Comments on: Obama’s Antiwar Critics http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics On Point is a live, two-hour morning news-analysis program, produced by WBUR 90.9 and NPR. Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:27:58 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-12211 David Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:49:48 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-12211 President Clinton and the Congress passed a bill to overthrow Sadham back in 1998. That mission was accomplished and it's time to leave. Why did Obama lie and not keep his word to pull out the troops now? Let's leave!!! President Clinton and the Congress passed a bill to overthrow Sadham back in 1998. That mission was accomplished and it’s time to leave. Why did Obama lie and not keep his word to pull out the troops now? Let’s leave!!!

]]> By: Sam E. http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11964 Sam E. Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:53:19 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11964 "Obama anti-War? Of course, he is anti-war (with a brain bigger than a molecule); except that if he acts immediately he will most certainly be on the target board - literally. " He maybe anti-war in that like any good leader he doesn't want war. However, that said I don't see how anyone can seriously say that he has an anti-war agenda when he is pursuing the policies he is. “Obama anti-War?

Of course, he is anti-war (with a brain bigger than a molecule); except that if he acts immediately he will most certainly be on the target board – literally. ”

He maybe anti-war in that like any good leader he doesn’t want war. However, that said I don’t see how anyone can seriously say that he has an anti-war agenda when he is pursuing the policies he is.

]]> By: Mike http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11951 Mike Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:46:31 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11951 Toward the end of the program, the discussion with Posen and Andrews accomplishes some of the consideration of moral and strategic necessities I called for above. All in all, this was a balanced hour. An explicit examination of U.S. interests and obligations, perhaps combining Iraq, Afghanistan, and other problems in one overview show, followed by specific shows on the various areas, is still needed. Anti-war voices (though not of necessity leftist ones) of course need to be part of those converstaions. Toward the end of the program, the discussion with Posen and Andrews accomplishes some of the consideration of moral and strategic necessities I called for above. All in all, this was a balanced hour.

An explicit examination of U.S. interests and obligations, perhaps combining Iraq, Afghanistan, and other problems in one overview show, followed by specific shows on the various areas, is still needed. Anti-war voices (though not of necessity leftist ones) of course need to be part of those converstaions.

]]> By: change http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11945 change Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:01:20 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11945 Change is only in the packaging and not the content. What is up with that? Oh God what arer they planing to do to us next? The False Flag on 9-11 in order to villify people they couldnt otherwise attack honestly. What False Flag will they do in order to HOLD on to these people!? In other words .. What's down the road that the Pentagon has in store for it's enemies AND "FRIENDS"(meaning us)??!!~ Change appears to be only in the packaging and the rotten contents are still the same. ~ Change is only in the packaging and not the content.
What is up with that? Oh God what arer they planing to do to us next?

The False Flag on 9-11 in order to villify people they couldnt otherwise attack honestly.

What False Flag will they do in order to HOLD on to these people!? In other words .. What’s down the road that the Pentagon has in store for it’s enemies AND “FRIENDS”(meaning us)??!!~

Change appears to be only in the packaging and the rotten contents are still the same.
~

]]> By: Mike http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11944 Mike Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:57:15 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11944 This is an excellent topic for a show. But I hope it was not hastily produced in response to the criticism in the comments on the show on Craig Mullaney. That show was justified on its own terms (presenting the real experiences of Americans deployed in war) and did not require any balancing from an antiwar perspective. Mr. Mullaney was perfectly capable of expressing whatever antiwar feelings he had during the show; it was a show about his experiences. The fact of the matter is that it is <i>this</i> hour of On Point that now requires balancing not by a pro-war hour, but by a serious examination of the challenge of balancing America's interests and moral responsibilities in the two conflicts started under George W. Bush. This is an excellent topic for a show. But I hope it was not hastily produced in response to the criticism in the comments on the show on Craig Mullaney. That show was justified on its own terms (presenting the real experiences of Americans deployed in war) and did not require any balancing from an antiwar perspective. Mr. Mullaney was perfectly capable of expressing whatever antiwar feelings he had during the show; it was a show about his experiences. The fact of the matter is that it is this hour of On Point that now requires balancing not by a pro-war hour, but by a serious examination of the challenge of balancing America’s interests and moral responsibilities in the two conflicts started under George W. Bush.

]]> By: Lilya Lopekha http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11943 Lilya Lopekha Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:56:07 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11943 Is Obama anti-War? Of course, he is anti-war (with a brain bigger than a molecule); except that if he acts immediately he will most certainly be on the target board - literally. It will take time. Look at Blackwater. Eric Prince is gone. They will start shrinking gradually and will get adjusted to reality. The issue is that he cannot do everything asap. Slowly and slowly, Obama will replace the Corrupt Elite of the Past (including Geithner, Hillary, Gates, et. al) with the Deputies that are learning on the job. Is Obama anti-War?

Of course, he is anti-war (with a brain bigger than a molecule); except that if he acts immediately he will most certainly be on the target board – literally.

It will take time. Look at Blackwater. Eric Prince is gone. They will start shrinking gradually and will get adjusted to reality. The issue is that he cannot do everything asap.

Slowly and slowly, Obama will replace the Corrupt Elite of the Past (including Geithner, Hillary, Gates, et. al) with the Deputies that are learning on the job.

]]> By: Sam E. http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11940 Sam E. Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:20:01 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11940 It's good to hear that someones taking on the myth that Obama is anti-war; that said this should have been done during the election cycle. It’s good to hear that someones taking on the myth that Obama is anti-war; that said this should have been done during the election cycle.

]]> By: Andy http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11923 Andy Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:22:41 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11923 Thank You Jess. You are considerate and fair. President Obama now must contend with both the volcanic RRRight, and the LLLimpyleft. Where is reason and pragmatisim in this time? I have lived through George Wallace, Vietnam, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Gulf 1, Monica, and Mr. Wonderful II. I applaud Mr. Obama's efforts and wish him long-term success. Thank You Jess. You are considerate and fair.

President Obama now must contend with both the volcanic RRRight, and the LLLimpyleft. Where is reason and pragmatisim in this time? I have lived through George Wallace, Vietnam, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Gulf 1, Monica, and Mr. Wonderful II.

I applaud Mr. Obama’s efforts and wish him long-term success.

]]> By: Alex http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11921 Alex Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:46:44 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11921 Tiger - Liberty Mutual had better keep its political views to itself if it wants to keep its customers. It is not personal, it is business. Tiger – Liberty Mutual had better keep its political views to itself if it wants to keep its customers. It is not personal, it is business.

]]> By: Tiger http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11918 Tiger Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:27:44 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11918 4 to 1 listeners are more interested in internet culture than the peace creeps...is the Obamagasm over? Does Liberty Mutual have an opinion on the use of their sponsorship? 4 to 1 listeners are more interested in internet culture than the peace creeps…is the Obamagasm over? Does Liberty Mutual have an opinion on the use of their sponsorship?

]]> By: Lilya Lopekha http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11883 Lilya Lopekha Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:11:27 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11883 Jess, Jess, Jess: How many years we will be in Iraq; now or never...is irrelevant. All alternatives have various pros and cons. Saddam did not do anything bad to Warrant a full fledged Occupation by Another Country accross oceans (note: NOT by United Nations) between 1991 - 2003. Iraq was under severe embargo and they were getting their daily generous dose of bombings everyday by US bombers that was bringing them closer to Stone age. The question to you is: How come the Invasion Cheerleaders at JINSA and IASPS, never mentioned about how cruel Saddam was to Kurds or to his cats, when they were contituting The (only) Motive For Kicking Saddam Out of Power between 1992-1996 (pre PNAC days)? Jess, Jess, Jess:

How many years we will be in Iraq; now or never…is irrelevant. All alternatives have various pros and cons.

Saddam did not do anything bad to Warrant a full fledged Occupation by Another Country accross oceans (note: NOT by United Nations) between 1991 – 2003. Iraq was under severe embargo and they were getting their daily generous dose of bombings everyday by US bombers that was bringing them closer to Stone age.

The question to you is: How come the Invasion Cheerleaders at JINSA and IASPS, never mentioned about how cruel Saddam was to Kurds or to his cats, when they were contituting The (only) Motive For Kicking Saddam Out of Power between 1992-1996 (pre PNAC days)?

]]> By: Jess http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11862 Jess Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:36:25 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11862 Dennis Kucinich's endless repetition that we began the war based on lies is as redundant as his futile attempts to gain the Presidency for himself. EVERYONE KNOWS that we began the Iraq war under false pretenses. The statement isn't overdue at all, we all know it, we've known it for a long time. Unfortunately, at this point, it's not relevant. I've always been against this war, and I want the troops home ASAP, but Obama has many more factors to consider aside from the desire to end the war. He's being careful and deliberate, as he always said he would be during the campaign, and he is also respecting an agreement made by the government of Iraq--it may rankle to be bound by a Bush-admin agreement, but doing otherwise would call into question the Iraqi government's legitimacy. I also believe that Tom Ricks makes a strong argument for a longer occupation, one directly related to our responsibility to the Iraqis and to our foreign policy strategy, and though I don't advocate staying as long as Ricks suggesst, Obama can't ignore this kind of reasoned advice either. I think this program has raised legitimate concerns about the possibility of an unintended extension of our troop commitment, but as one caller said, we're subject to the uncertainties of war, and Obama can't paint himself into a corner and render himself politically ineffectual if situations change that might lead to a legitimate need for our troops to extend their mission--anything can happen. Kucinich's bullish peace advocacy and his idea that a truth-and- reconciliation process will make things all better are as naive, unsubtle and ideastic as Bush's neoconservative plans for making the world safe for democracy through invasion. Lastly, this idea that we're uniquely indebted to rebuild Iraq is not unquestionable. Even though it was ridiculous foreign policy that crippled our strategic position regarding the middle-east (particularly Iran), I don't hold the Iraqis to be absolute victims, either. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, internationally aggressive dictator who the Iraqi people were either 1)unwilling, or 2)completely unable (the latter seems more likely) to remove from power. If they had been able, and weren't willing to remove him, then they would be culpable in his crimes, and any destruction their country faced as an end result of his regime would be deserved. If they were willing but unable to remove him, then one has to acknowledge that, though it's paternalistic, we have done Iraq's people (minus the Hussein's loyalists) a favor (regardless of whether it was our reason for invading), one that to some degree has to mitigate our debt to rebuild. I don't think our invasion was just, or intelligent strategically, but Obama must deal reasonably with the real world. At this point, we're getting out at a pace that has been approved by our military leaders and by Iraqi's political leadership. Compared to what some reasonable arguments (see Tom Ricks again) have asserted, the pace isn't all that slow. Dennis Kucinich’s endless repetition that we began the war based on lies is as redundant as his futile attempts to gain the Presidency for himself. EVERYONE KNOWS that we began the Iraq war under false pretenses. The statement isn’t overdue at all, we all know it, we’ve known it for a long time. Unfortunately, at this point, it’s not relevant. I’ve always been against this war, and I want the troops home ASAP, but Obama has many more factors to consider aside from the desire to end the war. He’s being careful and deliberate, as he always said he would be during the campaign, and he is also respecting an agreement made by the government of Iraq–it may rankle to be bound by a Bush-admin agreement, but doing otherwise would call into question the Iraqi government’s legitimacy. I also believe that Tom Ricks makes a strong argument for a longer occupation, one directly related to our responsibility to the Iraqis and to our foreign policy strategy, and though I don’t advocate staying as long as Ricks suggesst, Obama can’t ignore this kind of reasoned advice either. I think this program has raised legitimate concerns about the possibility of an unintended extension of our troop commitment, but as one caller said, we’re subject to the uncertainties of war, and Obama can’t paint himself into a corner and render himself politically ineffectual if situations change that might lead to a legitimate need for our troops to extend their mission–anything can happen. Kucinich’s bullish peace advocacy and his idea that a truth-and- reconciliation process will make things all better are as naive, unsubtle and ideastic as Bush’s neoconservative plans for making the world safe for democracy through invasion. Lastly, this idea that we’re uniquely indebted to rebuild Iraq is not unquestionable. Even though it was ridiculous foreign policy that crippled our strategic position regarding the middle-east (particularly Iran), I don’t hold the Iraqis to be absolute victims, either. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, internationally aggressive dictator who the Iraqi people were either 1)unwilling, or 2)completely unable (the latter seems more likely) to remove from power. If they had been able, and weren’t willing to remove him, then they would be culpable in his crimes, and any destruction their country faced as an end result of his regime would be deserved. If they were willing but unable to remove him, then one has to acknowledge that, though it’s paternalistic, we have done Iraq’s people (minus the Hussein’s loyalists) a favor (regardless of whether it was our reason for invading), one that to some degree has to mitigate our debt to rebuild. I don’t think our invasion was just, or intelligent strategically, but Obama must deal reasonably with the real world. At this point, we’re getting out at a pace that has been approved by our military leaders and by Iraqi’s political leadership. Compared to what some reasonable arguments (see Tom Ricks again) have asserted, the pace isn’t all that slow.

]]> By: Lilya Lopekha http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11852 Lilya Lopekha Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:56:49 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11852 To Celeste: ...real reason for going to war in Iraq was to establish military bases. We already have tons of basis in Kuwait, Qatar, Djubiti. Then "why" would we need more basis? US Troops love desert sand? If your assumption were true, don't you think we would try to establish basis firs, without a War? Wasn't it true when Saddam's title was reduced down to Mayor of Baghdad between 1991-2003, we could have done anything in 85% Iraqi territory? If your assumption were true, then how come Pearle, Wolfowitz, Stephen Solarz, Frederic Kagan, Robert Kagan, Michael Jeremiah, Micheal Ladeen, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser never mentioned about Establishment of Basis when they were jumping up and down between 1992-1996 (read JINSA and IASPS papers)... saying Somebody/Anybody, we have to go and get Saddam. To Celeste:

…real reason for going to war in Iraq was to establish military bases.

We already have tons of basis in Kuwait, Qatar, Djubiti.
Then “why” would we need more basis? US Troops love desert sand?

If your assumption were true, don’t you think we would try to establish basis firs, without a War? Wasn’t it true when Saddam’s title was reduced down to Mayor of Baghdad between 1991-2003, we could have done anything in 85% Iraqi territory?

If your assumption were true, then how come Pearle, Wolfowitz, Stephen Solarz, Frederic Kagan, Robert Kagan, Michael Jeremiah, Micheal Ladeen, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser never mentioned about Establishment of Basis when they were jumping up and down between 1992-1996 (read JINSA and IASPS papers)… saying Somebody/Anybody, we have to go and get Saddam.

]]> By: A. Jacobucci http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11851 A. Jacobucci Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:50:36 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11851 Am I the only one who remembers Nixon's promise to end the Vietnam War when he ran in '68? I had a relative who voted for him on that basis. It was poor old Ford who had to deal with the Saigon pullout debacle in '75. "the more things change the more they remain the same"--Sen. Kucinich should know that. Did he REALLY expect Obama to be able to keep that promise? If so, I have a bridge I want to sell him. Am I the only one who remembers Nixon’s promise to end the Vietnam War when he ran in ‘68? I had a relative who voted for him on that basis. It was poor old Ford who had to deal with the Saigon pullout debacle in ‘75. “the more things change the more they remain the same”–Sen. Kucinich should know that. Did he REALLY expect Obama to be able to keep that promise? If so, I have a bridge I want to sell him.

]]> By: jeffe http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11850 jeffe Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:50:06 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11850 <i>With that in mind, I have a question. What impact will the return of the Reservists have on our unemployment rate? These people who have fought for our country are going to return to unemployment lines.</i> After WW1 the government promised the vets bonus pay. (Bonus Army) They did not pay, the depression came and the march of the vets on Washington came with it. They set up a camp in what is now the Mall and started to protest. The Army was sent in led by none other then General MacArthur, Eisenhower was his second in command, he used brute force and burned them out of the camp. With that in mind, I have a question. What impact will the return of the Reservists have on our unemployment rate? These people who have fought for our country are going to return to unemployment lines.

After WW1 the government promised the vets bonus pay. (Bonus Army)
They did not pay, the depression came and the march of the vets on Washington came with it. They set up a camp in what is now the Mall and started to protest.

The Army was sent in led by none other then General MacArthur, Eisenhower was his second in command, he used brute force and burned them out of the camp.

]]> By: Celeste http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11849 Celeste Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:42:52 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11849 Just before the the election I met a man who owns a business which supplies some type of nuclear weaponry to the US military. He was a true hawk - pro guns, etc., etc. He was very concerned about the Democrats winning the election because of his business and personal beliefs. He was very knowledgeable about the Iraq war and being the blowhard that he was had no problem "educating" me about it. He was quite adamant that the real reason for going to war in Iraq was to establish military bases. If that is true, it is not surprising that John McCain now supports Obama's proposal as he has not indicated that these bases will be removed. Please address these bases. Just before the the election I met a man who owns a business which supplies some type of nuclear weaponry to the US military. He was a true hawk – pro guns, etc., etc. He was very concerned about the Democrats winning the election because of his business and personal beliefs. He was very knowledgeable about the Iraq war and being the blowhard that he was had no problem “educating” me about it. He was quite adamant that the real reason for going to war in Iraq was to establish military bases. If that is true, it is not surprising that John McCain now supports Obama’s proposal as he has not indicated that these bases will be removed. Please address these bases.

]]> By: Dana Franchitto http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11847 Dana Franchitto Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:42:13 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11847 Hallellujah, it's pitifully long overdue to hear the Left represented on "public" radio. Long overdue to hear that the war was based on a system of lies ,that atleast one million Iraqis are dead, and that there is a major contingency of cotractors a la Blackwater assisting in the occupation with potential for even more trouble,that wesupported Saddam when it was expedient to do so.We need more relief of this kind on "public" radio from the usual wiseacring about "tactics" ,"honor' "Glory" and "freedom". Hallellujah, it’s pitifully long overdue to hear the Left represented on “public” radio. Long overdue to hear that the war was based on a system of lies ,that atleast one million Iraqis are dead, and that there is a major contingency of cotractors a la Blackwater assisting in the occupation with potential for even more trouble,that wesupported Saddam when it was expedient to do so.We need more relief of this kind on “public” radio from the usual wiseacring about “tactics” ,”honor’ “Glory” and “freedom”.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11845 Jeff Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:37:10 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11845 I want all our troops home as soon as possible but I think it has to be done in a responsible way. With that in mind, I have a question. What impact will the return of the Reservists have on our unemployment rate? These people who have fought for our country are going to return to unemployment lines. I want all our troops home as soon as possible but I think it has to be done in a responsible way.

With that in mind, I have a question. What impact will the return of the Reservists have on our unemployment rate? These people who have fought for our country are going to return to unemployment lines.

]]> By: Lilya Lopekha http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11844 Lilya Lopekha Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:27:44 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11844 If we went to Occupation (not War) on False Prestense or Based on Lies, then why did we occupy. Let's name the baby....let's be Bold about the Reason. If we know that a Lie is a Lie, then we should also know the Truth. This is the Forum folks. If we went to Occupation (not War) on False Prestense or Based on Lies, then why did we occupy.

Let’s name the baby….let’s be Bold about the Reason.

If we know that a Lie is a Lie, then we should also know the Truth.

This is the Forum folks.

]]> By: Lilya Lopekha http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/03/obamas-antiwar-critics/comment-page-1#comment-11843 Lilya Lopekha Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:18:04 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13856#comment-11843 Whoever gets on the air to ask a question.... Pleaaaaaase, can you ask the guests: It is just about time to get bold...because we are almost banckrupt.... Why did we invade Iraq? What was the Real Reason? What was the Original Motive? Why did the Cheerleaders went to Clinton about Iraq in 1998? Don't forget, in 1998, the Dog Barney knew more about Iraq than Bush at that time. Whoever gets on the air to ask a question….

Pleaaaaaase, can you ask the guests:

It is just about time to get bold…because we are almost banckrupt….
Why did we invade Iraq?
What was the Real Reason?
What was the Original Motive?
Why did the Cheerleaders went to Clinton about Iraq in 1998?

Don’t forget, in 1998, the Dog Barney knew more about Iraq than Bush at that time.

]]>