Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Orion27 · Dec 10, 2009, 10:38 AM

In a speech today in Oslo Norway, Obama acknowledged ...there is evil in the world... and the war we wage in Afghanistan is a moral one. And he went further, stating the obvious that America has underwritten the security of the world for the past 60 years.

Probably the last time he is invited back to Europe. Nothing hurts more than the truth. Now if we can just turn Obama around in Copenhagen.

ShortcutToMoncton · Dec 10, 2009, 11:27 AM

There's nothing "wrong" with that is there? I would be surprised if anyone said otherwise. Afghanistan has been a "moral war" for many years.

Of course, Vietnam was a "moral war" too I suppose, and look how underwriting world security turned out in that situation. Hopefully everyone has learned from that situation, but a lot of people around here still seem oblivious to the power of nationalism.

greg

Orion27 · Dec 10, 2009, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

There's nothing "wrong" with that is there? I would be surprised if anyone said otherwise. Afghanistan has been a "moral war" for many years.

Of course, Vietnam was a "moral war" too I suppose, and look how underwriting world security turned out in that situation. Hopefully everyone has learned from that situation, but a lot of people around here still seem oblivious to the power of nationalism.

greg

It would be nice if Europe would stop ceding it's moral authority to the United States.

RIRedinPA · Dec 10, 2009, 02:06 PM

the war, at this point, is a fruitless effort, we screwed the pooch on it years ago and most of the deaths caused by it are moot?

Dork. · Dec 10, 2009, 03:00 PM

It's good to see the concept of a "moral war" or a "just war" become popular again, because we kind of forgot all about it for a large part of the decade.

Orion27 · Dec 10, 2009, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

It's good to see the concept of a "moral war" or a "just war" become popular again, because we kind of forgot all about it for a large part of the decade.

The Bush derangement syndrome.

Dork. · Dec 10, 2009, 03:21 PM

My, we're defensive today.

Orion27 · Dec 10, 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

My, we're defensive today.

No, not defensive at all. The Obama speech took me by surprise. I'm in the
process of gauging my reaction to seeing a lot of people running to the
silence of the bunker.

Dork. · Dec 11, 2009, 12:08 AM

I'm not sure why his speech would surprise anyone. He sent 30K more troops into a war zone a few weeks ago, I don't think he was going to preach non-violence all of a sudden. He had to tiptoe around the fact that he won the award for not being George Bush without actually coming out and saying it. Instead, he put the focus on all the things America has done to contribute to global security, while acknowledging the fact that he does not yet merit such an honor. Go back to the threads that were started when he won the award: we all agreed that he hadn't done enough to merit the award, and this speech gives him "cover" to accept it on behalf of all Americans.

It's really the only speech he could have given, so I wasn't really all that surprised.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Dec 11, 2009, 12:29 AM

Wow. Props to Obama.

The Godfather · Dec 12, 2009, 05:35 AM

Does this mean that history books will be nice to GWB?

OldManMac · Dec 12, 2009, 08:55 AM

If one defines morality as interfering in others' business, then it could be called a moral war.

Doofy · Dec 12, 2009, 09:42 AM

Sounds like Barry desperately needs to get all the hardcore patriots out of the country. I wonder why.

ShortcutToMoncton · Dec 12, 2009, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

If one defines morality as interfering in others' business, then it could be called a moral war.

It's pretty legitimate when "others' business" results in a couple thousand dead halfway around the world, hmmm? Or are you one of those who think the Taliban should've just been left to die off naturally?

Having said that, we have to constantly make a value judgment on exactly what we're over there. I like what the Canadian government has done - they've said "we're out by 2011, take it or leave it." Now I would be very surprised if Canada actually makes it out by that time, but at least it gives some sort of firm target under which objectives can be planned and time-lined. It's pretty clear that "we'll stay until we fix things" is a recipe for disaster, especially when at least part of what you're trying to fix is a reaction to your presence in the first place - and I would think that the useless money and dead soldiers left in Vietnam should've been the best reminder on how terrible a strategy that was.

greg

Doofy · Dec 12, 2009, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

It's pretty legitimate when "others' business" results in a couple thousand dead halfway around the world, hmmm? Or are you one of those who think the Taliban should've just been left to die off naturally?

It wasn't the Tallies who did the WTC.

ShortcutToMoncton · Dec 12, 2009, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Sounds like Barry desperately needs to get all the hardcore patriots out of the country. I wonder why.

Is the answer "So none of these 'hardcore patriots' are around when he starts Teh Revolution?™"

Is it? Is it? Because that's the obvious answer to me

ShortcutToMoncton · Dec 12, 2009, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

It wasn't the Tallies who did the WTC.

wut

Doofy · Dec 12, 2009, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

wut

Well, it wasn't, was it?

Doofy · Dec 12, 2009, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Is the answer "So none of these 'hardcore patriots' are around when he starts Teh Revolution?™"

Is it? Is it? Because that's the obvious answer to me

Top and tail of it.

The military commanders must know that the only way to sort Afghanistan is to blanket nuke the place. I know that, and I'm just a silly rock star. So why're they keeping up the pretence of a ground war doing anything useful? Why?

ShortcutToMoncton · Dec 12, 2009, 12:13 PM

Silly point about the Taliban; there's a reason why you can charge people for "aiding and abetting" right? They actively harboured and developed ties with/to the al-Qaeda, even to the point of using al-Qaeda forces as domestic military as I understand it – so when that group commits probably the most outrageous act of international terrorism in the modern era, well...really. And that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as their regime went; I don't see too many people chastising the removal of the Taliban, really.

And you know damn well "blanket-nuking" the place isn't an option. As for whether a ground war will do anything useful... well, I don't know. I'm half with you on that, but at the same time it doesn't look like this is another Vietnam situation does it? Or perhaps it is; I don't know. I guess history could decide otherwise, but I don't get the same "radical nationalism" feeling from the rebels that was present in that situation, or in Afghanistan the first time around. Religious extremism, I feel, can always be taken to another country/place/battle forum when it gets too difficult in one particular spot. Fighting against nationalists, on the other hand, I tend to think is like uselessly beating your head against the wall.

Which describes Vietnam of course.

greg

chabig · Dec 12, 2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well, it wasn't, was it?

The Taliban supported (and still supports) Al Quaeda.

Doofy · Dec 12, 2009, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by chabig

The Taliban supported (and still supports) Al Quaeda.

The USA supported Old Binny.
The USA supported (and still supports) the IRA.

Maybe have a bit of a war closer to home? It'd save on transport costs.

Doofy · Dec 12, 2009, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

And you know damn well "blanket-nuking" the place isn't an option.

Oh come on - don't be boring. You know it'd be fun.

Taliesin · Dec 13, 2009, 01:01 PM

The reason why nuking Afghanistan is not an option is because of the non-proliferation-act that the US signed, which states that nuke-possessing states are prohibited to use their nukes against countries that don't have nukes.

The other obligation under the act is to get rid of the own nukes.

Espescially the stallment in the "getting rid of the own nukes"-department among the nuke-possessing states is one of the reasons for the crisis of the non-profileration-act, that inspires non-nuke-possessing-states to get some of their own.

The concept of the moral and just war is the concept of jihad, so I guess those that suspected that Obama were a muslim might be right

.

Taliesin

Dork. · Dec 13, 2009, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The concept of the moral and just war is the concept of jihad, so I guess those that suspected that Obama were a muslim might be right

.

The moral war concept is not exclusively Muslim. It's present in Catholic theology, and probably in other faiths as well.

Maybe this means that Obama is a closet Catholic, and taking all his marching orders for creating the New World Order from the Pope....

Shaddim · Dec 14, 2009, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by Dork.

It's good to see the concept of a "moral war" or a "just war" become popular again, because we kind of forgot all about it for a large part of the decade.

It's the same car, same trip, only there's now a new driver. He's shoveling the same **** as Bush II, only now the Lefties think it's apple pie.

Shaddim · Dec 14, 2009, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

If one defines morality as interfering in others' business, then it could be called a moral war.

Awww, you saying you aren't proud of your guy?

OldManMac · Dec 14, 2009, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Awww, you saying you aren't proud of your guy?

He's not "my guy." I voted for him, and probably much to your surprise, I don't like everything he's doing. Feel better?

Arty50 · Dec 16, 2009, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

If one defines morality as interfering in others' business, then it could be called a moral war.

Other's business? A group supported by the former ruling regime attacked our country and declared it's desire to continue to do so. We had every right in the world to go there.

Iraq was a totally different matter, but everyone seems to be confusing the two nowadays. I guess "all ragheads look alike" whether you're a neocon or treehugger.

What's even worse is how we botched this. We had a chance to crush Al Queda and the Taliban, but stupidly diverted our forces to Iraq at the critical juncture. Now we've only served to further destabilize the region and have risked the fall of Pakistan, which need I remind you has nuclear arms. Now, this war isn't just about defeating an enemy who attacked the US; it's about preventing the destabilization of Pakistan so that those nukes don't fall into god knows whose hands.

I don't think people truly understand the implications of losing this one. Turning tail and running from Iraq had relatively benign consequences, but giving up on this one could have dire consequences for the entire world in that it creates the high likihood of nukes falling into some very, very bad hands. Proof in point is the fact that there is a truly international coalition of forces in Afghanistan. They all realize what's at stake here.

Monique · Dec 18, 2009, 02:53 PM

Let me see, while he received the Nobel prize of peace because of the color of his skin and it is of PEACE right he justified the U.S. being at war against Afghanistan.

Those who supported him because he is black will wake up and realized that he has done next to nothing, that the U.S. after 4 years of his presidency will be still in Iraq and Afghanistan, that Guantamo bay prison will still be closed, that economically you will far worst; that this new health care bureacracy does not work.