Obama in a box.

[Guest 2smart4u]

General McChrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops or the Afgan war wil be lost. One of Obama's pledges during the campaign was to destroy the Taliban and win the war. Obama's far left base wants him to get out of Afganistan. What to do? To not listen to his top General puts all of our troops in danger and will cost American lives. To listen to McChrystal and give him the troops he needs will infuriate his base. However, since Obama has time for Letterman and other talk shows but hasn't talked to McCrystal in 70 days, one has to wonder what his priorities are.

[Guest Guest]

General McChrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops or the Afgan war wil be lost. One of Obama's pledges during the campaign was to destroy the Taliban and win the war. Obama's far left base wants him to get out of Afganistan. What to do? To not listen to his top General puts all of our troops in danger and will cost American lives. To listen to McChrystal and give him the troops he needs will infuriate his base. However, since Obama has time for Letterman and other talk shows but hasn't talked to McCrystal in 70 days, one has to wonder what his priorities are.

You jackass! Our President is facing a serious question of war and all you can think about is partisan politics.

[Guest ko]

General McChrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops or the Afgan war wil be lost. One of Obama's pledges during the campaign was to destroy the Taliban and win the war. Obama's far left base wants him to get out of Afganistan. What to do? To not listen to his top General puts all of our troops in danger and will cost American lives. To listen to McChrystal and give him the troops he needs will infuriate his base. However, since Obama has time for Letterman and other talk shows but hasn't talked to McCrystal in 70 days, one has to wonder what his priorities are.

Not that you seek my approval, but you make a good point here. I don't think Obama's celebrity status has anything to do with this, however.

Beg your pardon, how many days did George W. Bush spend in Crawford, Texas? Oh, and isn't Obama in this predicament because George W. Bush shifted his focus from a war we needed to fight to a war he "knew we could win." The Ghosts of Bush haunt this administration from Main Street to Wall Street to some street name I can't pronounce in Kabul. Obama's F**KING up (don't get me wrong here), but let's not forget whose mess he is cleaning up. You can attack him on many fronts, but this is one where you should certainly just make your point and run away, instead of making your point and throwing in an insult. As a known Bush defender, your credibility in any sort of foreign policy debate is immediately squashed. If you were fair and balanced, you would take my position: Obama is doing a poor job cleaning up Bush's enormous messes. This point of view would allow you to then speak on such an issue and be taken seriously.

That was all for arguments sake, however. The reason this issue is so pressing to Obama is because he wants to stay true to his campaign promise to win in Afghanistan. However, with new evidence that the election in Afghanistan was rigged by "our guy" Karzai and the corruption surrounding our supposed allies in that country, the task of winning the war of Afghanistan seems murky. It's not as simple as "put 40,000 troops in Afghanistan and win." If that were the case, Obama would do it. The question is of the Afghan government's cooperation/trustworthiness and the proposal is "put 40,000 troops in and we'll try to win." Obama isn't making knee-jerk decisions that concern the lives of 40,000 troops, but balking at this decision obviously isn't helping the troops who are in Afghanistan already (this is why I agree that 2smart4u's point has substance). He's not on David Letterman every night, however. Actually, he is talking to John Kerry everyday--Kerry heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is talking and listening to Kerry. You might remember Kerry as the 2004 presidential candidate who DID go to Vietnam.

Cut the shit, buddy. Cut the shit and maybe you'll have a debate. I agree with you to a point here. The situation is urgent, but it's not simple whatsoever.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Not that you seek my approval, but you make a good point here. I don't think Obama's celebrity status has anything to do with this, however.

Beg your pardon, how many days did George W. Bush spend in Crawford, Texas? Oh, and isn't Obama in this predicament because George W. Bush shifted his focus from a war we needed to fight to a war he "knew we could win." The Ghosts of Bush haunt this administration from Main Street to Wall Street to some street name I can't pronounce in Kabul. Obama's F**KING up (don't get me wrong here), but let's not forget whose mess he is cleaning up. You can attack him on many fronts, but this is one where you should certainly just make your point and run away, instead of making your point and throwing in an insult. As a known Bush defender, your credibility in any sort of foreign policy debate is immediately squashed. If you were fair and balanced, you would take my position: Obama is doing a poor job cleaning up Bush's enormous messes. This point of view would allow you to then speak on such an issue and be taken seriously.

That was all for arguments sake, however. The reason this issue is so pressing to Obama is because he wants to stay true to his campaign promise to win in Afghanistan. However, with new evidence that the election in Afghanistan was rigged by "our guy" Karzai and the corruption surrounding our supposed allies in that country, the task of winning the war of Afghanistan seems murky. It's not as simple as "put 40,000 troops in Afghanistan and win." If that were the case, Obama would do it. The question is of the Afghan government's cooperation/trustworthiness and the proposal is "put 40,000 troops in and we'll try to win." Obama isn't making knee-jerk decisions that concern the lives of 40,000 troops, but balking at this decision obviously isn't helping the troops who are in Afghanistan already (this is why I agree that 2smart4u's point has substance). He's not on David Letterman every night, however. Actually, he is talking to John Kerry everyday--Kerry heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is talking and listening to Kerry. You might remember Kerry as the 2004 presidential candidate who DID go to Vietnam.

Cut the shit, buddy. Cut the shit and maybe you'll have a debate. I agree with you to a point here. The situation is urgent, but it's not simple whatsoever.

OK, here's my "no shit" opinions. Obama's credibility suffers when he's out doing the talk show circuit and General McCrystal reports on 60 Minutes that he's spoken to Obama once over the last 70 days. When Joe Gaffe Biden makes the statement that McCrystal doesn't know what he's taking about, I wonder

about the sanity of a VP with no military experience that allows him to criticize our top General. I also question Obama's priorities when he's flying off to Copenhagen instead of talking to McCrystal. I also think Pelosi and Reid (the war is lost) have too much control over Obama, they're telling him to cut and run from Afganistan which creates the indecision we don't need.

Iran is going to push Obama around because they believe he's weak, if he listens to Pelosi & Friends and capitulates on Afganistan there will be no stopping Iran and we'll see an attack on Israel, if Israel doesn't strike first. My hope now is that Obama is not another Jimmy Carter.

[Guest SmKat]

OK, here's my "no shit" opinions. Obama's credibility suffers when he's out doing the talk show circuit and General McCrystal reports on 60 Minutes that he's spoken to Obama once over the last 70 days. When Joe Gaffe Biden makes the statement that McCrystal doesn't know what he's taking about, I wonder

about the sanity of a VP with no military experience that allows him to criticize our top General. I also question Obama's priorities when he's flying off to Copenhagen instead of talking to McCrystal. I also think Pelosi and Reid (the war is lost) have too much control over Obama, they're telling him to cut and run from Afganistan which creates the indecision we don't need.

Iran is going to push Obama around because they believe he's weak, if he listens to Pelosi & Friends and capitulates on Afganistan there will be no stopping Iran and we'll see an attack on Israel, if Israel doesn't strike first. My hope now is that Obama is not another Jimmy Carter.

Dare I say that you've actually brought up some legitimate points here? I happen to agree with a lot of what you've said and it has nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat viewpoints. I reiterate again the main reason I could never run for public office - if I disagree with my own party, I have no problem telling them about it.

Obama has a lot of pressing issues to deal with. He could, in my opinion, skip the Denmark trip.

I'm not sure that Pelosi and Reid have his ear when it comes to Afghanistan though. And the situation between Iran and Israel is indeed escalating. But, to be fair, I do think Obama is taking a hard stance on this issue. He is not treating it lightly. But if he really wanted to "show teeth," the so-called talks scheduled for tomorrow should be canceled until Iran complies with the demand for an immediate inspection of its nuclear facility. The talks should only be rescheduled after a satisfactory inspection.

[Guest ko]

OK, here's my "no shit" opinions. Obama's credibility suffers when he's out doing the talk show circuit and General McCrystal reports on 60 Minutes that he's spoken to Obama once over the last 70 days. When Joe Gaffe Biden makes the statement that McCrystal doesn't know what he's taking about, I wonder

about the sanity of a VP with no military experience that allows him to criticize our top General. I also question Obama's priorities when he's flying off to Copenhagen instead of talking to McCrystal. I also think Pelosi and Reid (the war is lost) have too much control over Obama, they're telling him to cut and run from Afganistan which creates the indecision we don't need.

Iran is going to push Obama around because they believe he's weak, if he listens to Pelosi & Friends and capitulates on Afganistan there will be no stopping Iran and we'll see an attack on Israel, if Israel doesn't strike first. My hope now is that Obama is not another Jimmy Carter.

Not sure what that last sentence means.

The truth is, Barack Obama gets memos from General McChrystal weekly and discusses foreign policy strategy weekly with his defense secretary.

Obama will also take part in a video confrerence with McChrystal on Wednesday, one of five upcoming such meetings.

Also, he has discussed the Afghanistan issue with NATO.

VP with no millitary experience? What does that have to do with anything. Joe Biden served on the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee and is known for going against his own party in the interest of "winning" wars.

What is this Jimmy Carter thing?

Barack Obama should go to Denmark, however. Olympics in Chicago means jobs in America.

[Guest Guest]

OK, here's my "no shit" opinions. Obama's credibility suffers when he's out doing the talk show circuit and General McCrystal reports on 60 Minutes that he's spoken to Obama once over the last 70 days. When Joe Gaffe Biden makes the statement that McCrystal doesn't know what he's taking about, I wonder

about the sanity of a VP with no military experience that allows him to criticize our top General. I also question Obama's priorities when he's flying off to Copenhagen instead of talking to McCrystal. I also think Pelosi and Reid (the war is lost) have too much control over Obama, they're telling him to cut and run from Afganistan which creates the indecision we don't need.

Iran is going to push Obama around because they believe he's weak, if he listens to Pelosi & Friends and capitulates on Afganistan there will be no stopping Iran and we'll see an attack on Israel, if Israel doesn't strike first. My hope now is that Obama is not another Jimmy Carter.

You're all shit all the time.

You never gave Obama a chance, so your view of his credibility means nothing. The leaders of France and Britain stood behind him as he spoke to the world. They wouldn't be seen with Bush.

You criticize Biden, who spent 36 years in the Senate and knows foreign policy better than most of the generals. Bush, who hid in the national guard and dodged his duty there, you gave a free pass.

Obama is acting like a President, who has to do more than one thing at once. No president would spend all his time on Afghanistan, not even now. Taking a day to go to Copenhagen is a good use of one day's time.

You have no idea how much influence Pelosi and Reid have on the President in foreign policy. As usual, you just make it up.

We'll see whether Iran pushes Obama around. Don't be on it. Obama isn't the one who weakened the region by removing Iran's biggest regional threat.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Not sure what that last sentence means.

The truth is, Barack Obama gets memos from General McChrystal weekly and discusses foreign policy strategy weekly with his defense secretary.

Obama will also take part in a video confrerence with McChrystal on Wednesday, one of five upcoming such meetings.

Also, he has discussed the Afghanistan issue with NATO.

VP with no millitary experience? What does that have to do with anything. Joe Biden served on the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee and is known for going against his own party in the interest of "winning" wars.

What is this Jimmy Carter thing?

Barack Obama should go to Denmark, however. Olympics in Chicago means jobs in America.

If I have to explain to you what's wrong with a VP with no military experience accusing the top General in Afganistan of not knowing what he's talking about and also explaining what this "Jimmy Carter thing" is about, then you shouldn't be on this board, you should be watching Sesame Street.

[Guest Guest]

You're all shit all the time.

You never gave Obama a chance, so your view of his credibility means nothing. The leaders of France and Britain stood behind him as he spoke to the world. They wouldn't be seen with Bush.

You criticize Biden, who spent 36 years in the Senate and knows foreign policy better than most of the generals. Bush, who hid in the national guard and dodged his duty there, you gave a free pass.

Obama is acting like a President, who has to do more than one thing at once. No president would spend all his time on Afghanistan, not even now. Taking a day to go to Copenhagen is a good use of one day's time.

You have no idea how much influence Pelosi and Reid have on the President in foreign policy. As usual, you just make it up.

We'll see whether Iran pushes Obama around. Don't be on it. Obama isn't the one who weakened the region by removing Iran's biggest regional threat.

Why do we even talk about this useless thread? Honestly who cares?

[Guest Guest]

If I have to explain to you what's wrong with a VP with no military experience accusing the top General in Afganistan of not knowing what he's talking about and also explaining what this "Jimmy Carter thing" is about, then you shouldn't be on this board, you should be watching Sesame Street.

You never back up what you're saying. You just accuse everyone you don't agree with of being stupid and/or evil, and make wild accusations. The fact that Vice President Biden is a recognized expert in foreign affairs is inconvenient to your radical point of view but it is a fact. There is no point explaining that or anything else to you because you don't listen.

[Guest ko]

If I have to explain to you what's wrong with a VP with no military experience accusing the top General in Afganistan of not knowing what he's talking about and also explaining what this "Jimmy Carter thing" is about, then you shouldn't be on this board, you should be watching Sesame Street.

Does it have anything to do with a famous Hollywood actor turned U.S. president being in bed with the religious leaders of Iran?

[Guest Guest]

Does it have anything to do with a famous Hollywood actor turned U.S. president being in bed with the religious leaders of Iran?

No, it doesn't.

Are you still expecting O to get you free health insurance?

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, it doesn't.

Are you still expecting O to get you free health insurance?

When the Federal Government says you'll like it and it's cost-neutral, run.

[Guest Guest]

When the Federal Government says you'll like it and it's cost-neutral, run.

Are you really that stupid that you can't see how the private insurance companies are raping us all?

[Guest Guest]

General McChrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops or the Afgan war wil be lost. One of Obama's pledges during the campaign was to destroy the Taliban and win the war. Obama's far left base wants him to get out of Afganistan. What to do? To not listen to his top General puts all of our troops in danger and will cost American lives. To listen to McChrystal and give him the troops he needs will infuriate his base. However, since Obama has time for Letterman and other talk shows but hasn't talked to McCrystal in 70 days, one has to wonder what his priorities are.

Let's see, Vietnam was a war fought in a jungle against guerrilla forces. It couldn't be won and it wasn't won. It divided our country and cost us vast sums of money - for nothing.

Iraq was easily conquered but the remainder of the "war" was a vain attempt to bring our kind of government to a country that isn't accustomed to it. You can't use the military for that, and to make matters worse, we removed Iran's main threat in the region. We spent vast sums of money, again, for nothing.

Other major powers have tried to tame Afghanistan. They spent their fortunes and accomplished nothing. Going after Al Qaeda and to a lesser extent the Taliban makes sense but that can only be done in a targeted way and we have to remember that the target is moving.

"Win the war." You don't know what you're talking about. There is no war in any traditional sense. An underground force like Al Qaeda can't be defeated by traditional military means. What are we going to do, bomb the mountains?

So Obama is doing the intelligent thing, taking some time to make sure he takes us down the right road - because as we all know, it isn't easy to turn back once we commit ourselves.

How many idiotic, unwinnable wars will it take before we figure this out?

[Guest Guest]

Let's see, Vietnam was a war fought in a jungle against guerrilla forces. It couldn't be won and it wasn't won. It divided our country and cost us vast sums of money - for nothing.

Iraq was easily conquered but the remainder of the "war" was a vain attempt to bring our kind of government to a country that isn't accustomed to it. You can't use the military for that, and to make matters worse, we removed Iran's main threat in the region. We spent vast sums of money, again, for nothing.

Other major powers have tried to tame Afghanistan. They spent their fortunes and accomplished nothing. Going after Al Qaeda and to a lesser extent the Taliban makes sense but that can only be done in a targeted way and we have to remember that the target is moving.

"Win the war." You don't know what you're talking about. There is no war in any traditional sense. An underground force like Al Qaeda can't be defeated by traditional military means. What are we going to do, bomb the mountains?

So Obama is doing the intelligent thing, taking some time to make sure he takes us down the right road - because as we all know, it isn't easy to turn back once we commit ourselves.

How many idiotic, unwinnable wars will it take before we figure this out?

Who told you it couldn't be won?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Let's see, Vietnam was a war fought in a jungle against guerrilla forces. It couldn't be won and it wasn't won. It divided our country and cost us vast sums of money - for nothing.

Iraq was easily conquered but the remainder of the "war" was a vain attempt to bring our kind of government to a country that isn't accustomed to it. You can't use the military for that, and to make matters worse, we removed Iran's main threat in the region. We spent vast sums of money, again, for nothing.

Other major powers have tried to tame Afghanistan. They spent their fortunes and accomplished nothing. Going after Al Qaeda and to a lesser extent the Taliban makes sense but that can only be done in a targeted way and we have to remember that the target is moving.

"Win the war." You don't know what you're talking about. There is no war in any traditional sense. An underground force like Al Qaeda can't be defeated by traditional military means. What are we going to do, bomb the mountains?

So Obama is doing the intelligent thing, taking some time to make sure he takes us down the right road - because as we all know, it isn't easy to turn back once we commit ourselves.

How many idiotic, unwinnable wars will it take before we figure this out?

Right. We should have ignored 9/11, said we were sorry for being Christian and hoped they wouldn't attack us again. Good idea.

[Guest Guest]

Right. We should have ignored 9/11, said we were sorry for being Christian and hoped they wouldn't attack us again. Good idea.

No, stupid. 9/11 means we should have gone after the terrorists, not Saddam Hussein. We should have gotten the international community together to go after the terrorists instead of dividing our allies by starting a war that had nothing to do with terrorism.

[Guest ko]

Just remember Iraq.

Barack Obama has to think a little faster right now. That much is true. But he's clearly asking himself a tough question: "How many lives are really worth a 'win' which would be completely temporary anyway." I think the United States will learn a lot from these losses in the Middle East about how much moral influence we have left. It's pretty obvious that we have to be physically present for things to operate the way we want them to in Afghanistan. Being entrenched in yet another country for years after a war, that's not something I really support.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, stupid. 9/11 means we should have gone after the terrorists, not Saddam Hussein. We should have gotten the international community together to go after the terrorists instead of dividing our allies by starting a war that had nothing to do with terrorism.

Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist? Killing over one million people doesn't qualify you as a terrorist? What's your definition of a terrorist.

[Guest Guest]

Who told you it couldn't be won?

I have a brain and I can think and read history. Democracy only comes from the people of the country. Afghanistan is a poor, backward mountainous country full of people who hate the United States. We could bomb them out of existence. I don't call that winning. If our mission is to bring democracy to a nation of people who don't understand it and don't want it, it can't be done.

It sure as hell can't be done by military force. Think about how stupid the idea is that we use our military to force people to have a free society.

Use your brain.

[Guest Guest]

Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist? Killing over one million people doesn't qualify you as a terrorist? What's your definition of a terrorist.

You're playing word games. Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist threat to the United States. That should have been our concern. If you would stop acting like a jackass and actually consider other points of view, it would be obvious to you.

[Guest Guest]

Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist? Killing over one million people doesn't qualify you as a terrorist? What's your definition of a terrorist.

You're really such an ass.

After 9/11 we should have gone after the terrorists who where threatening us. The only ones Saddam was threatening was Iran and Al Quaeda.

Saddam was a die hard secularist who did everything in his power to stop religious fundamentalists. He knew they were a threat to his secular regime. By going after Saddam we actually empowered the ones who have been the most dangerous and greatest threat to us. The Iranian Ayatollahs and Al Quaeda were both giving thanks to Allah when Saddam got his.

But then, no one who has read your crap really expects that you are capable of thinking these things through.

[Guest Guest]

General McChrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops or the Afgan war wil be lost. One of Obama's pledges during the campaign was to destroy the Taliban and win the war. Obama's far left base wants him to get out of Afganistan. What to do? To not listen to his top General puts all of our troops in danger and will cost American lives. To listen to McChrystal and give him the troops he needs will infuriate his base. However, since Obama has time for Letterman and other talk shows but hasn't talked to McCrystal in 70 days, one has to wonder what his priorities are.

2dumb4words looks like your beloved Bush was also great at dealing with foreign aid. Between 2002 and 2008, while Al Qaeda regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military. Seems that not only did he mess with our economy he also mismanaged our war on terror. Oddly enough it seems to stop around the time Obama came to office. You can read the article on fox news. I just can't wait for your next useless thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,559962,00.html

[Guest Guest]

2dumb4words looks like your beloved Bush was also great at dealing with foreign aid. Between 2002 and 2008, while Al Qaeda regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military. Seems that not only did he mess with our economy he also mismanaged our war on terror. Oddly enough it seems to stop around the time Obama came to office. You can read the article on fox news. I just can't wait for your next useless thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,559962,00.html

This has what to do with Obama ignoring McChrystal's request for more troops?? Oh, I get it. If you can't dispute a fact, change the subject (pg. 14 of the leftist handbook).