.

Oh, I think they think it's plenty worth the trouble,"they" being the Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, the Mongols, the British, the Soviets, and the Americans.

Afghanistan is tremendously strategically placed, not only bordering Iran, Pakistan, and even, for a small stretch, China but, most important, sharing borders and a common religion with the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union: Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These in turn border Kazakhstan, which borders Russia.

Central Asia is strategic not only for its vast deposits of oil, but more important for its strategic position. Were Washington to take control of these Republics, NATO would have military bases in the following key areas: the Baltic region; the Balkans and Turkey; and these Republics. This would constitute a noose around Russia's neck.

I think that Obama's probably not bright enough to think in this manner, but his keepers certainly are. Z Big Man undoubtedly knew it in his bones back in 1979.

Thus The Great Game continues, virtually without pause, since 1813.

That's nineteen and a half freaking decades.