Where Is The Anti-War MyLotters?

@gewcew23 (8011)
United States
October 28, 2009 5:23pm CST
At one time here on the MyLot political page always had at least one anti-war post. Even though the same two wars are still going on, I seem not to be able to find any post about the subject. Is it because a Democrat is in office now and the anti-war MyLotter fell they must support him no matter what? Before anyone give the excuse, "Well it is not Obama's fault", well he is the Commander in chief, and if he wanted to he could pull the troop out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow. So what is the difference.
1 person likes this
8 responses
@Makro74 (591)
29 Oct 09
gewcew Interesting. Anti-war what exactly is it? Am I right in saying that is a lobby against war full stop? Am I also right in saying that it is more prevalent BEFORE war and GOING INTO WAR for exactly the reasons the protestor is opposed? But once a stubborn nation goes to war, and it does not go plan, does it not create a mess? Not to mention the countless thousands of HUMAN lives regardless of race, nation, occupation or gender. When this mess is created, and the protestors are silenced, then what else can be done? The protestors will say, well we warned you? Who is listening? Specifically, 1 million + marched in the streets of London against the Iraq war, what was Tony Blair's response, '1million people on streets of London will not be comparable to Saddam Hussein if we let him carry on...'. He joined forces with Bush creating mayhem and disorder in these countries and fueled the cycle of hate which subsequently resulted in the London and Madrid bombings. But the mess of Afghanistan and Iraq are before us, and we also have the Israel issue. This was inherited by Obama and not necessarily the making of Bush. But a mess is mess, it has to be cleaned up. But I am not sure America is capable of cleaning it up whoever is in charge. America does not understand one thing - ALL avenues of peace must be exhausted before contemplation of war is even considered. America should be bigger with intent of peace and should not be so gunho about some small groups trying to attack with meagre cowardly tactics. I must ask all Americans, when a few twisted individuals carry out cowardly attacks, why are Americans wasting so much money and time, risking their own soldiers for mere gnat attacks for which their military superiority can literally destroy the world? Slaves are made in such ways, but if peace is the desire then Americans must marginilise the terrorists by reaching out to all peace lovers. Even in Pakistan, where terrorist bombs are a normality now, many Pakistani's see Hilary Clinton's visit as self defeating. They see the Americans as the cause rather than the solution. Why is that?? Americans must also ask, why many countries' populations are against American 'help'.. once these questions are answered and moves to change US likability in the world, then the hardcore groups will dwindle to insignificant idiots. Sympathy would shift to the American cause, but America has to very non-arrogant to be able to accept such sympathy - but it is crucial for world peace and security for the WHOLE world, not just America.
• United States
29 Oct 09
As an American I think you should keep your unAmerican opinions to yourself. You folks in the UK have enough on you plate with your socialist idiocy to be talking trash about anyone else. Hows that Muslim thing working out for you?
1 person likes this
@Makro74 (591)
30 Oct 09
As an advocate for world peace, your response is not necessarily American. It is purely and simply arrogant. What did I say in my piece that has wound you up? All I referred to was WORLD peace, and not to start a fight without exhausting all Peace avenues. And I believe it you who are un-American, for many Americans would write credible responses with a bit of intellect thrown in!
@Makro74 (591)
30 Oct 09
Also during the Bush era, the US was accused more than ever, it is not listening to world opinion. The world stood against America for invading Iraq, less so for Afghanistan. Yet, some Americans still cannot see that US still needs the world to secure itself. Down boy!
• United States
29 Oct 09
Because they were never against the war. This proves it. THey were against Bush. Now that Obama is in office...war is fine. If they were truely against the war...then they would be protesting Obama now like they protested Bush then.
2 people like this
@Makro74 (591)
29 Oct 09
I was against the war and I am against Bush. But I am giving Obama a chance to clean a mess! Obama did not start any war but inherited it. If you bought a property which was nice and clean, but as you are about to move in somebody breaks in and leaves excrement all over the place. Who cleans up the mess? Its your house, you have the keys and have bought it. But you did not create the mess, yet you loathe it nevetheless! GWB crapped all over the middle east! We war haters said no, but he and blair were cowboys on a mission. Barack is nowhere near hostile as this, but he cannot leave a mess behind - but Obama critics will assume a simple pull out will solve the problem for America and leave lasting peace and security. No - these people are mad with hatred for the US, they are desperate to take revenge for the carnage of Iraq and Afghanistan - they would also be embolded with a US retreat or even defeat. The US should never have gone there in the first place. But, they have, and they must clean up the mess.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
29 Oct 09
I am going to ignore the writing of the person that responded to you. Lilwonders you are once again right, it seems not to matter that a war is still going on as long as a party can win an election. Still anti-war is still anti-war regardless of who is Commander-in-cheif.
@Makro74 (591)
30 Oct 09
ignorance is the key to mess - and dare I say it - arrogance
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
29 Oct 09
I think it is because they (for the most part) were more against Bush than the war. Not all mind you, just for the most part.
2 people like this
@MrNiceGuy (4148)
• United States
29 Oct 09
It's a tired subject. Now that there isn't a republican in the office, no one has anything to complain about. Its the nature of talking politics on the internet. It may also have something to do with the quality of posts going down...
1 person likes this
• United States
29 Oct 09
You may be right. Now it's Obama's war, and it's all good. I've posted my thoughts on some conservative blogs (several of Breitbart's sites) on keeping the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for at least as long as we've kept troops in Germany and Japan, and I get shot down with gusto. Now that Obama's in office, it seems more conservatives are against the war now than liberals. Personally, I think the troops need to win in both countries. Build some solid allies in a traditionally anti-American locale--it would be good for our safety here.
1 person likes this
@evanslf (485)
30 Oct 09
Well I think with the passing of the Bush presidency, much of the anger against the wars has gone, at least for now - particularly as those opposed to the wars are prepared to give Obama some time to sort out things. Him declaring that he will pull out of Iraq by end 2011 has no doubt taken the political sting out of things, but in my view that is a very extended withdrawal timetable that could leave Obama hostage to fortune - the stability brought about by the 2007 surge could easily be reversed as we have seen this week, it would be better to leave now whilst the US can claim to be ahead - wait too long and things might easily turn for the worse once more. On Afghanistan I supported the reasons for going to war at the time. One of the reasons why I opposed the Iraq war however is that is unnecessarily opened up a second front: the result was that as America concentrated its resources on sorting out the Iraqi fallout, Afghanistan was left to fester. The result is now clear for all to see. Obama is right to refocus US effort on Afghanistan, where it should always have been in the first place. The problem he now faces however is that 1) the Taliban are now resurgent and have used the opportunity of the Iraqi distraction to rebuild their strength and 2) the US public is war - weary and therefore is chary of committing more troops and money to Afghanistan. And a third difficulty he now has is that Karzai and the Afghan politicans are making a right mess of things - one cannot have military success without political stability as well. In my view, Afghanistan is similar to what Iraq was in early 2007, when I supported the surge back then as a last chance saloon to sort that mess out (being against a war does not mean agreeing to pulling out irresponsibly, I ascribe to the view that if you go to war and break the china shop, you then own that shop and it is your duty to fix it unless it becomes clear that it is impossible to succeed - only then do you withdraw and not before). Therefore, however unpalatable, Obama is going to have to face down his own party and order increased troop levels to try and sort things out. The political instability in Afghanistan hasn't helped things as Obama is wary to commit extra troops without clarification of the Afghani political situation. Nevertheless, he will have to come round to a surge soon, by the end of the year at the latest. But what he should also do at the political level, and this is critical, is split the enemy - isolate Al-Quaida from the Taliban and split the Taliban between the unreconcilables on the one hand and the more 'moderate' Taleban on the other (ie those Taleban who just want US troops off Afghani soil and don't want a world-wide Islamic Caliphate like the Al-Quaida crowd). If he does this, then there is a chance, no more than that, that some form of political stability will return to Afghanistan as it did to Iraq in 2008. Having said all this, any surge in Afghanistan, coupled with a 'divide and rule' strategy as far as the Taliban/Al-Quaida are concerned, has only a limited timeframe, probably 2 years, within which to succeed.
@Makro74 (591)
30 Oct 09
Gewcew A contender for best response, don't you think? Unless of course, common sense goes over your head!
@Makro74 (591)
30 Oct 09
evanslf, whilst everyone may or may not agree with your points, but you place them so well structured and justification, that it gives credence to your position - and I think you are correct that the anger has gone with time. Great anwser - well done!
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
30 Oct 09
Makro, consider this an official warning. You have a right to your opinion and to express it no matter how disagreable it may be to some. but some of your comments are starting to border on inflamitory and insulting and you seem to be bouncing from comment to comment attacking the commenter. Keep it in the realm of civility.
1 person likes this
@Makro74 (591)
30 Oct 09
Unfortunately, to all who respond to this, the discusser has already a forgone conclusion - mylotters can only have a war-like attitude - pathetic for a facilitator.
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
30 Oct 09
Makro74 I feel so honored to have your presence. Two responses to one discussion. One other thing I decide who gets best response not you.
@Makro74 (591)
3 Nov 09
Of course, you are the facilitator, then act like one!
@murderistic (2280)
• United States
12 Nov 09
Hmmm... I am a pacifist and constantly express my "anti-war" beliefs here on mylot. I don't think that Obama is going to eliminate war, but I do think that his approach to diplomacy is on the right track and that his efforts to strengthen the peace corps are commendable. On the same note, he certainly didn't deserve the nobel peace prize, and the blood of many innocent people will be on his administration.