i don't remember what he campaigned on apart from foreign (war) policy, and he seems to have kept up with the plans for the Afghan war...

Obama's various bailouts combined with his reluctance to drill for oil, his support for the DREAM Act and his relative passiveness on foreign policy all seem like fairly liberal policies to me. (Being a relatively moderate American conservative)

His policy of staying in Afghanistan seems to be a break from his party and his known ideology.

When Bush was waging war, we had the nighty army death toll on the evening news (by the way, per capita, you are probably safer in Iraq/Afhghanistan than you are being a citizen of Detroit..just sayni'), we had Code Pink and other protestors constantly in the news, we had Democrats representatives calling Bush and Cheney war criminals in floor speeches...

The question is: Where are all the good anti-war liberal protestors today? Mind-numbing hypocrisy...

krellin + 1

Lol, bailouts make him a liberal. Actually, IDK about liberal, but almost all the communists I've talked to (bar Putin) despise the bailouts. Obama to us is another war criminal, no different to Bush. As for foreign policy, he's now got an army base in Darwin and UAVs in the Cocos Islands.

So?

The point is, Obama is not a liberal.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Obama-vote-2012.jpg

Liberal and conservative are really just made up labels to boil down all ranges of opinion to fit into two neat little boxes. obama is pro war and pro corporations. anti freedom. imperialist. just like bush. and clinton. and bush. and reagan.... come on now. Republican democrat are two sides of the same coin.

What Siccy said.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with Sic, but his policies are almost universally perceived as liberal by American standards. The point I'm trying to make is that his Afghanistan policy is inconsistent with what the majority of his base thinks, which leads me to believe that there is a very damned good reason to stay in Afghanistan.

opium money? fucking minerals in the mountains who knows.

Of course there is a good reason. It provides another airbase on Iran's eastern border and can help supply America's allies in Central Asia.

IMO, the US would have been better off invading Pakistan. That would have removed one of OBL's bases, hit other fundies in the area hard, got rid a nuclear power and removed one of China's allies (arguably its best ally). Also, Pakistan has a coast, making it easier to supply troops.

Vast amounts of Lithium in Afghanistan...as in batteries...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

Also in Afghanistan....a culture that is not interested in vast mineral wealth, that is tribal, capable of banding together to defeat invaders (USSR, now the US) and will then resolve back to disparate groups once we are gone.

Pakistan also has NUKES....

Invading a nuclear power is not advisable unless you have no alternative. Also, there was no justification to invade Pakistan, while there was a damned good reason to invade Afghanistan in the first place.

@ krellin

We are getting farther than the Soviets did because we are not treating the population like garbage. We sincerely care about the well-being of the Afghan people, and the Soviets did not.

@Gun....farther than the Soviets....maybe. We also don't have the Soviets (or their current equivalent) feeding arms to the Afghani's and we did. The Stinger missile arguably changed the course of the war.

Regardless...the day we leave the country will revert to what it was, and they will despise us with a renewed vigor. Those that hate us now will point out that they defeated us. Those that supported us will be left unsupported. Karzide, that worthless fuck, is already turning against us even though he'd be a rotting corpse by now if it wasn't for us....but if he wants any chance of staying alive after we leave, he must turn against us publicly...which in turn turns the public against us.

Afghanistan is lost....and this will become evident shortly after our withdraw.

"Also, there was no justification to invade Pakistan, while there was a damned good reason to invade Afghanistan in the first place"

There is always a good reason...Hitler invaded half of Europe WITH good reason, Stalin invaded Finland WITH good reason, Mussolini invaded Ethiopia WITH good reason, Genghis Khan invaded China WITH a good reason, Ceasar invaded Carthage WITH...you guess good reason...there is always GOOD reason to invade weaker countries and take their resources away. And that good reason is always the same, to protect innocent people, save them from their ruthless leaders or any other bullshit they will think off. So sure, USA did not invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Libya because of the oil, strategic position or Panama Chanel, they decided to spent million dollars to save people. Yea right....

Afghanistan borders China, Iran, Pakistan, and several Russian satellite -stan states.

That should answer your question, op

A little part of India too lol

The point of this thread is not to discuss the war itself. It's to discuss why Obama isn't pulling out.

Who has been discussing the war itself....I scan up and I see discussion of the geographic layout of the region as pertains to neighboring countries and their alliances/puppet-masters, I see discussion of the stability (or lack thereof) of Afghanistan and what may/may not happen if we pull out....all of which are factors that one takes in to account when deciding whether or not to pull out. I think yo might be reading a different thread, because in fact there is very little discussion of the war itself here.

Well, the geographic location of Afghanistan and the stability of Afghanistan are directly related to the war itself, krellin.

Then any discussion of anything is related to the war, since the country is in a state of war. You ask if we should pull out or not....the ABSENCE of war in Afghanistan and there resulting stability or instability is an issue as to whether or not we pull out....what's so hard to comprehend about that. Do you fail to recall that Afghanistan was once a training ground to terrorism, and the premature pulling out of Afghanistan could turn it in to a haven of US hatred (probably legitimate hatred, mind you...) that will make the previous state of affairs their child's play, since the head of the governmnet there has referred to us as the Devil....NOT a very promising situation...and left to there own (with, of course, continuing US foreign aide....) they will no doubt once again return to their wiley ways. Not to mention that when the US pulls out...do you think our enemies will not come in with their propoganda and do everything they can to turn the country against us (which would be like encouraging a fart to blow in the wind....not to difficult a task..)

A decision to pull out of a war is based upon these factors...so....what is your question? Or are you just not very familiar with the geopolitical issues that are involved in fighting wars?

My question is not whether or not we should pull out. I have my own opinion on that and would like to keep that opinion to myself. I'm just saying that it's out of character for Obama to insist on a continued US presence. I believe that the Pentagon is begging him to not pull out.

Obama is no military man. If the Pentagon is begging him to stay in there's probably a good reason which he is listening to. There's just no way for us to know right now.

The geostrategic position Afghanistan has is far more valuable than eradicating some backwoods fundamentalists with more bombs than sense. The 'war' is a pretext to keep influence on Russian satellites, China, and pro-Chinese proxies like Pakistan and Iran.

@ Celticfox

That's the point I'm trying to make.

@ President Eden

That would mean that it is worthwhile to maintain at least a small US presence in Afghanistan. Even though there is a war going on, (krellin gets credit for this line), Afghanistan is still safer than Detroit on a Saturday night.