Showing posts with label war in afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war in afghanistan. Show all posts

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Afghanistan War Less Popular All the Time

via HuffPo

Support for the war in Afghanistan has hit a new low and is on par with support for the Vietnam War in the early 1970s, a bad sign for President Barack Obama as he argues that to end the war responsibly the United States must remain in Afghanistan another two years.

Only 27 percent of Americans say they back the war effort, and 66 percent oppose the war, according to an AP-GfK poll released Wednesday.

A November 1971 Harris poll showed a record-high 65 percent of Americans said that continued fighting in Vietnam was "morally wrong." By that time the United States was already drastically cutting the size of its fighting force in Vietnam on the road to a full withdrawal in 1973.
What's your opinion? Don't you think Obama can talk his way out of this one?

Please leave a comment.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Obama's So-called Troop Withdrawal

via The Dish where Andrew Sullivan has compiled several lefty reactions.

(click to make bigger)

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Support the Troops

The filthy war certainly isn't their fault.

Support the Troops

The filthy war is not their fault.

Support the Troops

Maybe the filthy war is their fault.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Afghan "Pentagon Papers"

Just the other day I was wondering if I'd been a bit hasty in writing Obama off as just another puppet. Well, after reading the Brad Blog post yesterday, I'm more convinced than ever. I'm afraid the Afghanistan mess outweighs all the supposed accomplishments. What do you think?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thursday, June 3, 2010

A Fascinating Article Indeed

As recommended by JadeGold in his comment to American Military Fetish.

Wired reports that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is not getting his way in trying to curtail military spending.

Over the past few years, Congress has approved continued work on an alternate F-35 engine, a move that would break Pratt & Whitney’s lock on the JSF engine market by funding a competing engine made by a GE/Rolls Royce team. Supporters say a second design would ultimately yield some cost savings, but that argument has failed to move Gates, who has said that things don’t need to be any more complicated than they already are for the troubled F-35 program.

Then there’s money for 30 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters: eight more than the Department of Defense requested. Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, who introduced the amendment, said the extra aircraft (like the one pictured here) would “help address a looming fighter shortfall for the Navy’s carrier fleet.”

So much for austerity in naval budgets. Gates, as readers will recall, has already suggested that the Navy needs to take a hard look at whether it is right-sized — and whether it needs to keep 11 carrier strike groups for the next three decades. House authorizers, however, said their $65 billion recommendation for Navy and Marine Corps procurement was aimed at “reversing the decline in the Navy battle force fleet.”


What's your opinion? Is this too much? Does the kind of influence that accounts for these contracts, in spite of the Secretary of Defence's opposition to them, also explain the fact that we continue to fight two useless wars?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

The American Military Fetish

The Daily Kos published a rather unusual Memorial Day article, with which I agree totally. What do you think?

What could be sadder than a general without a war? We have 42 four star generals or admirals in the US...and that's just the top dogs, the four stars. There are tons more of the lesser generals. How many of them do you suppose would care to serve their entire careers during peace time? None of them is my guess. So from within the ranks of the military itself there is significant pressure for going to war. Call it the 'when you have a hammer the whole world is a nail' principle.

The article goes on to mention the defense contractors and their lobbyists, who I believe are the real culprits.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Friday, May 28, 2010

The War is Making Your Poor

Thanks to The Humble Libertarian.

The Afghanistan War

Masslive.com says, "So as Memorial Day approaches let’s not discuss numbers, but instead remember that somewhere in America someone is mourning the most important person in the world. That’s an uncountable loss."

The Age.com from Melbourne Australia says, "The toll of American dead in Afghanistan passed 1000 this week, after a suicide bomb in Kabul killed at least five US service members."

Having taken nearly seven years to reach the first 500 dead, the war killed the second 500 in fewer than two."

WUSA9.com reports on the funeral of Marine Cpl. Kurt Steven Shea of Frederick, Maryland. "Shea loved horses, but military values of "honor, courage and commitment" are what drew him to the Marine Corps, Rev. Goulet told mourners."

That's just a few. My own feelings on this are that Obama inherited a difficult situation from Bush with regards the wars and that the new president has failed miserably to improve upon it.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Patrick Kennedy on the Press

He mentions the fact that the Eric Massa coverage is 24/7, while interest in the Afghanistan War is minimal. That's what Il Principe calls a weapon of mass distraction.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Another War-Time President

CNN posted a video of President Obama's comments at West Point in which he announced his decision to deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

What's your opinion? Are the conservative war-hawks going to become Obama supporters now? Are the liberal doves going to abandon the Obama ship? Maybe we should all just switch sides.

Please leave a comment.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Toleratng Perpetual War

The Opinione blog made an interesting post yesterday. Basically, Il Principe is saying that the recent shooting at Ft. Hood was just one more warning sign of what's really ailing America: perpetual war.

While opinione is not trying to make the shooter out to be a victim, just like other members of the academic community like Alfred McCoy, Chalmers Johnson, Andrew Bacevich and other members of the anti Imperialist School who are also retired members of the military,(like Opinione) the shooting at Fort Hood is another example of how the perpetual war and embrace of letting an All Volunteer Force be exploited while no other Americans are not asked to sacrifice anything, is taking its toll on the military and coming home to American Home Front.

What do you think about that? Is an all-volunteer military bad for the country? Does that have something to do with what's going wrong? From Tomdispatch we have this:

Even before Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on his killing spree, that base, a major military embarkation point for our war zones, was already experiencing the after-effects of eight years of war and repeated tours of duty. The suicide rate at Fort Hood was soaring (with 10 on the base in 2009 alone). Divorce rates were on the rise, as were mental health problems, drug and alcohol use, domestic abuse (up 75% since 2001), and murders among war-zone returnees. Even violent crime in Killeen, the town that houses the base, was up 22% (though it was down, according to the New York Times, "in towns of similar size in other parts of the country").

What's your opinion? Can all that be blamed on he wars?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Karl Rove on Afghanistan

The way Karl Rove spins his answer into a question of whether Obama was being honest last March is pretty slick. But not slick enough for the Liberal Viewer. He points out that Rove himself was not being honest. Now, where have I seen this exact type of strategy before?

Saturday, September 5, 2009

The Picture of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, USMC

Yahoo News reports on the controversy over the publication of the picture of a mortally wounded marine in Afghanistan.


Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed disappointment Friday at news outlets that used a picture taken and distributed by The Associated Press depicting a U.S. Marine mortally wounded in combat in Afghanistan.

The AP distributed the picture despite personal pleas from Gates and the dead Marine's family in a case that illustrated the difficult decisions in reporting on a conflict where Americans have seen relatively few images of fallen U.S. troops over eight years.

The picture, by AP photographer Julie Jacobson, showed Lance Cpl. Joshua "Bernie" Bernard, 21, lying on the ground with severe leg injuries after being struck by a grenade in an ambush on Aug. 14, his fellow Marines tending to him. Bernard later died of his wounds.

Secretary Gates seems to be saying the same thing as the family, basically that it's a question of "judgment and common decency" not to use the photo. I'm a little suspicious of that. What do you think? Isn't it more likely that the government has an interest in keeping the war sanitized in order to continue getting away with it? Remember all that business a year or two ago about the returning coffins never being allowed in TV?


John Daniszewski, AP senior managing editor, said he respected Gates' view but that sometimes the government and press have different perspectives.

"We thought that the image told a story of sacrifice; it told a story of bravery," Daniszewski said. "We felt that the picture told a story that people needed to see and be aware of."

That sounds about right to me, what do you think?

Gates wrote that use of the photo of a wounded Bernard would mark an "unconscionable departure" from the restraint that most journalists have shown in covering the military since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The AP did not change its decision.


"Why your organization would purposely defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me," Gates wrote. "Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple newspapers is appalling."

I don't believe that for a second. I don't believe publishing the picture could increase the anguish of the family. Even if they themselves request privacy and to be left alone, I'm wondering what could possibly increase the suffering of losing a 21-year-old child? Compared to the loss itself, the treatment in the media would be inconsequential.

Yet Secretary Gates is pushing this as the reason. I don't buy it.

I say it's a mistake for us to be there in the first place and the suppression of photos like this has played a part in the continuance of it.

The controversy over the picture is very real however.


The AP had received dozens of e-mails and phone calls about its decision by mid-Friday, many of them critical, Colford said. It was a topic on Twitter, with one tweet saying: "as the wife of a retired Marine, and the mother of a soldier who is now in Afghanistan, I find the AP's `choice' to be a disgusting one."

The AP received an e-mail from some former military supporting its decision. Dan Cahalan, an Afghanistan veteran, wrote that "this is one of the realest accounts from a journalist I have ever read and just wanted to thank (Jacobson) for her honest reporting of the war."

Jorge Ruiz of Glendale, Ariz., said he and other ex-Marines had often talked about the sanitation of war and the social implications of a lack of images showing what war is really like.

"Death and the ugliness of war is not something we look forward to but a necessity to put the war in its proper context," said Ruiz, who also wrote the AP. "A picture is worth a thousand words. I applaud your courage to distribute the photo and the story of the death of Lance Cpl. Bernard."


What's your opinion? Is it right or wrong to publish graphic pictures of the war? Should the family's opinion be respected? Why couldn't they simply publish other photos about which the families don't object?

Do you believe the government has had an agenda to keep the war out of the living rooms of America in order to maintain whatever public approval they could?

Please leave a comment.