Obama’s War Speech Wins Over Some Skeptics

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Only God can help us now. I pray He gives us our country back from the GIANTS in our land.

Religious people are famous for this. Let's not delve into this issue, or demand change, or rise up against the powers at be... let's just pray for some miracle to happen... maybe superman will come save us, something just as likely. Religion is the most dangerous barrier to rational thinking in the history of human existence... It fosters apathy and powerlessness where desperate action is necessary.

Bush X1. Rock on conservatives, its working great. Fucking idiots, our country has been broke for YEARS, and you yet you didn't care to complain about it until Obama came onto the scene.

Your disappointment is unwarranted on a level I cannot even begin to describe.

Any Obama supporter surprised and distressed by this Afghanistan surge is a fucking idiot.

Any Obama critic who thinks this Afghanistan surge is proof of Obama going back on his word is a fucking idiot.

Were you guys fucking ASLEEP during his campaign?

I hate to say this slarabee...but I agree with calm_incense (though I might not have called anyone an idiot). Any shock over this policy really surprises me. He said over and over again during the campaign that we needed more troops in Afghanistan. It was in just about every debate and it in every foreign policy discussion. Clinton said the same thing by the way. I agree that it's a mess. I agree that it is terribly sad that this war is going to continue (that any war is going to continue). I agree that there should be disappointment at the the position we're in. And I don't even agree that this is the right policy. I'm not convinced there is one in fact. There certainly aren't any ideas coming from the haters on this site. But this simply was not a betrayal at all. In fact he's keeping a campaign promise (I wish he'd kept others).

I expect the haters out there to take every opportunity to bash the President. Haters are going to hate like the sun is going to rise. But making hard decisions that a lot of people will disagree with (that I disagree with) is what leaders have to do sometime. I'm happy we now have an adult making those tough calls.

I don't think slarabee said he was shocked, just disappointed.

Maybe shock is too strong a word in slarabee's case. Maybe surprise or disappointment would be better. Only he can say for sure...but that fact that Obama is doing what he ran on stands.

I'd love to see a discussion of what people believe the right plan for Afghanistan is. If Obama is wrong...what's right?

And the one continuing it. Keep those blinders on.

I agree that oil is a big part of the problem. And there's no doubt that it played a part in why we have been mired in this war for 8 years. But our country was attacked. The Taliban government in Afghanistan played a part in that attack by sheltering Al-Qaeda. This is a fact. And the vast majority of the country supported the use of military force in Afghanistan. Also a fact. Was it bungled? Absolutely. Should we have demanded a better job be done by our leaders? No doubt. But what do we do now? What's the answer? I've seen scores of snide quips, baseless accusations and endless complaints. What I haven't seen is a single suggestion of what the right thing to do is. No realistic analysis. No critical thinking. Just bitching.

But then...what should I expect. And you talk about blinders, please.

As for me, I don't see a good solution here. I don't think there is any "right answer" (if you do...please make a case). All I see is a bunch of bad choices. The one thing I do know is that having a plan, even one you might not agree with, is better than NOT having one. But that gets dangerously close to giving the President some credit...and we can't have that, can we?

If what you say is true, then why do you support the continuance of the war?

"You can't be against 'surges' and war under Bush and for the same thing under Obama or vice versa."

Yes, in fact, I can. I do not view every war as the same, nor do I view every situation as the same. I differentiate between situations.

Its also worth noting that Obama admitted during th campaign that the surge had been a successes.

"Your credibility is then lost."

To whom? You? WhiteNoise? etc. Because I don't care if I've lost credibility with you or most anyone else on current. However, there are others whose opinions of me I take seriously. Why? Because they are even keeled, rational, generally educated and have had a history of telling me things straight up, whether I'd like to hear them or not.

With all of that said, its worth noting that a number of users on current, some of whom I talk to, have sent me messages thanking me for my dedication. Interestingly enough, some have come from conservative, some moderates and others whom are liberals.

"Where are people's convictions?"

They're here, you just don't agree with them.

"Merriam Webster definition of conviction -

3 a : a strong persuasion or belief b : the state of being convinced
synonyms - certainty, opinion"

I'll give you a very basic Idea of one of my core convictions. I firmly stand behind the idea that most situations require a realistic view of the world and that most every situation should be judged as objectively as possible. I endeavor to take every opinion seriously. I believe compromise is necessary, whether it is popular or not. I belive that pragmatism is necessary. And that day by day I should asses myself and my reactions to others.

As to party, I've voted Libertarian, Republican and Democratic.

It's the same war. It's just being run by someone you support and believe in as opposed to someone you don't. The end result is the same.

It's amazing to me how many people, like Jan and Sam, who claim to be educated do not seem to understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same place.

It's called having an agenda.

I don't know about Sam, but for some people the equation is simple...Obama = bad. Anything else, like critical thinking, just gets in the way. So two wars in DIFFERENT countries that were engaged in for very DIFFERENT reasons become the same thing. And two DIFFERENT policies from two DIFFERENT Presidents become the same thing. See, as long as Obama = bad, then nothing else matters.

Doug,

Although I do not recall the claim of being educated, I am fully aware that Iraq and A'stan are two different places with differing circumstances. I am also aware that the A'stan policy is not a reversal of what Obama campaigned on. He said A'stan was the place all along. In my view, we went to remove the Taliban and that has already been achieved. I do not support nation building because who are we to tell anyone else how to live or organize themselves economically or politically? That being said, I wish Obama tremendous success as he is me and my family and my country's leader. I wish him good health and clear judgment--even if I think his continuance of this Bush policy will lead to more deaths.

Krag,

I agree that there are folks who just don't like Obama, Bush, Palin (fill in the blank for whomever) and that those people tend not to engage in the debate. It is easy for them to say, "I don't like the source" or "all people from that party are bad" etc etc. A flawed argument can be debunked regardless of the source. I wish more people would engage in debate without resorting to character assassination.

I don't think pointing out someone's intellectual dishonesty is character assassination. But maybe that's not what you're saying. And I hope you noticed that I excluded you from that observation Sam.

I assume when you say "it's the same war" you mean the war in Afghanistan is the same war just with a new Commander in Chief. If not, and you (like many others here) are trying to suggest that the war in Iraq is the same as the war in Afghanistan...then you're kidding yourself. I don't know a single educated person who thinks that's the case.

Ah, just like the Bush years. You're almost giddy about this. You like children getting blown up too? Gotta keep pushing that boogeyman. Just remember, the blood is on Obama's hands now as well.

Giddy?

So that's what it's come to? Supporting the President equals being "giddy" at the thought of children dying. What a disgusting comment.

So much for taste.

so in order to get out of Afghanistan we have to send more troops, i guess 'war is peace,' 'freedom is slavery and 'ignorance is strength'

McCain would have approved 40,000 new troops several months ago and would have conducted no review of the strategy. He would not have planned any timeline for withdrawal and would have made the American commitment in Afghanistan open-ended. He was on tv after Obama's speech saying so.

That difference is only subtle. The real difference between them is intangible. Instead of other countries offering more troops, they would be pulling them out. Pakistan would not be co-operating. Future dialog with Iran on the issue would be out of the question. Muslim sentiment in the world would be MUCH less in our favor and much more in the Taliban's favor. Public support for the war in America would be lower and the issue would be much more divisive than it already is.

Doug,

You write "That difference is only subtle. The real difference between them is intangible."

I could not agree more.

Well said Doug. So many comments...so little actual analysis. Thank you for yours.

One country attacked us and one did not. It's really simple. One was a war for profit and one is a war of necessity.

How did Afghanistan attack us or are you referring to the attacks on American pilots enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq?

This is exactly what we want. The Taliban have two options:
1) Negotiate, make peace, wait for us to leave and take the country
2) Fight and be destroyed
I'm glad to hear they are thinking about the latter.

You last sentence is false and explains your confusion about this whole thing.

Gee, it's like the Taliban suddenly felt threatened and felt a desperate need to assert authority before it was crushed.

Just out of curiosity, how do these numbers rate compared to the monthly soldier deaths that took place in Iraq?

It's the corporate media, by and for the corporations, not the people. The people can die. Wall Street rules.

See my above post for my position. But on what you said, that we have already been there for 8 years I say:

The reality is that while we have been there for 8 years, Bush did nothing and letting the situation deteriorate by shifting focus away from our true objectives and concentrating in an unnecessary war in Iraq. So in reality it is as if though we are still at square one.

If we were to leave now, it would be as if we did not solve anything in the first place. Obama must now solve the problem that his predecessor left behind.

If Afghanistan is abandoned and falls again into the depths of instability and a new attack is launched on this country... THEN WHAT?

It happened before, it can happen again, especially if the same conditions that provided a safe haven for terrorist organizations are recreated by the Taliban when we leave.

You really are lead around by the nose aren't you, hook line and sinker.

Tell me o wise one, why does killing innocent Afghans stop terrorists from attacking America? You think terrorists only exist in Afghanistan? You think they are all holed up there and have no ability to travel anywhere else in the world including the US? All they have to do is hide out in Pakistan or Iran or any number of countries, even in the US, even in our own military. What then? You going to blow all of them up and create even more terrorists?

Why not start up a Nazi party to send all Muslims to the gas chamber? Think that will work?

What makes you think terrorists have a territory? Who said they all have to stay in Afghanistan while we go there to rape and kill their little sisters?

War begets war. Violence begets violence. It will not end until someone quits, and they aren't going to quit in their own country, neither would we, neither would anyone.

WE HAVE LOST! Face it. There is no way to recover except to leave.

The ignorance and pure stupidity of your uninformed statements are enough to drive someone insane trying to answer them. I'm not saying you're stupid. But you are certainly uneducated and ignorant, or more likely, you're a military shill.

Can you list even one credible reference that explains why what you say makes a lick of sense? I have pointed you to a whole set of films on Afghanistan with all kinds of experts including military scholars, CIA people, GIs who were there, all of them explaining how wrong you are.

What and who do you have to prove your lame TV hyped arguments?

Not even a link. You are completely not credible and your arguments are baseless and empty.

Jon, if you really have to know, I am a student at Florida Int'l University and my major is International Relations with a focus on the Middle East and Security Studies. I am proud to say that I am also a good student.

Up until now you were very respectful. If you are going to resort to labeling me an idiot then we are done. I'm dissapointed that we could not agree to disagree without resorting to personal attacks.

So this is your answer? When backed into a corner you hide behide your educational instituion and bruised ego? No answers to my questions? You have to reduce it to a personal level? I am not being personal when I go after your perceptions as being ignorant, uneducated and misinformed. I am addressing your responses only, not you as a person. You should have the intelligencve to distinguish this. This is a civil discussion. Bush had a Yale education. What does that prove?

Answer the questions if you can or go hide behind your little damaged ego as I know you will:

1. Why does killing innocent Afghans stop terrorists from attacking America?
2. You think terrorists only exist in Afghanistan?
3. You think they are all holed up there and have no ability to travel anywhere else in the world including the US? All they have to do is hide out in Pakistan or Iran or any number of countries, even in the US, even in our own military.
4. What then? You going to blow all of them up and create even more terrorists?

So your solution is for us to leave and allow the Taliban to reoccupy the country?

The reality is that while we have been there for 8 years, Bush did nothing and letting the situation deteriorate by shifting focus away from our true objectives and concentrating in an unnecessary war in Iraq. So in reality it is as if though we are still at square one.

If we were to leave now, it would be as if we did not solve anything in the first place. Obama must now solve the problem that his predecessor left behind.

If Afghanistan is abandoned and falls again into the depths of instability and a new attack is launched on this country... THEN WHAT?

It happened before, it can happen again, especially if the same conditions that provided a safe haven for terrorist organizations are recreated by the Taliban when we leave.

Why don't the leaders of this country ever admit defeat? Because defeat is not an option.

Hello? It's their country. They already occupy it. Our troops there are a drop in the bucket of the huge landscape. That's what failed Russia. It's what failed us. It's over! We already failed.

Unfortunately, as much as it hurts to admit failure, we have failed. Did that possibility ever cross your mind?

You can blow up all the Afghan school children you want. All it does is motivate terrorists, not stop them. How the hell do you think that will stop them?

If an army occupied your country and blew up all your family and friends, would that make you stop fighting back, or would it make you fight even more?

They even prefer the Taliban over us, as bad as the Taliban are. Fact.

Who ever said that they want the Taliban? The Taliban is hugely unpopular among most of the people in the country.

And no. Failure is not an option, especially when it means inviting another 9/11 to occur.

You are seriously uneducated in the reality of Afghanistan. The Afghan people are inbetween the Taliban who kill them and the U.S. troops who alsoill them. It is a known fact that they prefer to deal with the Taliban than the U.S. troops.

I will agree to disagree with you on that main point. The Afghan people do not necessarily support the Taliban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/world/asia/24afghan.html?_r=2&partner=rss&...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2009/11/22/afghan_militias_sprout...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0413/p06s10-wosc.html

What they crave is stability and security. The surge will allow us to train the Afghan security forces to provide that, and it will keep the pressure off of the Afghan security forces.

And if it fails, Obama already said that we are withdrawing in 2011, regardless. Bush completely neglected the country after he went to Iraq, so it is only now that we are truly focusing on doing the job we originally were there to do.

What the hell makes you think this will make it any more stable? If anything, it will make it more unstable. The more troops we push in the worse it gets, the more terrorism we motivate, This will escalate things worse so that when it does O will come back with, gee wiz, we'd better send in 30,000 more.

That will not be the case because the insurgency in Afghanistan is not a popular insurgency like the one that we experienced in Vietnam. It is not a popular insurgency in response to an occupation, it is an insurgency by the Taliban, not the people.

Many people fear that it will take the same course that it did in Iraq or Vietnam, but to think so would be to igore the different circumstances.

Whitenoise

I repeatedly see the same argument again and again for withdrawal. Most of the assumptions paint Afghanistan as being similar to Vietnam. When someone argues terrorism will follow us home if we withdraw prematurely, I imagine that you argue that that was the argument in Vietnam... You know, that communism would then follow us and create a domino effect. Thus we should not believe that it will follow us home, just as it did not follow us home after Vietnam.

I hope that that is sort of a fair assessment of your position. I find that it is usually the argument of most people that argue for withdrawal.

To it I would respond that Afghanistan is drastically different than Vietnam in one major point: That unlike Vietnam (or Iraq), we actually were attacked from Afghanistan.

If we leave prematurely what is to say that the same will not occur again if the same conditions that sheltered the Taliban are restored again? It is easy for the talking heads at MSNBC, CNN, and Fox to criticize him for sending more troops and setting a deadline to leave. But in the end, if we withdraw and instability breeds a new attack on this country it will be Obama who will be held accountable, not the talking heads, not Kucinich, and not anyeone else...

Obama absolutely did the right thing in pursuing this course of action. The people arguing that we should withdraw and cut our losses are ignoring the danger of leaving and allowing instability to grow again. In the end, if we leave and are then attacked again they have the luxury of hiding in their rooms and shutting up.

Obama does not have that luxury...

Urbangypsy: I am so relieved that all the fear mongering did not affect you. Try to find any substantial evidence linking Afghanistan to 9/11. I dare ya.

bush and cheney should have been indicted for war crimes at the world court for invading iraq...or at least impeached in the U.S., but were allowed to go home with millions they made.

Ryan,

Not so. Let's look at it from a different perspective. The Gulf War ended with a UN recognized treaty that required Iraq to do certain things. Over 1000 violations of that treaty occurred and most against US and British forces authorized by the UN to be there.

To preface, I'm not saying it was you, but most people (as evidenced from the time devoted to coverage on national media and political discourse) did not give a rat's behind about the men and women in Afghanistan before it became a convenient attack on Obama. A few weeks ago, most righties were trying to crucify Obama for not sending more troops to Afghanistan precisely when the general ordered it. I can't wait to turn on FOX to see how this spins now...

Lots of people care more than you know. If you get your evidence from the time devoted to coverage on national media, you would think Obama was qualified to be President too.

You don't need to watch Fox News...there's more than enough spin on this site, and from this poster. You take the news of the day filter it through the "I hate Obama" lens and you get the same tired shit that Fox is peddling, just with more self riotousness. Your point is well taken healthcare12345. Tomorrow will bring more news and thus new opportunities the to bash the President and then that will be the most important thing.

Obama and genuine in the same sentence, there's a first. Don't tell me you beleive one word coming out of that Chicago politician's mouth. Ah, the young, the naive, you have to love them.