Back when Obama was campaigning for President he said he would use talk and reason to settle our differences with other countries. I’m sure a great number of people voted for him just because of that promise. What has he done? He is now deciding how many more troops to send in harm’s way in Afghanistan. The following article by Ron Paul outlines our foolish involvement in that country and points out the lack of any real reason to be involved over there.
He has started a withdrawal from Iraq but there will be permanent bases there into the future. That is hardly withdrawal. It will be the same with Afghanistan if and when there is a withdrawal from Afghanistan. His idea of a peaceful solution to our differences seems to be placing troops in their countries. That is certainly not peaceful, it is aggressive.
We the people are still waiting to see his pursuit of a more peaceful foreign policy.
To Quote Ron Paul:
“However, the saddest shortcoming of this administration is its utter failure to pursue a more peaceful foreign policy. Just last week up to 90 people, apparently mostly civilians, were killed in Afghanistan in an airstrike, and the violence is only getting worse. The administration is mulling over how many more troops they will send as part of their “Afghan Surge” with advisors getting it exactly backwards. They qualify sending fewer troops as “high-risk” and sending more troops as “low-risk”. This is not the perception at all if you were to ask the families of those being sent over. The best answer would be to stop risking any of our troops for the sake of what is, for all intents and purposes, a violent occupation, helping no one.
But all of these problems and their wrong-headed solutions come from one greater problem - which is not understanding the reasons that we are here. The economy is in bad shape because of too much government intervention producing a myriad of unintended consequences and perverse incentives. Healthcare is broken because the doctor-patient relationship has been broken down by hyper regulation and too much government interference. Afghanistan is a mess because they ignored the mission approved by Congress - to seek out those who attacked us on 9/11. They have instead gotten sidetracked with nebulous interventionist tasks such as promoting democracy and nation building. Eight years later, there is no real progress. The Soviets bankrupted themselves fighting in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan and we’re about to do the same. If we would just look to history it would be self-evident that there is nothing left to win in Afghanistan, and everything to lose.
Most of all, we need to understand that we don’t understand Afghan culture and politics, and for that reason alone, intervening in their affairs is unlikely to produce positive results. The best thing we could possibly do now is to bring our troops home, from Afghanistan, from Iraq, from Japan, from Germany, from all occupied countries, and concentrate on mending badly damaged relationships around the world. Free and honest trade has always been the best way to do that, without fail. Not understanding the benefits of peace, freedom, and nonintervention will always bring about catastrophe.”
*** Now tell me again how he is different from Bush.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
I don't remember his stating he was an anti-war person, and is dealing as best anyone could with the situations.
I didn't vote for him based on anything having to do with either Iraq, nor Afghanistan, even though I do think he is the best we've got to handle them.
I guess you were'nt listening when he said he would negotiate and talk instead of sending in the troops.
What he said was, "I'm not against war, I'm against a dumb war".
He now has the task of attempting to resolve a dumb war, started by someone else, and while taking the experts advice as to what is needed at the time, he has to also try to find the best way to gradually bring us out of the mess.
He is trying to solve our financial problems by expanding them
He is trying to solve our health care problems by creating more
He is trying to creat "Change" by doing the same things Bush did.
That being the case Dorothy, why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Lots of people seem to read a lot more into whatever he said. Either that or they were not listening to Obama himself, but insted to the over analyzing talking heads news commentary's.
It's 8 months, or so into his wrestling with the war situation, on top of the economy situation.
He said he'd like to have the troops out in 16 months from the time he takes office.
Bush ended up making a commitment/arrangement/agreement of some sort, with the Iraqi government that had a very similar time line, so we'll have to see whose plan is taking place when the 16 months approaches. Bush's agreement commitment with the Iraqi government, or Obama's 16th month plan.
Either way, I hope it comes about with great success, and as safely as possable.
I'm not for either war going on, but I do not, and never did expect it to be anything but a difficut mess to untangle from, and still better assure ourselves of the protections we need from future attacks from this source.
I would like it to be as easy as just packing up one day, sooner than later, and just hop on the planes copters, and ships, and make for home, but I am not privvy to a lot of the info. that the experts have that are advising President Oama.
I hope for things to be worked out for as best an outcome as possable, as soon as possable.
You say a quick withdrawal would put us back to the situation of 2001. And that is bad How? Law enforcement was as is the proper agency to handle terrorist threats. Al Q is not a nation, there is no nation to send our army against. You can't fight ideas and you can't win a war against ideas with weapons.
Does Ron Paul think Bin Ladin is dead based on these leaks?
Abandoning Afghanistan with a 95% inadequate government, sharing contested al Quaida territory with a neighboring, nuclear Pakistan with another woefully unstable government is strategic insanity. For all your blithering about Obama walking on water, we can't expect him to miraculously close the door on eight years of criminal negligence by the Bush regime and pretend it never happened. Get a grip. Eight years of inadequate bungling in the Afghan theater hamstrung by the distraction of the Bush family feud in Iraq, has left this a horrible tangle of jack-straws.
Wouldn't you love it if President Obama would have ignored his generals and pulled all the troops out of Afghanistan with barely time for a strategic withdrawal to keep our own troops safe?
the smart thing to do would be to back off and admit defeat. Yes he can and should "
Even a Cub Scout can figure that out.
Thanks for your tardy concern.
As to the Generals , Bush fired and/or forced into retirement a number of General Officers who tried to tell him he was wrong. That left him with nothing but the ass kissers who agreed with everything he said.
My concern is hardly tardy. I have been against those two wars since the beginning just like a bunch of my friends. If you read my early posts before Obamantion you would know that.
Read up on constitutional war powers and check into the War Powers Act of 1973. I really care about the history of whose side your were on. I don't really need an opinionated lecture from an amateur like you on constitutional authority.
He may or may not be right or wrong concerning a number of matters as anyone else might be, but Col.'s concerns do NOT desrve a flippant brush off.
If you don't have time at this moment to address some of the issues just simply return when you do have time.
Most of us on Gather would like more pertinant info. if you have it to offer, the Col. included.
The Col. has an opinion, to be sure, but he is more open minded than you give him credit for. I've seen him make opinion adjustments when he had the pertinant info.
His is a closed-minded simplistic view of constitutional war powers and disregard for the 1973 legislation I pointed him to.
I don't need a regressive discussion nor do I need you to interpose insults. I'll thank you to keep your judgmental attacks to yourself, and the "colonel" to keep his simplistic lecturing to himself. That will be all.
The Constitution trumps any war powers act since it is the supreme law of our country.
Further he had no authorization to invade either country because neither of them attacked us. He can go to war only if the attack is imminent or has happened. There is no indication either Iraq nor Afghanistan were even thinking about atticking the US.
The War Powers act does NOT give the president the authority to make a declaration of War.
This is the Col.'s post, is it not?
The Col. genrated this thread of discussion, and he is expresing his opinion, using what info. he has at this time, and he has always been open minded enough to take in new info.
All the colonels I know, know who Ray Odierno was and that his Iraq strategy is not "the Bush plan". They also know that the plan to pull US troops out of Iraqi cities is neither a facet of General Odierno's strategy nor a replica of "the Bush plan".
All the colonels I know, have some conception of the historical, constitutional tug-of-war over war powers. None of them would make a simplistic, triumphalist assertion about war powers or make the idiotic assertion that Congress is prevented by the Constitution from empowering the President to send troops into combat.
You are a poser.
Ray Odierno is active duty and young. By the time he would have become a Colonel, let alone a General, I had served my time and was already out of the service. There is no reason I should know him personally.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;