New Wave Outpost Forum

Tonight Obama will announce his plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I agree with the naysayers who think this war is futile and has an abysmal cost/benefit. The politics of this are a wreck-- the right-wing will continue to attack/criticize (even though they support escalation), centrists and independents tend to be isolationist will back away, and support from the left will start to evaporate. Obama campaigned on this policy, but it was one of the pledges I'd hoped he'd break.

A Tragic Mistake
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opini ... rbert.html

[quote]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot
[br]Tonight Obama will announce his plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I agree with the naysayers who think this war is futile and has an abysmal cost/benefit. The politics of this are a wreck-- the right-wing will continue to attack/criticize (even though they support escalation), centrists and independents tend to be isolationist will back away, and support from the left will start to evaporate. Obama campaigned on this policy, but it was one of the pledges I'd hoped he'd break.

A Tragic Mistake
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opini ... rbert.html
[/quote]

Well let's hope he learns something that Lyndon Johnson never did....and fast.

The war president. For better or worse he owns it now.

If a contiunace of a war he inherited gives him that title, he surely does not own it. That title would be shared amongst many US presidents, some very great ones at that.

If you imagine he sits around just aching to send more troops for the sole purpose of escalation, you should re-evaluate your thinking. What might you label our president for the decision to drop the atom bomb on Japan? Was it to bring a close to war sooner, or our president just wanting to experiment on a nation?

Obama has been in office less than a year yet you were ready to burn him at the stakes on day one. I imagine you could get in there and do much better. Do you honestly think he sits alone and comes up with this shit? Advisors, civilian and military, many considered experts with this stuff, provide a good deal of guideance with any presidential decisions when it comes to war. I simply do not believe his intent is to want war, he likely wants what every wants - to get it over with - it's just we expect it to happen in unrealistic ways.

Setting aside the issue of fairness, I have to agree: Obama owns it now. Two wars and a wicked recession are not a favorable combination for an administration. For the majority of the american public, the last administration is a distant memory. But hey, there's talk of Cheney running in 2012, so happy days may be here again!

Obama should be focusing on solving problems in America. This country is in escalating deterioration and going further into debt for a war that is likely to have limited benefits will only further weaken the u.s. economically. Perhaps this is a way to create jobs or pander to right wing political interests, but this is nothing but a short term solution that will probably be detrimental in the long run. If there was a good chance the war could be successful, perhaps this strategy might work, but realistically it is likely to be nothing but a drain on taxpayer resources and the government will have to beg China for money to pay for it, increasing an already alarmingly high budget deficit.

OBAMA'S NEW MOTTO: MISSION ACCOMPLICE!

[quote]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot
[br]Tonight Obama will announce his plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I agree with the naysayers who think this war is futile and has an abysmal cost/benefit. The politics of this are a wreck-- the right-wing will continue to attack/criticize (even though they support escalation), centrists and independents tend to be isolationist will back away, and support from the left will start to evaporate. Obama campaigned on this policy, but it was one of the pledges I'd hoped he'd break.

A Tragic Mistake
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opini ... rbert.html
[/quote]

<p align="justify">Well, that and coupled with the fact this congress is still chugging through pork barrel spending/rampant irresponsible spending, they didn't resolve any of the problems that wall street is reponsible for, unemployment doesn't look as if it'll be solved any time soon, health care doesn't look as if it'll be solved, trade deficit blows. It's not one man's fault, but he sure is presiding over the whole mess. So far, I can't see what this prez and congress have actually done better/different than the last set of corrupt imbeciles[}:)]


________________________
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Nuwavghost/dij.gif">

>> congress is still chugging through pork barrel spending/rampant irresponsible spending

I don't think spending is the problem right now. Earmarks for pork barrel projects was never more than one percent of the budget. The much bigger problem is that there is weak consumer demand, which drives 70% of our economy. Spending and deficits will certainly become a big problem once the economy starts to come to life-- at that point the deficits will contribute to inflation. But right now, it's most important to get the economy on its feet and get people employed.

>> trade deficit blows

And 50% of the trade deficit is just from importing oil, so that figure isn't going to change anytime soon.

>>I can't see what this prez and congress have actually done better/different than the last set of corrupt imbeciles

I mostly agree. Because of blue dog democrats (aka conservadems) and Joe Lieberman, the Senate is currently a graveyard for any real legislation. The blue dog dems along with the GOP make it such that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation. If everyone in the dem caucus is aligned (including independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberjackass), the dems can only muster 59 votes.

If the dems could add a handful of seats in the Senate, all of this could change. But that's not likely in the midterm elections, because the gridlock so far has meant that no real progress has been made, and therefore the democrats have failed to give voters any compelling reason to vote for them.