Jump to content

Obama in a box.


Guest 2smart4u

Recommended Posts

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).

Lol funny at least Obama didn’t forget about the war on Afghanistan. While Bush the great leader has show time and time his failures: Mismanaging foreign aid, total lack of leadership and economic mess that was giving to Obama. The fact is that he at least is still focusing on Afghanistan while Bush didn’t and the total lack of focus was apparent when they review the foreign aid budget to Pakistan. Now you’re criticizing Obama for not sending troops while for 6 years only 500 million of the 6.6 billion was helping fighting the war on terror. The funny thing is this is coming from Fox News, why aren’t they blowing up this story or is 6 billion not worth fight about? Did I dispute the fact or was that on page 15 on my leftist handbook? By the way still waiting for the next useless thread from 2dumb4words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

In the first place, you're lying, just like a right wing lying scumbag always does. Obama is not ignoring the request. He is spending time to make sure he makes the best decision, just like Bush spent several months considering Petraeus' request for more troops a couple years ago.

Second, all a general can do is advise what is needed to accomplish a mission. Setting national policy is beyond the scope of his duty. That's for the President, which is why he is the commander-in-chief. The president has to decide whether the military goals are worth the cost. Considering the FACT that several nations have tried to tame Afghanistan and couldn't do it, Obama might not send more troops. That's not ignoring the general. It's making a responsible decision as our President.

Of course, you'll call anyone who disagrees with you a coward and a traitor. That's because you're a lying right wing scumbag.

And if you want a second opinion, you're stupid, too.

How's that for staying on topic, jackass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The mission in Afghanistan is to wipe out the Taliban and all of the terrorist organizations that train and operate there. If the US government and the people would allow the US military to take the gloves off, the enemy wouldn't stand a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mission in Afghanistan is to wipe out the Taliban and all of the terrorist organizations that train and operate there. If the US government and the people would allow the US military to take the gloves off, the enemy wouldn't stand a chance.

You're an idiot. We're dealing with asymmetrical warfare. The only way we can win is if we put over a million troops on the ground or we saturate the whole of southern Afghanistan with nuclear bombings.

Excluding the nuclear option, we have the gloves off right now with the resources we currently have there.

I heard the same kind of whining from you whiners after Vietnam - the constant mantra of we would have won if the American public and politicians would allow the military to take the gloves off.

Guess what? They did. We dropped more bombs in Vietnam than we did during all of WW 2 and they still kicked our butt. The military had the complete support of politicians and most of the populace for the first five years of the war. They lost support when most realized their promises of "victory" couldn't be kept.

And its a good thing the president is reviewing the request for more troops. Too bad they didn't do that during Vietnam where the generals were proved wrong time and time again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RADAGAST
The mission in Afghanistan is to wipe out the Taliban and all of the terrorist organizations that train and operate there. If the US government and the people would allow the US military to take the gloves off, the enemy wouldn't stand a chance.

No .. the mission in Afghanistan is to support an elected government to the point where it can support and defend itself against the Taliban. Tough to do when a sizable portion of the citizens in the country think the last election was fixed. I don't want to single them out since Iran and other countries in the area seemed to have a hard time getting that election thing right.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'take the gloves off'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mission in Afghanistan is to wipe out the Taliban and all of the terrorist organizations that train and operate there. If the US government and the people would allow the US military to take the gloves off, the enemy wouldn't stand a chance.

Then why didn't Bush do it? You don't know what you're talking about.

That should be the mission but there is concern about “mission creep.” It’s like a lot of things: once you’re in, you just keep going deeper and deeper until you’re stuck.

It’s especially hard in a country like Afghanistan, which is notorious for bringing down bigger, richer, stronger and better equipped armies. That’s why it makes sense for the President to evaluate the mission very carefully before taking the next step. Even McChrystal says “Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it.” http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1925115,00.html

What does it mean to “lose” a war in which our mission is to destroy Al Qaeda? Does it mean that they survive? Does it mean that Afghanistan turns away from democracy (such as it is there anyway)? It doesn’t mean that the United States is under any direct threat from a military force because we’re not. We’re under a constant threat from international terrorists, who are moving targets.

If only life was as simple as you right wingers think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...