Because ';their guy'; is in the White House. Of course it's not worth it.
They don't care about the innocent people, they just posed as caring when Bush was in charge, nothing but political opportunism.
The lack of empathy with the victims of American imperialism is pure racism. Americans wouldn't want innocent people, mothers fathers, children killed. Problem is they don't see Afghans enough as fellow human beings. To them they're weird foreigners first, not people that bleed the same blood as we do, feel the same pain and cry the same tears when we lose someone.
Of course America's wannabe leftists would rather call anyone who questions Obama or disagrees with his actions a racist than face up to their own attitude. For the established American ';left'; racism is but a tool to be exploited, not a serious issue. Therefor it's important to point that out. You can only rationalize innocent deaths if you see the victims as less human than you are, that's pure racism. Disagreeing with a black multimillionaire who's continuing the Bush agenda and whose only change comes down to better PR is not
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may200鈥?/a>
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov200鈥?/a>
Liberals today remind us of the characterization Leon Trotsky made in 1938 about the liberal publication the Nation in the article ';';The Priests of Half-Truth';
';Their philosophy reflects their own world. By their social nature they are intellectual semi-bourgeois. They feed upon half-thoughts and half-feelings. They wish to cure society by half-measures. Regarding the historical process as too unstable a phenomenon, they refuse to engage themselves more than fifty percent. Thus, these people, living by half-truths, that is to say, the worst sort of falsehood, have become a genuine brake upon truly progressive, i.e., revolutionary thought.';
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr200鈥?/a>
The entire American political establishment鈥攖he liberal Democratic wing no less than its conservative Republican counterpart鈥攊s backing Obama鈥檚 two-front war. The escalating conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan underscore the fact that the previous criticisms made by Obama and sections of the media of the war in Iraq were of a purely tactical nature. Obama was selected and thrust to the fore in last year鈥檚 election by sections of the US ruling elite that regarded Iraq as a disastrous diversion from more crucial American aims and interests in Central Asia.
Having won the election by appealing to widespread anti-war sentiment, Obama is now carrying out the mission for which he was chosen. Overseen by key Bush personnel鈥擠efence Secretary Robert Gates and General Petraeus鈥攖he US military has prepared the ground for a major summer offensive in Afghanistan with the doubling of US troop numbers to 68,000. At the same time, the Pentagon has secured alternate supply routes in the event that the planned escalation of warfare in neighboring Pakistan threatens existing supply routes that pass through that country鈥檚 border areas.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may200鈥?/a>Why are Liberal Democrats silent about the air-strikes in Afghanistan?
Thank you
Report Abuse
Nope, it was not worth it to me. But I'm sure cons think it was. The question I have is: would the cons still think it worth it if those 50 were members of their own family?
If not, why the difference? Human blood is human blood; human life is human life regardless of nationality or ideology. Why would the life of an innocent American be considered any different than an innocent (place any nationality here)?
I am sorry the collateral damage bothers you so much. None of the liberals I know have ever apposed the war in afghanistan, just the war in Iraq. Sensible people whether liberal or conservative regret the loss of life but do not criticize our troops for making the best decision they could with the information they had.
Please support our troops and stop second guessing them.
To be honest... I don't know enough about it. It's very murky. There is a lot of propaganda on both sides of the issue. You kinda have to be in the know to really know how successful the strikes are.
I was for them when Bush was president, because I assumed the military knows what it's doing, despite what Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or even the Afghani or Pakistani governments say. They wouldn't needlessly bomb civilians if they didn't see high value targets.
But I am conflicted about it. I just don't know how successful they really are, and I give the military the benefit of the doubt.
The bombings are just now since a liberal is in control of them. Possibly; how innocent were the innocent people? Were they harboring a terrorist? Why was a terrorist able to move so freely amongst them? More likely they are the enemy and not innocent civilians for the most part.
Perhaps it could be because we are not privy to the intelligence reports which identify Taliban or al qaida strongholds in Afghanistan and along the Pakistani border. Nor are we included in the briefings by military commanders on the ground in Afghanistan. We ';liberals'; as you refer to us prefer not to shoot off our mouths until our brain is in gear...or at least until all the facts.
I'm sorry, did they intentionally kill 50 innocent people? Perhaps we should stop bitching at our military every time there are accidental civilian casualties in a WAR. Do you have ANY idea how many civilians were killed in the Korean war? While we're at it, how many civilians were killed on 9/11?
Oh course we are concerned. The war on terror was supposed to be in Afghanistan but the rightwingers couldn't figure that out so they sent our troops to Iraq. 4,000+ Americans are dead because of that and thousands more injured for life.
Finally the US is going after the people who attacked us; they are in Afghanistan.
Access is Power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sufM4Km4鈥?/a>
You supported Bush as he butchered a hundred thousand people in iraq - but NOW every Middle Easterner is SO PRECIOUS to the lying republicans!
Oh - they're people of such deep feelings.
Aren't we supposed to be fighting Al Queda? Did all you repubs forget about that? Or are you all still believing that Iraq was involved with 9/11? Oh, that's right, we ';won'; in Iraq so the war against terror is over. What a joke.
Liberals are sticking to the script. Conservatives, not Republicans, are still strong and any infighting between Liberals will make it easier for Conservatives to unite and clean up this country.
When have you ever seen a liberal hassle Obama about anything. If Obama does it, its ok!!
so, let me make sure I understand you
you are a conservative, but you believe Al Qeda more than the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT?
I THINK YOU BETTER EXPLAIN YOURSELF BOY!
WE AVOID INNOCENTS
THEY TARGET THEM
I thought right-wingers preferred bombing and war to ';police action.';
If you're trying to compare Obama's casualty record with Bush's, think of a new attack.
We only kept a kill tally when Bush was a war monger, now that Obama is a war monger it doesn't count.
WELL YOU KNOW HOW IT IS CODE PINK DOESN'T HAVE ANY SUPPORT NOW.They are ok with WarCrimes with the Fuher in charge now!
No
lol people calling you a con. classic
I don't know. Guess they are ashamed to admit that.
A liberal is a person who reaches down the front of someone else's pants and is satisfied with whatever they find.
No comments:
Post a Comment