92 replies to this topic

[Joker]

Whatever Happened To The Anti-War Movement?
by LINTON WEEKS


The United States is knee-deep in at least three international military conflicts at the moment

[Rionach aka Spec K]

I just had a conversation about this at the pub saturday night...
and how Ireland need a revolution

[TakeAStepBack]

Jersey Shore and Project runway were coming on. Had to go.....

[vic]

they vote democrat nowadays:V:

[Joker]

This would be an interesting union


[I]"And the $64,000 question

[elder]

I think a lot people are more worried about where their next paycheck is coming from, how to feed their family, pay the mortgage, etc.

Also, the media downplays these wars as much they can now, as compared to when Bush was ruler. Obama gets a free ride.

Noble Peace prize'd

[vic]

In the post, he points out that American protests against wars seemed to stop the moment Barack Obama was elected president in 2008. "Maybe anti-war organizers assumed that they had elected the man who would stop the war," he observes.

[TakeAStepBack]

lolcano!!

[Raynequeen]

make my kid go.... i'll hunt you down and hurt you.
give my kid a choice.... i'll tell my kid their options.

[doc]

If you voted for Obama on the platform that he would end the war in Iraq and close Gitmo you should be outraged. He's essentially continued all of Bush's foreign policy and extended the provisions of the Patriot Act. Other than refusing to call it a "War on Terror" Obama's done nothing he campaigned on from a foreign policy standpoint.

[Deadshow Dan]

I love how those who marginalize and ignore the antiwar movement come back and whine 'where did it go'

When I see anti war protest every week, at the least.

My favorite line from this article is "After all, the Tea Party has shown that it knows how to stage demonstrations." what a stinking pile that is!

They plan and plan and they get 200 people to show up and the media is all over it. Meanwhile, an antiwar, a pro-labor, a pro-taxing the rich demonstration pr protest will get thousands and thousands but get no media coverage. So it's not that they know how to stage demonstrations, it that since they are great tools for the fascist plutocracy they will get used like a cheap rag by the rags and Teevee and they get their publicity.

[Deadshow Dan]

If you voted for Obama on the platform that he would end the war in Iraq and close Gitmo you should be outraged. He's essentially continued all of Bush's foreign policy and extended the provisions of the Patriot Act. Other than refusing to call it a "War on Terror" Obama's done nothing he campaigned on from a foreign policy standpoint.

Gitmo is one thing.

But the President is on course for leaving Iraq and it's followed very closely to what he said he would do. He never promised an immediate withdrawal


Here are US deaths in Iraq by year. and troops levels are way down. If I recall correctly we'll see another drop in troop levels this summer to a very low amount, basically advisors.

<table class="Smalltable" id="GridView1" border="1" cellspacing="0" rules="all"><tbody><tr class="contactDept"><th scope="col">Year</th><th scope="col">US</th><th scope="col">
</th><th scope="col">
</th><th scope="col">
</th> </tr><tr> <td class="contact">2003</td><td class="contactNumber">486</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td> </tr><tr> <td class="contact">2004</td><td class="contactNumber">849</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td> </tr><tr> <td class="contact">2005</td><td class="contactNumber">846</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td> </tr><tr> <td class="contact">2006</td><td class="contactNumber">822</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td> </tr><tr> <td class="contact">2007</td><td class="contactNumber">904</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td> </tr><tr> <td class="contact">2008</td><td class="contactNumber">314</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td> </tr><tr> <td class="contact">2009</td><td class="contactNumber">149</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td> </tr><tr> <td class="contact">2010</td><td class="contactNumber">60</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td> </tr><tr> <td class="contact">2011</td><td class="contactNumber">17</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td><td class="contactNumber">
</td> </tr><tr class="contactDept"> <td>Total</td><td align="right">4447</td><td align="right">
</td><td align="right">
</td><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>

[IT_Buzz]

Obama and the Tea Party both decided there was too much money to be made in the death of other people.

[vic]

If I recall correctly we'll see another drop in troop levels this summer to a very low amount, basically occupiers while we still keep looking for an pro-OPEC puppet to be put in charge.

fixed that for ya

and what about afghanistan? got any pro-obama rhetoric to spew out about being there? there is no troop withdrawal in sight, and obama escalated the war there (at least he kept that promise)

[Deadshow Dan]

at the change. I can't argue with the looking for a pro-Opec guvmnt

While I might not agree with his Afghanistan policy, it is exactly (well, pretty darn close to ) what he campaigned on. As you mention

http://www.politifac...ts/afghanistan/

[doc]

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

[Uncle Coulro]

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kr9ywEFRQkQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Deadshow Dan]

He promised to bring combat troops home, and I believe he targeted that to happen during 2010. He kept that by removing all combat troops in 2010. As we know there are now 45,000 or so non-combat troops in Iraq that will leave by summers end. That is damn close in my book. And they have pretty darn much remained non-combat.. and only support
http://www.politifac.../subjects/iraq/ to see what he campaigned on and how he's done on that.

[Uncle Coulro]

As we know there are now 45,000 or so non-combat troops in Iraq

I spent a career as an Air Force officer, and I have no idea what the term "non-combat troops" means. US military members in Iraq carry weapons and they fire them at opposing forces. Seventy-seven US military and five force-providing contractors have been killed in 2010 and 2011 (so far.)

[TakeAStepBack]

"non-combat troops"

[TakeAStepBack]

And for some more comedy relief, Chuck Norris mauls a bear.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z2XUgE6g7XU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TakeAStepBack]

http://www.huffingto...e_n_847154.html

WASHINGTON — Eight months shy of its deadline for pulling the last American soldier from Iraq and closing the door on an 8-year war, the Pentagon is having second thoughts.

Reluctant to say it publicly, officials fear a final pullout in December could create a security vacuum, offering an opportunity for power grabs by antagonists in an unresolved and simmering Arab-Kurd dispute, a weakened but still active al-Qaida or even an adventurous neighbor such as Iran.

The U.S. wants to keep perhaps several thousand troops in Iraq, not to engage in combat but to guard against an unraveling of a still-fragile peace. This was made clear during Defense Secretary Robert Gates' visit Thursday and Friday in which he and the top U.S. commander in Iraq talked up the prospect of an extended U.S. stay.

How big a military commitment might the U.S. be willing to make beyond 2011? "It just depends on what the Iraqis want and what we're able to provide and afford," Gates said Thursday at a U.S. base in the northern city of Mosul where U.S. soldiers advise and mentor Iraqi forces. He said the U.S. would consider a range of possibilities, from staying an extra couple of years to remaining in Iraq as permanent partners.

Less clear is whether the Iraqis will ask for any extension.

Powerful political winds are blowing against such a move even as U.S. officials assert that Iraqi leaders – Sunni, Shiite and Kurd – are saying privately they see a need for help developing their air defenses and other military capabilities. U.S. training of Iraqi forces up to now has focused on combating an internal enemy, including al-Qaida, rather than external threats.

If the Iraqis choose not to ask for more help, then Dec. 31 probably will mark the end of U.S. military intervention that was so close to failing when Gates became Pentagon chief in December 2006. He once said the U.S. faced the prospect of a "strategic disaster" at the heart of the Middle East.

Meghan O'Sullivan, a top adviser on Iraq to President George W. Bush when his administration negotiated the 2008 security agreement that set upcoming deadline for a final U.S. military withdrawal, said time is too short to negotiate a full reworking of that legal pact.

"The question is, can both sides agree on something more modest but which still provides an adequate legal basis for a smaller number of American troops to stay in Iraq, with quite defined missions?" she said in an email exchange last week. O'Sullivan is a professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School.

[Deadshow Dan]

I spent a career as an Air Force officer, and I have no idea what the term "non-combat troops" means. US military members in Iraq carry weapons and they fire them at opposing forces. Seventy-seven US military and five force-providing contractors have been killed in 2010 and 2011 (so far.)

Troops not engaged in combat?

Even if you throw out that part. The President drastically reduced troops levels, then left under 50,000 troops that have substantially been out of combat since mid 2010. The rest (though not every single one) will be gone this summer. That is very much in line with what he campaigned on.

US military deaths in Iraq in 201 were less than 7% of the deaths in 2007, and less than 20% of the deaths in 2008.

We've wound down our military involvement in Iraq as promised. If the president follows through this summer, then you're just quibbing about timetables ... and I'm sure candidate Obama answered a question at some point that indicated adjustments might have to be made.

Personally I think there's very good reason to accelerate our leaving from Iraq , etc. but if you voted for candidate Obama based on his Iraq policy, you should be happy with the results of President Obama.

[Deadshow Dan]

[quote name='TakeAStepBack'][URL]http://www.huffingto...e_n_847154.html[/URL]

WASHINGTON

[TakeAStepBack]

Wanna bet?

I'll bet you bout tree fiddy on it?

[Uncle Coulro]

I spent a career as an Air Force officer, and I have no idea what the term "non-combat troops" means.

Troops not engaged in combat?

So anytime a military unit is not in active combat, they magically become "non-combat troops"? That seems like sophistry.
By the way, the President campaigned on completing removal of US forces from Iraq 16 months after inauguration.
Am I devastated he didn't keep his promise? No. It's likely the realities of the situation interfered. However, it doesn't change the fact that he over-promised and under-delivered, on this issue and many others.

[Joker]

I think a lot people are more worried about where their next paycheck is coming from, how to feed their family, pay the mortgage, etc.

Also, the media downplays these wars as much they can now, as compared to when Bush was ruler. Obama gets a free ride.

Noble Peace prize'd

Sadly this seems to be more the case than not.

[Joker]

Commentary: U.S. protests over wars, collective bargaining die down


George W. Bush may have had it right after all when he dismissed protests against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a

[Deadshow Dan]

Wanna bet?

I'll bet you bout tree fiddy on it?

I'd take a bet, but I'd want to discuss terms, etc.


Beer is the usual currency

[TakeAStepBack]

Fine. If he makes good and pulls ALL troops out by the December deadline, I'll travel to itown for a show and the drinks that night will be on me. If he DOESNT make good and we are still in conflict with the iraqi people come december, you must pick a show in the city, come down and the drinks are on you that night.

[Gypsy Bob]

Depends

[Deadshow Dan]

I'll talk terms offline, but you get to come to I-town and I have to go to NYC? errrr, that's not fair! So no

[Joker]

Non combat troops, what a load of shit they're trying to feed us



Iraq Withdrawal: What are Non-Combat Troops?


President Obama today stressed that America's plans for withdrawal from Iraq are on schedule. U.S. combat troops, he said, will be out of the country by the end of August, leaving about 50,000 "non-combat" troops who will leave by the end of 2011.

"Our commitment in Iraq is changing," he said, "from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats."

The implication is clear: The war - the combat phase of America's involvement in Iraq - is ending. Now all that's left is a civilian-led effort in which there will be no American combat presence.

But it's worth thinking a little bit more about what the role of American forces in Iraq will really be once our combat troops have left.

Last year, I asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to explain the difference between combat troops and "non-combat" troops. The "non-combat" troops, I noted, will still be capable of engaging the enemy. Gates insisted there would be a significant difference between the activities of combat and non-combat troops.

"All of the combat units will be out of Iraq by the end of August [2010] and those that are left will have a combat capability," he said. "There will be, as the president said, targeted counterterrorism operations. There will be continued embeds with some of the Iraqi forces in a training capacity and so on."

He continued: "So there will be the capability, but the units will be gone, and, more importantly, the mission will have changed. And so the notion of being engaged in combat in the way we have been up until now will be completely different."

So while the troops will be "non-combat," they will still be engaged in "targeted counterterrorism operations" and working and fighting alongside Iraqi forces, according to Gates.

The military and administration's parsing of combat and non-combat troops strikes many as amounting to a distinction without a difference. In February of last year, Washington Post Pentagon reporter Thomas Ricks stated flatly on CBSNews.com's "Washington Unplugged" that "There is no such thing as non-combat troops."

Meanwhile, violence and instability in Iraq is raising questions about to what degree American forces can really fade into the background without a negative impact on the country's security situation. In just the latest instance of the near-daily violence in the country, eight people were killed Monday in a pair of bombings and a drive-by shooting.

http://www.cbsnews.c...367-503544.html

[Deadshow Dan]

So anytime a military unit is not in active combat, they magically become "non-combat troops"? That seems like sophistry.
By the way, the President campaigned on completing removal of US forces from Iraq 16 months after inauguration.
Am I devastated he didn't keep his promise? No. It's likely the realities of the situation interfered. However, it doesn't change the fact that he over-promised and under-delivered, on this issue and many others.

Well, are we out of Germany? We still have troops there, they're not in combat.

Yes, that's not the same as Iraq. Or Korea.

But certainly it's true that combat operations are basically over in Iraq for the US. Yes, there are some exceptions.

Remember Obama said as a candidate "The pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability"

He said that many times. He always was clear that it was not a firm 16 month commitment. That was his goal.

Taking one sentence out of his speech and claiming that was his entire campaign comment, that see the sophistry

[Deadshow Dan]

Meanwhile, violence and instability in Iraq is raising questions about to what degree American forces can really fade into the background without a negative impact on the country's security situation. In just the latest instance of the near-daily violence in the country, eight people were killed Monday in a pair of bombings and a drive-by shooting.

8 months after this was written written we know the answer, US troops have largely faded into the background there.

[vic]

I'd take a bet, but I'd want to discuss terms, etc.


Beer is the usual currency

you should include in those terms whether or not there's ground troops in libya, or anywhere else

moving the war machine from point A to point B is still war, and civilians are still humans, and it's still murder...and there is absolutely no reason to be in afghanistan either, but he escalated the war there...dan, your defense of obama here is utter nonsense and downright bizarre and scary...you seem to just insist on remaining loyal to your team, and then you sugarcoat it with the mildest of mild criticisms

both of you making bets on this situation is kinda tasteless too

[TakeAStepBack]

Definitely tasteless.

[halfstar]

The change we need. Lols.

[TakeAStepBack]

But I'll add: Since most 'Mericans dont even pay attention or give a shit, a small friendly bet, while tasteless, is better than complete and total willfull ignorance.

[Joker]

But I'll add: Since most 'Mericans dont even pay attention or give a shit, a small friendly bet, while tasteless, is better than complete and total willfull ignorance.

At the least, it gives one a rooting interest

[Deadshow Dan]

moving the war machine from point A to point B is still war, and civilians are still humans, and it's still murder...and there is absolutely no reason to be in afghanistan either, but he escalated the war there...dan, your defense of obama here is utter nonsense and downright bizarre and scary...you seem to just insist on remaining loyal to your team, and then you sugarcoat it with the mildest of mild criticisms

The question isn't whether we're still at war, it was whether President Obama had somehow promised one thing and delivered another. What's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan are consistent with candidate Obama's positions .

That's what I've addressed. It's not nonsense, scary or bizarre for me to point out that clipping a few seconds of what candidate Obama said in an effort to portray him as reneging on a promise is wrong when in fact his entire position as a candidate is consistent with what he's done.

It's not a matter of being 'loyal to your team' unless by that you mean the truth.

[Joker]

ANTIWAR MOVEMENT REVITALIZED BY INDEPENDENTS AND THIRD PARTY GROUPS

According to a new study, the antiwar movement in the United States is now driven almost entirely by Independents and supporters of third parties. The findings have media outlets asking

[Joker]

The question isn't whether we're still at war, it was Whatever Happened To The Anti-War Movement?

[TakeAStepBack]

The question isn't whether we're still at war, it was whether President Obama had somehow promised one thing and delivered another. What's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan are consistent with candidate Obama's positions .

That's what I've addressed. It's not nonsense, scary or bizarre for me to point out that clipping a few seconds of what candidate Obama said in an effort to portray him as reneging on a promise is wrong when in fact his entire position as a candidate is consistent with what he's done.It's not a matter of being 'loyal to your team' unless by that you mean the truth.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kr9ywEFRQkQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm not even going to try and figure out how the hell you can get your head around these two things and put it together as "he kept the same position all along."

It's flabbergasting.

[Rionach aka Spec K]

bbbrrriiiinnnnnggggg back the 60s !

[gregoir]

there was never an anti war movement it was anti draft

[vic]

I'm not even going to try and figure out how the hell you can get your head around these two things and put it together as "he kept the same position all along."

It's flabbergasting.

spin spin spin

i'm dizzy

[Deadshow Dan]

Remember Obama said as a candidate "The pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability"

That's pretty straightforward.

Y'all act like troop levels rose in Iraq and US troops are in the middle of major combat operations in Iraq.

No, we largely withdrew , we're on the way out.

On this one, it's consistency between Obama the campaigner and President Obama.

You Obamattackers and other sorts would be better talking about Guantanamo, an area where there are big differences. We can talk about why the president and the campaigner are not consistent, but there it IS a departure from much of his platform in this area (though there is zero evidence that the type of cruel torture of the Bush administration is happening in Guantanamo in this administration).

[Deadshow Dan]

spin spin spin

i'm dizzy

If you stop spinning, then maybe you won't be so dizzy.

[Deadshow Dan]

The question isn't whether we're still at war, it was Whatever Happened To The Anti-War Movement?

Media does not cover the protests. Big or small (though any 'tea party' one gets massive coverage). I've been at 3 or 4 protest/rally since the beginning of March. I've seen more as I drive by.

The anti-war movement is just where it was.