LGF Poll: Obama’s Afghanistan Plan
Poll • Views: 3,128
519 comments
2 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:15:28pm |
Attn: Cat Owners
Cat Food Recalled; Premium Edge Cat Food Sickens 21 Cats
A Missouri company said Tuesday its recalled dried cat food has sickened 21 cats and the pet food was distributed in multiple states in the South and along the East Coast.
Diamond Pet Foods recalled certain bags of Premium Edge Finicky Adult Cat and Premium Edge Hairball cat food in September because they could lead to gastrointestinal or neurological problems for cats. They do not contain enough thiamine, an essential nutrient for cats.
If cats fed these foods have no other source of nutrition, they could develop thiamine deficiency. If untreated, this disorder could result in death, said the Meta, Mo., manufacturer.
The company updated information on the recall on Tuesday, saying it has confirmed 21 reports of thiamine deficiency in New York and Pennsylvania and the pet food was distributed in 18 states altogether. These states include Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.
| 3 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:17:01pm |
| 4 |
CaptainStrobe Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:17:59pm |
I voted for the guy for many reasons, and this was one of 'em.
| 5 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:18:29pm |
Approve (with an aside, "more please.")
Dear President Obama;
I don't like war. But, since were going to war; please sir, let's not play politics. Let's win it quick and get my niece back home. May God bless our troops, and may our troops send the enemies of civilization to meet their maker swiftly and surely.
Sincerely,
Hugh
| 6 |
Fenway_Nation Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:18:49pm |
Hmm...I'm in a minority as far as this poll is concerned.
| 7 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:25:11pm |
I voted 'approve' though I have grave reservations. Still, the additional troops are needed, and thus the 'approve' vote.
| 9 |
bosforus Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:26:23pm |
re: #6 Fenway_Nation
Hmm...I'm in a minority as far as this poll is concerned.
This poll is very concerned about you, Fenway.
| 11 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:28:25pm |
ISAF Commander's Statement Regarding U.S. President's Announcement
The statement of General Stanley McChrystal,
Commander NATO International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces
Afghanistan regarding the address by The President of the United States:"The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.
Not surprising.
| 12 |
Fenway_Nation Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:30:46pm |
re: #7 Dark_Falcon
I voted 'approve' though I have grave reservations. Still, the additional troops are needed, and thus the 'approve' vote.
I had grave reservations, but put myself in the 'Not Sure' category.
| 13 |
Achilles Tang Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:31:15pm |
Something going on in the force tonight. My hamsters are slowing to a crawl.
| 16 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:32:23pm |
| 17 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:32:26pm |
re: #13 Naso Tang
Something going on in the force tonight. My hamsters are slowing to a crawl.
They've been running full tilt for hours. Some of them had to stand down for some pellets.
| 18 |
rhino2 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:32:26pm |
I approve of sending in more troops to get the job done if that's what is needed. I disapprove of announcing withdrawal timetables to the entire world, seems that's the kind of information you wouldn't want out there. Kind of a "target date" for enemies to hold out for, but thats just my opinion.
| 19 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:32:31pm |
LGF is very slow tonight for me. Anyone else experiencing this?
| 21 |
Sharmuta Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:32:45pm |
re: #3 Killgore Trout
Looks like 11.75 Paulians with another 11.7% Paulian/Beck fans.
Some of the no votes might be from others besides beck fans.
| 22 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:33:02pm |
re: #19 reine.de.tout
I think it's better now.
| 23 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:33:36pm |
Approve (with an aside, "more please.")
Dear President Obama;
I don't like war. But, since were going to war; please sir, let's not play politics. Let's win it quick and get my niece back home. May God bless our troops, and may our troops send the enemies of civilization to meet their maker swiftly and surely.
Sincerely,
Hugh
| 24 |
captdiggs Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:33:42pm |
Geez...Chris Mathews really did call West Point "the enemy camp".
| 25 |
Sharmuta Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:34:00pm |
Folks- it's slow because the hamsters have been a-workin'. Almost 300,000 page views.
| 26 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:34:15pm |
Agree with the troop increase; disagree with the troop timetables for withdrawal. It's not a recipe for victory, but one that enables al Qaeda and the Taliban to simply endure and outlast US interest in the region.
re: #11 Killgore Trout
What else was he going to say?
| 27 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:34:26pm |
re: #11 Killgore Trout
ISAF Commander's Statement Regarding U.S. President's Announcement
Not surprising.
That link should be pasted in response to everyone screaming "not enough, not soon enough." Its not exactly a tepid endorsement from McChrystal.
| 28 |
Bob Dillon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:35:21pm |
Approve - however linking it to a timeline - I don't understand unless it was political. I don't approve of the timeline.
| 30 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:36:50pm |
| 31 |
Sharmuta Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:36:53pm |
re: #29 Racer X
Great. The poll broke the interwebs.
Where else can you go where we'd disagree with Obama on KSM, but agree with him a few weeks later on Afghanistan?
| 32 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:37:08pm |
re: #24 captdiggs
Geez...Chris Mathews really did call West Point "the enemy camp".
[Video]
Chris Mathews is an ass.
| 33 |
redshirt Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:37:21pm |
Chris Matthews really has to go.
Suggesting that West Point is enemy ground for the President. I understand what he was trying to say, and it's disgusting.
| 35 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:37:47pm |
The web server hamsters collapsed from exhaustion for a few minutes there. Stinky gave them mouth-to-mouth, and believe me, he was NOT happy about doing that.
| 36 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:37:51pm |
I'm in for approve. Multilateral. Finish the job-Catch Osama, oversee the establishment then continuation of a sane and stable governance of Afghanistan.
| 38 |
Fenway_Nation Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:38:19pm |
re: #24 captdiggs
Wow...complete with the requisite conspiratorial swipe at 'neo-cons'. All in less than 30 seconds.
MSNBC is about as credible as Al-Manar and Iran's Press TV. Oh...and they're on the same side, too.
| 40 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:38:41pm |
re: #31 Sharmuta
Where else can you go where we'd disagree with Obama on KSM, but agree with him a few weeks later on Afghanistan?
No shit. I do not hate the man - I'm OK with one or two things he is doing. I'm not turning more towards his side - he is actually coming around to MY side.
Heh™
| 41 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:39:00pm |
re: #35 Charles
Thanks to all of you. Must really be a strain on the gear. I hope it helps, I'm shopping through your Amazon tonight.
| 42 |
rhino2 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:39:05pm |
re: #26 lawhawk
Agree with the troop increase; disagree with the troop timetables for withdrawal. It's not a recipe for victory, but one that enables al Qaeda and the Taliban to simply endure and outlast US interest in the region.
Couldn't agree more, exactly what I was saying in my #18
| 43 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:39:23pm |
I;m interested to hear from the disapprove crowd. I have some guesses about what they're thinking but I'd like to hear from them.
| 44 |
The Curmudgeon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:39:31pm |
re: #18 rhino2
I approve of sending in more troops to get the job done if that's what is needed. I disapprove of announcing withdrawal timetables to the entire world, seems that's the kind of information you wouldn't want out there. Kind of a "target date" for enemies to hold out for, but thats just my opinion.
Same here. The withdrawal timetable undercuts the whole thing. But I approve of the surge -- minimal though it is.
| 45 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:39:45pm |
re: #14 Sharmuta
My new comment button is stuck. :(
I'm having all kinds of trouble with this site...am trying to figure it out
| 47 |
Sharmuta Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:40:00pm |
re: #40 Racer X
No shit. I do not hate the man - I'm OK with one or two things he is doing. I'm not turning more towards his side - he is actually coming around to MY side.
Heh™
We'll get him to balance the budget yet. ;)
| 48 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:40:19pm |
Whoa! Whatever you did Charles, do more.
Superfast now!
| 49 |
captdiggs Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:40:19pm |
re: #32 Racer X
It was reprehensible.
A good number of those future officers will end up in Afghanistan, and all too many will end up in Arlington.
They are sworn to follow the president's orders.
I'm speechless
| 50 |
Achilles Tang Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:40:28pm |
re: #17 Dark_Falcon
They've been running full tilt for hours. Some of them had to stand down for some pellets.
Couldn't they just recycle them like other rodents do?
| 51 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:40:51pm |
re: #43 Killgore Trout
I;m interested to hear from the disapprove crowd. I have some guesses about what they're thinking but I'd like to hear from them.
I would assume there's a few camps:
1) Get the troops out now, what are you thinking!
2) Send in more troops now, what are you thinking!
3) I don't like the president, so whatever he's selling I'm hating.
| 52 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:40:58pm |
re: #24 captdiggs
Geez...Chris Mathews really did call West Point "the enemy camp".
Dissing the Army while leg-tingling. Chris Matthews reaches Earth's Core, keeps digging.
| 53 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:41:09pm |
re: #43 Killgore Trout
Don't make assumptions. Some people tried to assume my motivations and opinions last night and it didn't turn out so well.
| 55 |
Fenway_Nation Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:41:32pm |
re: #43 Killgore Trout
Too bad...because I'm in the 'Not Sure' camp. Only because there wasn't a 'Somewhat approve with serious misgivings' category.
| 56 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:41:34pm |
| 57 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:42:08pm |
| 58 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:42:09pm |
re: #24 captdiggs
Geez...Chris Mathews really did call West Point "the enemy camp".
[Video]
He is the scum that scum calls "scum".
| 60 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:43:03pm |
| 61 |
Fenway_Nation Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:43:35pm |
| 62 |
Dancing along the light of day Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:43:55pm |
| 63 |
Velvet Elvis Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:43:55pm |
I'm surprised there's even a 25% Nay rate here (but I'm also surprised at the 45% Yay it's getting at Kos given how everyone's been running around with their hair on fire over there).
I expected to be one of the few Dems supporting it. It's always good to see that the world is saner than you thought.
| 65 |
The Sanity Inspector Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:44:49pm |
re: #7 Dark_Falcon
I voted 'approve' though I have grave reservations. Still, the additional troops are needed, and thus the 'approve' vote.
I'm still chary of the deadline, though. Imagine you're an officer, ordering your guys into harm's way, when the exit date is in sight.
| 66 |
rhino2 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:44:50pm |
re: #63 Conservative Moonbat
It's always good to see that the world is saner than you thought.
Must be a case of being under-exposed to the world.
/
| 67 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:45:08pm |
| 68 |
Fenway_Nation Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:45:45pm |
re: #67 MandyManners
Turns out those unicorns are very territorial.
| 69 |
Decatur Deb Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:45:54pm |
re: #63 Conservative Moonbat
I'm surprised there's even a 25% Nay rate here (but I'm also surprised at the 45% Yay it's getting at Kos given how everyone's been running around with their hair on fire over there).
What happens to the universe if Kos and LGF behavior yields an apparent consensus?
| 70 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:45:56pm |
Its pretty likely that my brother in law will be on the plane over there in a few months.
His story is pretty interesting. Wa-a-a-ay far left, Ivy League + Law Degree, then enlisted in National Guard after he got his degrees.
When I asked him about it, he said that he agrees with the mission, and feels a sense of duty to be over there.
Here's to hoping we can do something between now and 2011 that can tilt a costly stalemate towards the good guys.
| 71 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:46:04pm |
Who would move from a pony country to a NON-pony country?!
| 73 |
Sharmuta Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:47:51pm |
re: #71 TheMatrix31
Who would move from a pony country to a NON-pony country?!
OooOOOoo! Is it time for the airing of grievances?
| 74 |
bosforus Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:47:53pm |
re: #69 Decatur Deb
What happens to the universe if Kos and LGF behavior yields an apparent consensus?
Something close to what happened to the house in Poltergeist, I'd imagine.
| 75 |
armylaw Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:48:10pm |
re: #44 The Curmudgeon
Same here. The withdrawal timetable undercuts the whole thing. But I approve of the surge -- minimal though it is.
I'm not 100% sure I agree. If the time-table were one that said "All troops will be gone by July 2011," I would agree with McCain: the Taliban could just wait out the Americans. But note what Obama said: in July 2011, the drawdown will begin, and its speed will depend on conditions on the ground. This tells the Afghanis that this is a temporary surge, and that we have no interest in empire. It just might help us chip off some of the more malleable Taliban.
Or it could backfire. Worth trying anyway.
| 76 |
Stanghazi Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:48:20pm |
Watching CNN (I like David Gergen) Alex Castellanos' tag was "unpaid RNC spokesman" no kidding.
| 77 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:49:18pm |
| 78 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:49:24pm |
One of the CNN guys just opined that Obama will get more Republican support than Democratic on this. What a quote.
| 79 |
Fenway_Nation Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:50:13pm |
re: #75 armylaw
Meh...I feel a little better if it's put that way. I thought the timetable was more concrete than that.
| 80 |
Four More Tears Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:50:27pm |
Not sure. I'm not sure of what victory means in this war. Is this war helping keep us safe? I'm really just asking the question because I have no idea. This seems like the kind of place that the U.N. has peacekeepers for.
I guess I'm more confused than anything else because this is something that will not be over in two years.
| 81 |
Bear Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:50:31pm |
re: #2 Killgore Trout
Thanks so much for the info re cat food. Having two registered Norwegian Forest Cats I am very interested in making as certain as possible their food is good quality stuff.
About the plan for more troops I have mixed feelings and do hope that we do not have another Korea or Vietnam.
| 83 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:51:06pm |
| 84 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:51:21pm |
| 85 |
SteveC Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:51:25pm |
re: #78 Rightwingconspirator
One of the CNN guys just opined that Obama will get more Republican support than Democratic on this. What a quote.
And just when you think Health Care is the only subject being hashed over in the Senate!
| 86 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:51:31pm |
Well, I feel better now. For a minute there, I was worried about Afghanistan resenting us, Iran nuking us, and the debt sinking us. Glad that's behind me...
| 87 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:51:34pm |
re: #43 Killgore Trout
I voted "unsure" not just because I'm a wishy-washy type of guy but because, after reading the prepared speech, I'm still not sure whether to believe we will end up where we think we want to... whatever that is.
Ultimately nation building has proven to be a largely frustrating effort, if the history of the last couple of centuries is perused.
| 88 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:51:44pm |
| 89 |
Ojoe Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:52:00pm |
If there is one mistake I do not want to see Obama make, it would be to remain passive with respect to Islamic Jihad. Some things must be met with force.
| 91 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:52:32pm |
re: #77 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Who constantly talks over anyone who tries to answer one of his antagonistic questions.
Which behavior his groupies eat up with spoons.
| 92 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:52:41pm |
re: #69 Decatur Deb
Did you notice that the LGF nay and unsure votes total to about what the Kos yea votes are?
| 93 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:52:41pm |
re: #81 Bear
Thanks to both of you I just saw that. I have 3, including a Maine Coon. A relative of your Forest cats perhaps Bear.
| 94 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:52:51pm |
re: #64 Sharmuta
We'll have to make due with recycled unicorns, I'm afraid.
As soon as we teach SanFranNan how to recycle water bottles.
| 95 |
armylaw Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:53:06pm |
re: #80 JasonA
Not sure. I'm not sure of what victory means in this war. Is this war helping keep us safe? I'm really just asking the question because I have no idea. This seems like the kind of place that the U.N. has peacekeepers for.
I guess I'm more confused than anything else because this is something that will not be over in two years.
The UN doesn't have a standing army of peacekeepers - it'd be American Soldiers anyway.
| 96 |
SteveC Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:53:07pm |
re: #86 cliffster
Well, I feel better now. For a minute there, I was worried about Afghanistan resenting us, Iran nuking us, and the debt sinking us. Glad that's behind me...
Oh, all those options are still on the table, but now we've got New and Improved problems.
| 97 |
Ojoe Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:53:22pm |
| 98 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:53:57pm |
re: #89 Ojoe
If there is one mistake I do not want to see Obama make, it would be to remain passive with respect to Islamic Jihad. Some things must be met with force.
I'm concerned about Pakistan. I don't think Afghanistan can ever be solid unless Pakistan takes control over the tribal regions of it's own country.
| 99 |
The Curmudgeon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:54:10pm |
re: #75 armylaw
I'm not 100% sure I agree. If the time-table were one that said "All troops will be gone by July 2011," I would agree with McCain: the Taliban could just wait out the Americans. But note what Obama said: in July 2011, the drawdown will begin, and its speed will depend on conditions on the ground.
It's still an inconsistent message. When we landed troops at Normandy, we didn't have a timetable for withdrawal. We went in to win the war. I guess I'm obsolete.
| 100 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:54:59pm |
Evening lizards. I missed the speech. How was it?
| 101 |
prairiefire Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:55:00pm |
re: #97 Ojoe
Thanks, great pix! We went for "cookies with santa" at school tonight and the kids could not get over how bright the moon was. Quite a nice break from war and its costs.
| 102 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:55:06pm |
re: #97 Ojoe
New Year's Eve is going to have a "blue moon". Pretty cool, huh?
| 103 |
Decatur Deb Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:55:27pm |
re: #92 freetoken
Did you notice that the LGF nay and unsure votes total to about what the Kos yea votes are?
Still early, but both seem to be avoiding the extreme. I'll look in the morning.
| 104 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:55:30pm |
Funny how "FCBBHO", "0bama", "The Zero", and other kkklever names for our president have disappeared around here.
It's enough to make me believe in reasoned discourse again.
| 105 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:55:36pm |
re: #100 NJDhockeyfan
Fairly dull, IMHO.
| 106 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:55:39pm |
re: #98 Killgore Trout
Hammer and anvil. As long as Al Qaeda can run back and forth, it's continuous. Afghanistan is the hammer, Pakistan the anvil.
| 108 |
Sharmuta Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:55:49pm |
re: #87 freetoken
I think "nation building" is a difficult task. There isn't one set road map, because different nations have different needs. Regardless, what else can we do but the difficult work of helping the Afghans back on their feet? We certainly couldn't let al-qaeda stay there, so we had to go in. Now that we're there, it's a reflection of our national character that we help these people regain their own country. In the end, the best we can hope for is a friend to our country, and a stable enough Afghanistan that they can see better days for themselves and their posterity.
| 109 |
Bear Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:55:56pm |
re: #93 Rightwingconspirator
It is possible but way way back. I would have had Maines had I not discovered the Wegies years ago.
| 110 |
prairiefire Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:56:04pm |
re: #102 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Probably a whole lot of mojo going on that night!
| 112 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:56:48pm |
| 113 |
SteveC Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:56:48pm |
Libya has sentenced two Swiss businessmen to 16 months in jail amid a row over the arrest last year of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's son in Geneva.
| 114 |
Ojoe Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:57:04pm |
re: #98 Killgore Trout
Well yeah, and Pakistan has nukes. It is a nightmare, just from that one thing. One inside switcheroo job with a dummy warhead & the count in the "warehouse" would be the same, and then, unawares somewhere ... Boom!
These are dicey times.
| 115 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:57:04pm |
re: #107 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Don't tease me with that.
| 116 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:57:18pm |
re: #102 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
New Year's Eve is going to have a "blue moon". Pretty cool, huh?
So, that's how Obama was able to make a halfway decent decision. "Once in a Blue Moon.."
| 117 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:57:25pm |
| 119 |
armylaw Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:57:33pm |
re: #79 Fenway_Nation
Meh...I feel a little better if it's put that way. I thought the timetable was more concrete than that.
Hell, even our Iraq withdrawal timeline isn't concrete.
The timetable for withdrawal is based on President Obama's mandate to have combat troops out of the country by September, and Odierno's assessment on whether the country is secure enough after national elections next year.
"When they tell us to send the rest home, we'll get the rest out of here," Pagonis says.
| 120 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:57:38pm |
re: #99 The Curmudgeon
It's still an inconsistent message. When we landed troops at Normandy, we didn't have a timetable for withdrawal. We went in to win the war. I guess I'm obsolete.
In WWII, "victory" = surrender of Germany and destruction of the Nazi regime. There was clearly a decisive moment even from the beginning.
"Victory" in 2010 is much harder to define. Afghanistan is already an occupied country. Heck, it isn't even a single nation but a construct of the British empire (wrt borders and definition.)
This is not your grandfather's war, and I don't expect that type of "victory".
| 121 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:57:38pm |
re: #100 NJDhockeyfan
Evening lizards. I missed the speech. How was it?
Generally worthless, not terrible.
| 123 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:58:36pm |
That was a pretty good speech for a high school debate team. When's the next contestant come up?
| 124 |
lostlakehiker Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:58:54pm |
re: #43 Killgore Trout
I;m interested to hear from the disapprove crowd. I have some guesses about what they're thinking but I'd like to hear from them.
A surge now, followed by a retreat shortly? What's the point? You play game and set but you guarantee that in any case they win the match.
| 125 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:58:54pm |
re: #114 Ojoe
Indeed... and "whoops! We accidentally launched toward India. Our bad!"
| 126 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:59:06pm |
re: #120 freetoken
In WWII, "victory" = surrender of Germany and destruction of the Nazi regime. There was clearly a decisive moment even from the beginning.
"Victory" in 2010 is much harder to define. Afghanistan is already an occupied country. Heck, it isn't even a single nation but a construct of the British empire (wrt borders and definition.)
This is not your grandfather's war, and I don't expect that type of "victory".
Must regretfully concur.
| 127 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:59:07pm |
re: #104 Cato the Elder
Funny how "FCBBHO", "0bama", "The Zero", and other kkklever names for our president have disappeared around here.
It's enough to make me believe in reasoned discourse again.
Charles told me to stop so I did.
| 128 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:59:17pm |
re: #121 TheMatrix31
Generally worthless, not terrible.
A bunch of hot air? This was supposed to be a make or break speech.
| 129 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:59:22pm |
re: #75 armylaw
I'm not 100% sure I agree. If the time-table were one that said "All troops will be gone by July 2011," I would agree with McCain: the Taliban could just wait out the Americans. But note what Obama said: in July 2011, the drawdown will begin, and its speed will depend on conditions on the ground. This tells the Afghanis that this is a temporary surge, and that we have no interest in empire. It just might help us chip off some of the more malleable Taliban.
Or it could backfire. Worth trying anyway.
Good point. I voted "aprove", but my one worry was a fixed time line. I missed the speech, just getting home, but I skimmed the text. He mentioned conditions on the ground in comparison to our efforts in Iraq.
| 130 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:59:52pm |
re: #92 freetoken
Did you notice that the LGF nay and unsure votes total to about what the Kos yea votes are?
It's a much larger community.
| 131 |
rhino2 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:00:16pm |
I must be off for tonight - gnight lizards, see you all tomorrow.
| 132 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:00:21pm |
re: #123 cliffster
That was a pretty good speech for a high school debate team. When's the next contestant come up?
what was amateur about it, if I can infer your opinion.
| 133 |
Velvet Elvis Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:00:30pm |
re: #114 Ojoe
Well yeah, and Pakistan has nukes. It is a nightmare, just from that one thing. One inside switcheroo job with a dummy warhead & the count in the "warehouse" would be the same, and then, unawares somewhere ... Boom!
I assume the US has a contingency plan to take out all the known Pakistani nuclear sites if it begins to look like there's even a remote risk of them falling into the wrong hands.
| 134 |
Ojoe Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:00:39pm |
re: #125 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Or they will run it into San Pedro harbor in a container.
| 135 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:00:43pm |
re: #128 NJDhockeyfan
It wasn't particularly definitive or inspiring. Wasn't always directly about the war.
| 136 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:01:03pm |
re: #114 Ojoe
Well yeah, and Pakistan has nukes. It is a nightmare, just from that one thing. One inside switcheroo job with a dummy warhead & the count in the "warehouse" would be the same, and then, unawares somewhere ... Boom!
These are dicey times.
Could be said anytime in the past, just about.
| 137 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:01:09pm |
re: #126 Dark_Falcon
Must regretfully concur.
I really don't know how else to look at it.
Perhaps someone is thinking that Mullah Omar will be discovered in a cave, and that there will be a big signing ceremony of a surrender agreement, followed by long trials of Taliban leaders for crimes against humanity?
That would be a WWII model of "victory".
It's not going to happen.
| 139 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:01:28pm |
re: #104 Cato the Elder
Funny how "FCBBHO", "0bama", "The Zero", and other kkklever names for our president have disappeared around here.
It's enough to make me believe in reasoned discourse again.
If we ever get rid of "butthurt" accusations toward each other, we'll be making progress.
Actually, come to think of it - I haven't seen it around lately. Good.
| 140 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:01:33pm |
re: #135 TheMatrix31
Oh, and he blamed Bush a good amount. Guess that's a prerequisite for any Obama speech.
| 142 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:01:59pm |
re: #132 EastSider
what was amateur about it, if I can infer your opinion.
Uninspiring, rambling, overly cerebral, to pick a few words.
| 143 |
prairiefire Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:02:04pm |
re: #133 Conservative Moonbat
Good grief, I hope so. God's speed to the agents working in the dark, at complete risk of life and limb.
| 145 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:02:08pm |
re: #98 Killgore Trout
I'm concerned about Pakistan. I don't think Afghanistan can ever be solid unless Pakistan takes control over the tribal regions of it's own country.
I noticed his emphasis on Pakistan. Sounds like he's learned not to threaten to attack them, and instead is talking more like an ally with common interests. Much better than that crap from the campaign. Good to see he's learned some.
| 146 |
bosforus Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:02:27pm |
re: #97 Ojoe
Nature break.
Inspired me to get a photo of the full moon in my neck of the woods.
Arriving shortly...
| 147 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:02:34pm |
Hello crew,
have there been any flounces since yesterday?
| 148 |
TheQuis Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:02:38pm |
Its Simple, He walked straight down the middle of the street.
The Right = More Troops, No time Table
The Left = No Troops, Time Table set to NOW!
The Middle = More troops Time table for 18 mos from now. Everybody Happy? No?
| 149 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:03:08pm |
re: #98 Killgore Trout
I'm concerned about Pakistan. I don't think Afghanistan can ever be solid unless Pakistan takes control over the tribal regions of it's own country.
Pakistan taking control over its tribal regions. Funny.
| 150 |
The Curmudgeon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:03:37pm |
re: #120 freetoken
This is not your grandfather's war, and I don't expect that type of "victory".
True. Afghanistan is an oddball in history. The Great Powers usually squabbled over it only to keep it out of their rivals' hands. There's no other purpose to fight there. In our case it's the Taliban and the others. It's going to be a long haul, but we have to keep them out. That's victory, and it will last as long as our resolve lasts. Not a day longer. Tough situation, but that's not the game Obama is playing.
| 151 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:03:49pm |
re: #126 Dark_Falcon
My #36 has my victory definition.
Now Mr. President, Make It Happen.
| 152 |
prairiefire Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:03:52pm |
re: #139 reine.de.tout
I don't approve of taunting of either side. i think most folks here are expressing heart felt convictions in good faith of at least an open mind.
| 153 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:03:59pm |
re: #140 TheMatrix31
Oh, and he blamed Bush a good amount. Guess that's a prerequisite for any Obama speech.
Again?!?!
| 154 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:04:02pm |
re: #69 Decatur Deb
What happens to the universe if Kos and LGF behavior yields an apparent consensus?
Just consider that common sense is being served, and shrug.
| 155 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:04:07pm |
re: #75 armylaw
I'm not 100% sure I agree. If the time-table were one that said "All troops will be gone by July 2011," I would agree with McCain: the Taliban could just wait out the Americans. But note what Obama said: in July 2011, the drawdown will begin, and its speed will depend on conditions on the ground. This tells the Afghanis that this is a temporary surge, and that we have no interest in empire. It just might help us chip off some of the more malleable Taliban.
Or it could backfire. Worth trying anyway.
Well said!
| 157 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:04:54pm |
| 158 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:05:15pm |
re: #142 cliffster
Uninspiring, rambling, overly cerebral, to pick a few words.
"I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region."
Not necessarily inspiring, but motivational. That's to the point, and not overly cerebral.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but if there's one thing the man has proven himself capable of its giving a speech.
| 159 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:05:19pm |
An amazing video: NASA ASTRONAUT LEADS TOUR OF SPACE STATION IN HD
Click over to youtube and watch in in HD. Nice.
| 160 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:05:35pm |
re: #152 prairiefire
I don't approve of taunting of either side. i think most folks here are expressing heart felt convictions in good faith of at least an open mind.
I think so too.
| 161 |
TheQuis Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:05:38pm |
re: #89 Ojoe
If there is one mistake I do not want to see Obama make, it would be to remain passive with respect to Islamic Jihad. Some things must be met with force.
Where has he been passive to Islamic Jihad?
| 162 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:06:30pm |
re: #152 prairiefire
I think most of us can argue without personal disdain etc. I read those most often. When it gets personal I tend to scroll on.
| 163 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:06:30pm |
re: #101 prairiefire
Thanks, great pix! We went for "cookies with santa" at school tonight and the kids could not get over how bright the moon was. Quite a nice break from war and its costs.
It's a gorgeous one.
| 164 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:06:43pm |
re: #140 TheMatrix31
Oh, and he blamed Bush a good amount. Guess that's a prerequisite for any Obama speech.
And for good reason! Iraq put Afghanistan on the back burner for over seven years. Of *course* things deteriorated! How can you defend the neglect of our troops in that country for that long?
| 165 |
Ojoe Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:06:50pm |
re: #161 TheQuis
No, he hasn't, and that is good. Except he could have made this decision sooner.
| 167 |
bosforus Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:07:13pm |
re: #97 Ojoe
Here we are. Full moon through some tree branches outside of my apartment. If I put a little more time into it I could probably get something clearer. But this will suffice for tonight.
[Link: www.flickr.com...]
| 169 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:08:27pm |
re: #150 The Curmudgeon
True. Afghanistan is an oddball in history. The Great Powers usually squabbled over it only to keep it out of their rivals' hands. There's no other purpose to fight there. In our case it's the Taliban and the others. It's going to be a long haul, but we have to keep them out. That's victory, and it will last as long as our resolve lasts. Not a day longer. Tough situation, but that's not the game Obama is playing.
There is a reason Bin Laden picked that country for his base. In addition to the damage to our country, he wanted to make this as costly in terms of life and treasure on us as possible. To that extent, regrettably, Bin Laden did achieve that goal.
| 170 |
Velvet Elvis Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:08:29pm |
re: #140 TheMatrix31
Oh, and he blamed Bush a good amount. Guess that's a prerequisite for any Obama speech.
Given that one of the primary reasons for the speech was to pacify the left, he had to do some of that.
| 172 |
baier Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:09:13pm |
He's standing up against his own party and popular opinion to do what is right in this case. I think he's becoming a bit of a leader, I dare say.
I wish he thought as much about his health care reform as he did about Afghanistan...he may be dithering, but he seems to come to good solutions when he puts his mind to it! Dither on health care Mr. President...dither!
| 173 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:09:44pm |
| 174 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:09:48pm |
re: #75 armylaw
That's a decent argument to support the President's position. Problem is that each of the various constituencies will hear different things.
The Taliban and al Qaeda hear that they've got to just wait out the US and then they're right back in business.
The Afghans hear that they've got to make improvements or else they lose their support/ backing (and to whom will they turn? China? Pakistan? Taliban?)
The US Democrats hear that they get their timetables and mutter that they've got to put up with troop surge, but there's enough weasel words to get them to go along with it.
Republicans hear that they've got the troop increase but mutter that they've got to deal with timetables and there's enough weasel words to get them to go along with it.
Democrats and GOPers are critical for funding the Afghan operation. The Taliban and al Qaeda will try to work all this to their advantage. The Afghans will do what they've been doing - trying to survive and will side with whoever gives them the best chance for the long run.
| 176 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:09:52pm |
re: #167 bosforus
Here we are. Full moon through some tree branches outside of my apartment. If I put a little more time into it I could probably get something clearer. But this will suffice for tonight.
[Link: www.flickr.com...]
Love it! I've tried to get photos like that, but I've never been able to do it with my amateur-level camera.
I also really like your wildfire photo:
| 177 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:09:52pm |
re: #157 recusancy
He didn't. Never mentioned Bush.
Not personally, no. But he blamed the current situation in Afghanistan on the decision to go to war in Iraq. He went into some detail on that.
| 178 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:10:01pm |
| 179 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:10:12pm |
re: #157 recusancy
He didn't. Never mentioned Bush.
You mean he didn't say the word "Bush"? He also never said the word "victory"
| 180 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:10:46pm |
| 181 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:11:00pm |
re: #147 Bagua
Hello crew,
have there been any flounces since yesterday?
Are you kidding? Flounce-O-Meter™ has been pegging redline all day long.
| 182 |
goddamnedfrank Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:11:10pm |
re: #53 TheMatrix31
Don't make assumptions.
Deal, instead I'll just remember how you chose to play this game in a prior poll; "anyone who voted yes should be feel absolutely ashamed of themselves."
| 183 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:11:35pm |
re: #178 austin_blue
EastSider:
Don't disagree with cliffster. It induces narcolepsy.
I see that. Perhaps I should disagree with a side of red bull from now on.
| 184 |
Bloodnok Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:11:36pm |
re: #176 reine.de.tout
Love it! I've tried to get photos like that, but I've never been able to do it with my amateur-level camera.
I also really like your wildfire photo:
Thank you for reposting that picture. It's awesome in its orange awesomeness.
| 185 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:11:51pm |
re: #164 austin_blue
And for good reason! Iraq put Afghanistan on the back burner for over seven years. Of *course* things deteriorated! How can you defend the neglect of our troops in that country for that long?
Ha, ha. You're still on the Bush Derangement angle I see.
Afghanistan has been on "the back burner" because it's been mostly quite there for that period. Now that Iraq is no longer a permissible environment for terrorist attacks the attacks have moved to Afghanistan.
| 186 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:12:02pm |
re: #142 cliffster
Uninspiring, rambling, overly cerebral, to pick a few words.
That would be a problem for you, I can see that.
| 187 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:12:20pm |
re: #150 The Curmudgeon
True. Afghanistan is an oddball in history. The Great Powers usually squabbled over it only to keep it out of their rivals' hands. There's no other purpose to fight there. In our case it's the Taliban and the others. It's going to be a long haul, but we have to keep them out. That's victory, and it will last as long as our resolve lasts. Not a day longer. Tough situation, but that's not the game Obama is playing.
Trade routes. Obviously not germane today, but back in the long lost past...
| 188 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:12:25pm |
re: #137 freetoken
I really don't know how else to look at it.
Perhaps someone is thinking that Mullah Omar will be discovered in a cave, and that there will be a big signing ceremony of a surrender agreement, followed by long trials of Taliban leaders for crimes against humanity?
That would be a WWII model of "victory".
It's not going to happen.
Sure won't. But that's my question to people who see setting a date of withdrawal as 'cut and run'. Are we really gonna spend the next millenium in bloody Afghanistan?
| 189 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:12:31pm |
re: #164 austin_blue
And for good reason! Iraq put Afghanistan on the back burner for over seven years. Of *course* things deteriorated! How can you defend the neglect of our troops in that country for that long?
Honestly: Iraq is the more important theater. Afghanistan and its people don't matter except in as far as it can be a terrorist haven. Iraq has a key strategic position and large quantities of oil, which we need to keep flowing.
| 190 |
TheQuis Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:12:36pm |
re: #177 BryanS
Not personally, no. But he blamed the current situation in Afghanistan on the decision to go to war in Iraq. He went into some detail on that.
He also talked about the hijackers attacking us on 9/11 should he have left that out too?
| 191 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:12:41pm |
re: #179 cliffster
You mean he didn't say the word "Bush"? He also never said the word "victory"
He doesn't want victory in Afghanistan. He made that perfectly clear last summer.
| 192 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:13:44pm |
re: #181 Cato the Elder
Are you kidding? Flounce-O-Meter™ has been pegging redline all day long.
Something I said?
Oh, now I remember, something about a decadal list.
| 193 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:13:47pm |
re: #172 baier
He's standing up against his own party and popular opinion to do what is right in this case. I think he's becoming a bit of a leader, I dare say.
I wish he thought as much about his health care reform as he did about Afghanistan...he may be dithering, but he seems to come to good solutions when he puts his mind to it! Dither on health care Mr. President...dither!
the far left was not paying attention during the campaign...this is BOs fight, all the way...he said a year ago he had a plan, so now he plops 35k troops into the fray after all these months of R and R for the Talis...he sets a timeline which we all knew he would do...as far as I'm concerned both the right and far left have reasons to be disappointed...this is a life and death game and BO essentially has no stout conviction other than his campaign promises...it's all politics and I am not happy with any of it...wait and see I guess
| 194 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:14:05pm |
re: #145 BryanS
I noticed his emphasis on Pakistan. Sounds like he's learned not to threaten to attack them, and instead is talking more like an ally with common interests. Much better than that crap from the campaign. Good to see he's learned some.
Does no harm, I 'spose.
| 195 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:14:32pm |
re: #189 Dark_Falcon
Honestly: Iraq is the more important theater. Afghanistan and its people don't matter except in as far as it can be a terrorist haven. Iraq has a key strategic position and large quantities of oil, which we need to keep flowing.
"For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity."
| 196 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:14:39pm |
re: #182 goddamnedfrank
One was an assumption. The other was my opinion.
Don't see the connection, but whatever.
| 197 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:15:12pm |
re: #150 The Curmudgeon
True. Afghanistan is an oddball in history. The Great Powers usually squabbled over it only to keep it out of their rivals' hands. There's no other purpose to fight there. In our case it's the Taliban and the others. It's going to be a long haul, but we have to keep them out. That's victory, and it will last as long as our resolve lasts. Not a day longer. Tough situation, but that's not the game Obama is playing.
The Taliban are irrelevent to us. The problem is that they shelter al-Qaeda.
| 198 |
bosforus Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:15:31pm |
re: #176 reine.de.tout
Definitely my fav. I know nothing about cameras or photography though but I do like taking pictures, especially of big landscapes. Anything to bring out large proportions works for me.
| 199 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:15:52pm |
I wonder why he didn't mention some of the progress we've made. Like the fact that, in a few short weeks, four of the most pivotal planners of the 9/11 attacks will be on trial in New York City, just like any other US citizen criminal? Great work, military! We're going to bring these people to justice!
| 200 |
SteveC Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:15:56pm |
re: #181 Cato the Elder
Are you kidding? Flounce-O-Meter™ has been pegging redline all day long.
It dropped to Zero for a while, but it turned out it was a blown fuse.
| 201 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:16:12pm |
re: #189 Dark_Falcon
Honestly: Iraq is the more important theater. Afghanistan and its people don't matter except in as far as it can be a terrorist haven. Iraq has a key strategic position and large quantities of oil, which we need to keep flowing.
Strategically, and long term, I think that is true. It was a war of choice, but I think it will take a long time to really know whether it was a good one--most likely after we either settle our differences with Iran or go to war with Iran.
| 202 |
prairiefire Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:16:42pm |
re: #185 Bagua
Not quiet. Becoming more corrupt in government and drug running. The Taliban re surging due to decision for air strikes that kill 'collateral damage". The Taliban growing in the hearts and minds of the Afghan people as their saviors and protectors against the American occupiers.
| 203 |
The Curmudgeon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:17:07pm |
re: #197 SanFranciscoZionist
The Taliban are irrelevent to us. The problem is that they shelter al-Qaeda.
Yeah, that's what I meant, but I couldn't spell al-Qaeda.
| 204 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:17:11pm |
re: #199 cliffster
It's a shame, because I'd rather bring them to their maker.
| 205 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:17:36pm |
re: #199 cliffster
I wonder why he didn't mention some of the progress we've made. Like the fact that, in a few short weeks, four of the most pivotal planners of the 9/11 attacks will be on trial in New York City, just like any other US citizen criminal? Great work, military! We're going to bring these people to justice!
"Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people."
| 206 |
simoom Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:17:43pm |
re: #140 TheMatrix31
Actually, a decent portion of the speech almost seemed to be included as a rebuttal to Cheney's criticisms from this morning. Cheney said that his admin had no responsibility for the AfPak deterioration, that Obama didn't believe in american exceptionalism, that the length of Obama's strategy review was having serious consequences on the forces in the field, and that Obama was giving aid and comfort to the enemy (an accusation of treason...?) with his terror trials.
In tonight's speech. the President framed the deterioration as a side effect of the demands the Iraq war put on our military and our alliances, gave a lengthy defense of american exceptionalism, and pointed out that the review process wouldn't delay the deployment time tables McChrystal had put forward and, in fact, that the President was even accelerating that deployment schedule. The only accusation he didn't address tonight was that final one.
| 207 |
TheQuis Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:17:55pm |
re: #199 cliffster
I wonder why he didn't mention some of the progress we've made. Like the fact that, in a few short weeks, four of the most pivotal planners of the 9/11 attacks will be on trial in New York City, just like any other US citizen criminal? Great work, military! We're going to bring these people to justice!
Again he can't win with that one either. Half the country is angry there is a trial and the other half wants permanent detention. Half the country wants more troops half wants out now (actually its probably more than half that wants out now, really).
| 208 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:17:57pm |
re: #190 TheQuis
He also talked about the hijackers attacking us on 9/11 should he have left that out too?
No. The attack is the raison de guerre. Iraq is all about putting blame on others.
| 209 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:18:15pm |
Well, Obama has pushed in on a busted flush in Afghanistan.
Between this huge misstep, and the NYC civilian terror trials huge misstep, and the moribund Cap & Tax huge misstep, and the "force government health care down the throats of half the country" huge misstep...
I would confidently say we are looking at one term for The One.
| 210 |
armylaw Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:18:18pm |
re: #99 The Curmudgeon
It's still an inconsistent message. When we landed troops at Normandy, we didn't have a timetable for withdrawal. We went in to win the war. I guess I'm obsolete.
Unfortunately, guerrilla warfare is with us to stay. The Vietnamese in the 1970's, the Afghanis in the 1980's, and the Iraqis and Afghanis in the 2000s learned that they didn't have to win conventionally.
Our army, which has never been good at counter-insurgency, is learning it on the fly. That will mean doing things differently than in Normandy.
Much as I love Band of Brothers, for good or for ill, Vietnam is the closer parallel to our current situation. This is why Army officers are reading books like Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife by John Nagl or A Better War by Lewis Sorely to try to learn what went wrong and what went right in Vietnam. Finesse and a light touch are sometimes more effective than brute force.
| 211 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:18:24pm |
re: #195 recusancy
"For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity."
We don't need to claim Iraq's oil and I have never suggested we should do so. What was saying is that we need Iraq to produce oil for the world market and we do need that. Keeping access to a strategic resource is not the same as laying claim to it.
| 212 |
SteveC Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:18:28pm |
What's the capital of Palestine?
An EU document stressing that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a future Palestinian state brought a sharp response today from Israel, which claimed Brussels was damaging the prospects of peace talks restarting.
| 213 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:18:31pm |
re: #186 Cato the Elder
That would be a problem for you, I can see that.
And evidently for Matrix, too.
| 214 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:18:38pm |
re: #169 BryanS
There is a reason Bin Laden picked that country for his base. In addition to the damage to our country, he wanted to make this as costly in terms of life and treasure on us as possible. To that extent, regrettably, Bin Laden did achieve that goal.
Assuming he thought that far ahead. I suspect that bin Laden has always been less interested in what we were doing than we think.
| 215 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:18:39pm |
re: #199 cliffster
I wonder why he didn't mention some of the progress we've made. Like the fact that, in a few short weeks, four of the most pivotal planners of the 9/11 attacks will be on trial in New York City, just like any other US citizen criminal? Great work, military! We're going to bring these people to justice!
"Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution."
| 216 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:19:14pm |
re: #181 Cato the Elder
Are you kidding? Flounce-O-Meter™ has been pegging redline all day long.
I can't believe you'd even care enough to pay attention...turns out you're a soap junkie?...hahaha!
| 217 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:19:37pm |
re: #187 austin_blue
Trade routes. Obviously not germane today, but back in the long lost past...
Umm...wait until shipping is banned for excessive carbon tainting. Then we'll talk about what's germane.
| 218 |
Vicious Babushka Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:19:46pm |
I have a Robert Stacy McCain joke, and I can't hold it in for the next RSM thread, so I'll tell it here.
Stacy McCain was walking along the beach when he found an ancient lamp washed up on shore. He rubbed, and sure enough, a huge genie appeared and said, "You are my master! I am here to grant you three wishes!"
Stacy thought about this and said, "I want to go back in time, to the Old South."
"We can do that," said the genie.
"And, I want to live on a big plantation, full of cotton fields!"
"Your wish is granted," said the genie.
"And, I want the South to win!"
"Done!" said the genie. He snapped his fingers, and Stacy McCain felt himself change. He was on a huge plantation, standing in the cotton field. He felt the chains on his ankles and the burn of the whip as the overseer flayed his back.
"Wait, wait, wait!" cried McCain.
He heard the genie's voice, "You got three wishes, sucka, and you didn't wish to be the master!"
| 219 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:19:48pm |
re: #179 cliffster
You mean he didn't say the word "Bush"? He also never said the word "victory"
There will be no such thing in Afghanistan. Not wise to promise what we can't have.
This isn't to say that we'll lose, just that we're not going to 'win' anything much.
| 220 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:19:49pm |
re: #205 recusancy
"Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people."
Why didn't he tell that crowd of hard-edged military heroes about how we are bringing them to trial? That's good, right? The bad guys are standing trial in NYC. Why not say that?
| 221 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:20:13pm |
re: #185 Bagua
Ha, ha. You're still on the Bush Derangement angle I see.
Afghanistan has been on "the back burner" because it's been mostly quite there for that period. Now that Iraq is no longer a permissible environment for terrorist attacks the attacks have moved to Afghanistan.
Are you nuts? That's not Bush Derangement. That's a simple statement of fact. Try this little quote on for size:
[Link: video.google.com...]
| 222 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:20:37pm |
re: #188 SanFranciscoZionist
Why provide a timeline at all. You can achieve the same without putting a specific date in play. After all, once that date is in play, it becomes a political decision (even more than it already is - but it can be an albatross for the 2010/2012 election cycles).
You can work with benchmarks - the more you achieve, the closer you can get to a point where you draw down troops.
The faster you reach the benchmarks, the faster troops come home - and when you put together the benchmarks, it can resemble something like victory. It can mean securing the border and setting up a process by which border crossings are not tolerated - and denies Taliban/AQ safe havens. It can mean setting up a government that simultaneously denies warlords the ability to constitute a threat to a functional government, but brings them into a political process. It can mean reducing reliance on opium, but gives people hope for an economic opportunity. It can mean the Afghan gov't building some roads and infrastructure that can be a tangible proof for the Afghan people that the Afghan government functions.
| 223 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:20:44pm |
re: #194 SanFranciscoZionist
Does no harm, I 'spose.
Allying with Pakistan is critical--he made that point himself. Maybe Obama has come around since he is correct in that Pakistan has turned on the extremists after being victims themselves. As long as Pakistan was not fully engaged in fighting terrorism on their border, the mission in Afghanistan was doomed to fail.
| 224 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:20:47pm |
re: #202 prairiefire
Not quiet. [...]
Good for you, and keep your strength up, you have three more years to struggle to put all the blame for Obama's Afghan cock-up on former President Bush
| 225 |
ghazidor Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:20:53pm |
For those saying that this is a minimal re-enforcement/surge you need to try looking at the actual numbers.
This is more troops than were sent to the "surge" in Iraq (20,000) where we already had almost 130,000 troops on the ground. Since we only have about 68,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan this is roughly a 50% increase in our commitment of troops. As a percentage increase this is one hell of a re-commitment to the war, now lets see if it can work.
| 226 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:21:06pm |
re: #188 SanFranciscoZionist
Sure won't. But that's my question to people who see setting a date of withdrawal as 'cut and run'. Are we really gonna spend the next millenium in bloody Afghanistan?
What, you can think of more pressing engagements?
| 227 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:21:16pm |
re: #189 Dark_Falcon
Honestly: Iraq is the more important theater. Afghanistan and its people don't matter except in as far as it can be a terrorist haven. Iraq has a key strategic position and large quantities of oil, which we need to keep flowing.
Also, proximity to Pakistan and their nukes, and Pakistan's proximity to India and THEIR nukes. And some other stuff. But I agree.
| 228 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:22:19pm |
| 229 |
prairiefire Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:22:47pm |
re: #224 Bagua
As Comander In Chief, it is President Obama's war now.
| 230 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:22:51pm |
re: #215 EastSider
"Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution."
Again, no mention of one of the major victories - the conspirators behind 9/11 being brought to justice. Getting the bad guys is one of the biggest moral victories, if nothing else. If he's so happy about putting them on trial in New York, why not bring it up?
| 231 |
lostlakehiker Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:23:09pm |
re: #188 SanFranciscoZionist
Sure won't. But that's my question to people who see setting a date of withdrawal as 'cut and run'. Are we really gonna spend the next millenium in bloody Afghanistan?
It's one thing to decide that there will be a time when enough is enough. It's another to provide the enemy with the details of just exactly when you'll fold.
| 232 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:23:27pm |
re: #227 SanFranciscoZionist
I think pretty much everybody agrees that as a nation the strategic importance of Afghanistan is based on the countries they border. It's a place on the map where Pakistan, Iran, and China would collide if Afghanistan wasn't there.
| 233 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:23:51pm |
re: #229 prairiefire
As Comander In Chief, it is President Obama's war now.
As a citizen of the United States, it's my country still.
| 234 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:24:42pm |
re: #232 freetoken
I think pretty much everybody agrees that as a nation the strategic importance of Afghanistan is based on the countries they border. It's a place on the map where Pakistan, Iran, and China would collide if Afghanistan wasn't there.
If this were a game of Risk, there'd be some serious dice rolls on that stretch of real estate.
| 235 |
solomonpanting Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:24:43pm |
re: #219 SanFranciscoZionist
There will be no such thing in Afghanistan. Not wise to promise what we can't have.
This isn't to say that we'll lose, just that we're not going to 'win' anything much.
I sincerely hope whatever we win is at least equal to what was won or gained in South Korea.
BTW, what is our exit strategy in South Korea?
| 237 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:24:50pm |
re: #191 NJDhockeyfan
He doesn't want victory in Afghanistan. He made that perfectly clear last summer.
First, define the concept.
Then, tell us how to achieve it.
Oh, never mind. Just say it in German: "Wir wollen den Endsieg!" You'll feel much better.
| 238 |
lostlakehiker Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:25:22pm |
re: #233 cliffster
As a citizen of the United States, it's my country still.
The nation, and the war, you name it, we're all in it together.
| 240 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:26:08pm |
re: #230 cliffster
Again, no mention of one of the major victories - the conspirators behind 9/11 being brought to justice. Getting the bad guys is one of the biggest moral victories, if nothing else. If he's so happy about putting them on trial in New York, why not bring it up?
Because it would throw the conversation off topic. We should be talking about our commitments going forward today. If he said that, because you and many on the right are rabid over it, it is a controversial topic so it would dominate the news over the coming days. They like controversy.
| 241 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:26:15pm |
re: #189 Dark_Falcon
Honestly: Iraq is the more important theater. Afghanistan and its people don't matter except in as far as it can be a terrorist haven. Iraq has a key strategic position and large quantities of oil, which we need to keep flowing.
Could not disagree more. Iraq in 2002, when the plans were being generated to invade, was no more a geopolitical threat to the US, nor had as much to do with Islamic Fundamentalism and terror, as Iceland. Are you now saying we invaded for oil? Uh oh...
And as far as "except as far as it can be a terrorist haven"???
Really, DF, wasn't that the freaking point after 9/11? Remember that day? Where it was planned? Where they were?
This selective memory is disturbing to me.
| 242 |
Pawn of the Oppressor Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:26:19pm |
Obama ran on an Afghan Surge, so it's good that he's finally going through with it. Not that I give a rat's ass about his political career/"legacy"/whatever - the important thing is that we get enough people (and helicopters!) in there to squash enough of the bugs.
| 243 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:26:22pm |
re: #231 lostlakehiker
It's one thing to decide that there will be a time when enough is enough. It's another to provide the enemy with the details of just exactly when you'll fold.
extremely bad move...it really fucks up the whole escapade...I think we need to withdraw and take the hit...it ain't gonna work
| 244 |
Decatur Deb Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:26:39pm |
re: #235 solomonpanting
I sincerely hope whatever we win is at least equal to what was won or gained in South Korea.
BTW, what is our exit strategy in South Korea?
2ID moves north.
| 245 |
pingjockey Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:26:56pm |
re: #235 solomonpanting
Or Germany, Japan. We're still there. Obama could scare the batshit out of the entire free world. Tell everyone that ALL troops are coming home in 2011.
| 246 |
borgcube Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:27:24pm |
We must secure Afghanistan. If the Taliban took over again, it would ban the national sport, one currently being lobbied to the International Olympic Committee. No joke. Hey, if ping pong is in, why not?
Afghanistan is not going to transform into something even remotely posing as modernity anytime soon. If ever. We should bomb the shit out of the bad guys if they get out of hand again, but not one American life should be lost in that pathetic country.
I don't care if they get to have purple fingers voting for corrupt primitives wearing hats made from aborted lamb fetuses on their heads like Hamid Karzai. Get out. Now. This is a lose lose.
| 247 |
baier Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:27:38pm |
re: #193 albusteve
To me Obama took the responsibility to get it done out of his hands and put it where it belongs and in an institution that has earner our trust, our military. Even if Obama is only politically motivated our military will get it done regardless (I really believe he wants to win it, personally). The troops have already successfully transitioned Iraq to self rule and most things are easier the second time around. Even though Afghanistan is a much different place I think it will be manageable.
| 248 |
TheQuis Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:27:54pm |
re: #208 BryanS
No. The attack is the raison de guerre. Iraq is all about putting blame on others.
Reading back on the speech he talked about several different factors which influenced the position we are in now and the outcome. The fact of the matter is we were in a war in Iraq and troops were diverted there from Afghanistan. He never went into a diatribe calling the decision dumb or misguided it was a statement of what happened. You can call it "blame bush" because any reference to the past will make you feel that way, but truly it was just an accounting of went on.
He also said that Iraq was stabalized and we're handing it back over to the Iraqi people. That was a result of President Bush, so should you say that it was more giving credit to bush? No because it doesn't fit into the story of "Obama blames bush" that you've seemingly etched into your mind.
| 249 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:27:58pm |
re: #230 cliffster
Again, no mention of one of the major victories - the conspirators behind 9/11 being brought to justice. Getting the bad guys is one of the biggest moral victories, if nothing else. If he's so happy about putting them on trial in New York, why not bring it up?
Tell you what. Get in touch with your cerebral side and then offer yourself as a speechwriter.
| 250 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:28:23pm |
| 251 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:28:27pm |
re: #217 Cato the Elder
Umm...wait until shipping is banned for excessive carbon tainting. Then we'll talk about what's germane.
Time to bring back dirigibles for freight.
| 252 |
lostlakehiker Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:28:31pm |
re: #243 albusteve
extremely bad move...it really fucks up the whole escapade...I think we need to withdraw and take the hit...it ain't gonna work
That's worse yet. Something may turn up in the meantime. We may as well play out the damned hand. Perhaps Pakistan will break its own Taliban in the meantime. Our surge gives them that chance, anyhow. They won't be facing a lot of cross-border infiltration.
| 253 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:28:36pm |
re: #237 Cato the Elder
First, define the concept.
Then, tell us how to achieve it.
Oh, never mind. Just say it in German: "Wir wollen den Endsieg!" You'll feel much better.
fuck German...BO needs to figure this stuff out and tell uswhat his concept is...stick 35k troops over there then pull everybody out is hardly a superior notion...delayed cut and run
| 254 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:29:03pm |
re: #231 lostlakehiker
It's one thing to decide that there will be a time when enough is enough. It's another to provide the enemy with the details of just exactly when you'll fold.
Ah, but maybe we're lying to them!
| 255 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:29:11pm |
re: #249 Cato the Elder
Tell you what. Get in touch with your cerebral side and then offer yourself as a speechwriter.
Do you stalk people in the outside world? Park outside their house and yell insults at them as they go out to their car and drive to work?
| 256 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:29:28pm |
re: #248 TheQuis
Meh. You're projecting a lot of emotion onto my response that just wasn't there.
| 257 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:29:31pm |
Good Evening LGF.
What a crappy speech.
18 months is virtually nothing.
No mention of individual liberties, democracy, infrastructure development or poppies.
I fear the POTUS views the war as lost, and that the exit strategy is a surge to cover defeat with feigned honour.
| 259 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:29:44pm |
re: #230 cliffster
Again, no mention of one of the major victories - the conspirators behind 9/11 being brought to justice. Getting the bad guys is one of the biggest moral victories, if nothing else. If he's so happy about putting them on trial in New York, why not bring it up?
This speech had a few target audiences and goals.
1) Anti-war US citizens that oppose troop increases here. He had to sell them on this by reaffirming mission and setting timelines for progress. The right half are generally on board.
2) US troops. Inspire them and let them know they have CIC support to get the job done.
3) Regional players: Let them know we mean business and are committed to the theater.
The only part of that audience that would have been swayed by discussion of trial are anti-war US citizens. I would argue that the marginal gain in support you get from that group isn't worth the hit you would take w/ troops, who probably think the trials undermine their work, the regional players, who would associate the trials with Guantanamo and stir up anti-US feelings.
| 260 |
Stuart Leviton Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:30:01pm |
| 261 |
avanti Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:30:10pm |
re: #127 MandyManners
Charles told me to stop so I did.
Yes, but you stayed, and that's a good thing. We all don't have to love the POTUS, nor all his policies, quite the contrary, we hate echo chambers.
| 262 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:30:14pm |
re: #235 solomonpanting
I sincerely hope whatever we win is at least equal to what was won or gained in South Korea.
BTW, what is our exit strategy in South Korea?
We're waiting for Kim's hair to turn on him, and start a chain reaction in the region.
| 263 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:30:36pm |
re: #253 albusteve
fuck German...BO needs to figure this stuff out and tell uswhat his concept is...stick 35k troops over there then pull everybody out is hardly a superior notion...delayed cut and run
Crap.
Apparently you believe in everything promised in speeches and campaign stops.
I, on the other hand, hear implied conditionals where you seem to infer promises.
| 264 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:30:41pm |
| 265 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:31:11pm |
re: #259 EastSider
The only part of that audience that would have been swayed by discussion of trial are anti-war US citizens. I would argue that the marginal gain in support you get from that group isn't worth the hit you would take w/ troops, who probably think the trials undermine their work, the regional players, who would associate the trials with Guantanamo and stir up anti-US feelings.
You better believe they think it undermines their work. And yet he will stand up in front of them and lecture them.
| 266 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:31:11pm |
re: #255 cliffster
Do you stalk people in the outside world? Park outside their house and yell insults at them as they go out to their car and drive to work?
Why would I do that when I can make fun of you?
| 267 |
Only The Lurker Knows Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:31:16pm |
Hi all. Think I will stand this night out. Ya all know,The Iron Fist Rule.
See you in the morning. Please keep the carnage to a minimum (If you can).
((Mandy)) ((Sharm)) ((( Rein)))
Hey, She does the Cookbook.
| 268 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:32:02pm |
re: #265 cliffster
You better believe they think it undermines their work. And yet he will stand up in front of them and lecture them.
He gets to.
| 269 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:32:03pm |
We're pushing up on 30% disapprove. I think we'll see almost 40% by morning.
| 270 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:32:09pm |
re: #254 SanFranciscoZionist
Ah, but maybe we're lying to them!
Heh :)
Actually, Obama made it pretty clear in his speech that :
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.
So he's left himself the caveat of "conditions on the ground". I'd call 18mo more of a goal than a deadline.
| 271 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:32:10pm |
re: #252 lostlakehiker
That's worse yet. Something may turn up in the meantime. We may as well play out the damned hand. Perhaps Pakistan will break its own Taliban in the meantime. Our surge gives them that chance, anyhow. They won't be facing a lot of cross-border infiltration.
I don't consider this decision a surge, in the same sense of the Iraqi surge...it's just not enough troops to hold the ground
| 273 |
Achilles Tang Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:32:45pm |
re: #231 lostlakehiker
It's one thing to decide that there will be a time when enough is enough. It's another to provide the enemy with the details of just exactly when you'll fold.
That made sense in Iraq for sure, while it was still in great flux, but consider that if Karzai and friends let the Taliban beat them, guess who gets executed first with no Americans to the rescue? that is a good date driven incentive in my mind.
And we can always bomb them back to where they have always been if called for.
Frankly, I have little sympathy for Afghanistan. It is a primitive culture with no incentive to change and it never will change in our generation or the next.
| 274 |
bosforus Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:33:11pm |
re: #176 reine.de.tout
I'm also very lucky to have a job that lets me travel around the state frequently. Early this year for a few months I drove every mile of every state route in Utah (in both directions!). Bryce Canyon, Zions National Park, Monument Valley, Moab and all the mountains up north gave me plenty to look at. Wish I had taken more photos, however.
Check out the Street View of this road going down a stretch of road known as Moki Dugway. It's a nail biter. I can't believe the Street View guy did this in the snow.
| 275 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:33:16pm |
re: #271 albusteve
I don't consider this decision a surge, in the same sense of the Iraqi surge...it's just not enough troops to hold the ground
It's more troops then the Iraq surge.
| 276 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:33:35pm |
re: #271 albusteve
I don't consider this decision a surge, in the same sense of the Iraqi surge...it's just not enough troops to hold the ground
How many would you like to see?
| 278 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:10pm |
re: #275 recusancy
It's more troops then the Iraq surge.
Yes, but you could tell that Bush meant it more.
//
| 279 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:10pm |
| 280 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:11pm |
| 281 |
Girth Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:13pm |
Does anyone else feel like kicking John King in the nuts when he starts playing with his touch screen map?
| 282 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:31pm |
re: #269 Killgore Trout
Lots of anti-Obama-ites who show up later?
| 283 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:41pm |
re: #257 Spare O'Lake
Good Evening LGF.
What a crappy speech.
18 months is virtually nothing.
No mention of individual liberties, democracy, infrastructure development or poppies.
I fear the POTUS views the war as lost, and that the exit strategy is a surge to cover defeat with feigned honour.
You really think he could get more from the peacenik hard left in the House or the Senate? As it is, spending for this call for more troops will have a hard enough time getting through the congress.
| 284 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:44pm |
re: #277 prairiefire
All those damn mountains (and caves).
It's an inconvenient place to invade, no doubt. Iraq is much flatter, mostly.
| 285 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:50pm |
re: #281 Girth
Does anyone else feel like kicking John King in the nuts when he starts playing with his touch screen map?
Who is John King?
| 286 |
Stanghazi Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:51pm |
| 287 |
bosforus Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:58pm |
re: #274 bosforus
And yes, I did see an old random truck frame a couple hundred feet over the edge of the cliff.
| 288 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:34:58pm |
re: #281 Girth
Does anyone else feel like kicking John King in the nuts when he starts playing with his touch screen map?
Yes.
| 290 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:35:10pm |
| 291 |
gulfloafer Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:35:26pm |
re: #169 BryanS
He got booted out of Sudan and Afcrapistan was the only place that would take him. Don't read too much into it.
| 292 |
Girth Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:35:32pm |
| 293 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:35:35pm |
re: #263 Cato the Elder
Crap.
Apparently you believe in everything promised in speeches and campaign stops.
I, on the other hand, hear implied conditionals where you seem to infer promises.
I believe in the life of our troops...I don't give a rats ass about Afghanistan...flood the country with Marines or go home...BOs half measures will prove fruitless...if we don't control the entire country, what's the point?
| 294 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:36:00pm |
re: #269 Killgore Trout
We're pushing up on 30% disapprove. I think we'll see almost 40% by morning.
Heh. I wonder if it will be the same group of Disaffected's who pile onto dead threads, refuse to engage in discourse and down ding their pet peeves?
Bets, anyone?
| 295 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:36:09pm |
re: #284 SanFranciscoZionist
Not just any old mountains... the Himalayas.
| 296 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:36:10pm |
re: #293 albusteve
I believe in the life of our troops...I don't give a rats ass about Afghanistan...flood the country with Marines or go home...BOs half measures will prove fruitless...if we don't control the entire country, what's the point?
Was the Iraq surge a half measure?
| 297 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:36:10pm |
While President Obama is committed to a troop surge into Afghanistan, the question becomes how exactly are they going to get there? Supply lines in Pakistan remain troublesome. We've had to deal with the Russians every step of the way in the -stans, and have found our supply lines crimped several times in the past year (including bombings of our supply lines through Pakistan). With a massive troop surge, we're going to have that many more troops pushing into the region relying on the same supply lines. Airlifting can do only so much, so this has to be done knowing that we've got the secured supply lines, or else force protection for the supply lines will divert troops from the tip of the spear to providing the means to get them into the field.
| 298 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:36:30pm |
re: #283 BryanS
You really think he could get more from the peacenik hard left in the House or the Senate? As it is, spending for this call for more troops will have a hard enough time getting through the congress.
You ain't seen the peacenik hard left, kiddo. They ain't NOTHIN' like those bourgeois soft-centered liberals we got in the House and the Senate.
Well, maybe Barbara Lee is a little hard left.
| 299 |
avanti Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:36:32pm |
re: #140 TheMatrix31
Oh, and he blamed Bush a good amount. Guess that's a prerequisite for any Obama speech.
True, that could have been toned down a bit. Now that he blamed Bush, it's Obama's war from here on, and he has to close the deal.
| 300 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:36:42pm |
re: #262 SanFranciscoZionist
We're waiting for Kim's hair to turn on him, and start a chain reaction in the region.
You mean heir? Though I suppose Kim's hair is kinda goofy. Why were waiting for it to turn, though, I'm not sure :)
| 301 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:36:47pm |
On the other hand, the continued drolling on and on about "delaying three months" is just blind grasping for straws. C'mon, now.
| 302 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:37:19pm |
| 303 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:37:24pm |
| 304 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:37:58pm |
re: #297 lawhawk
The Russians have been quite open about allowing increased use of their territory, as long as its not actual combat personnel.
I for one think they hope we get stuck there forever. It would sap US money, strength, and prestige, something which they wouldn't mind.
| 305 |
TheQuis Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:38:03pm |
re: #256 BryanS
Meh. You're projecting a lot of emotion onto my response that just wasn't there.
Sorry, B, wasn't just you. There is a ton of unfounded "Barack blamed bush" that wasn't there on the speech.
| 306 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:38:09pm |
re: #274 bosforus
I'm also very lucky to have a job that lets me travel around the state frequently. Early this year for a few months I drove every mile of every state route in Utah (in both directions!). Bryce Canyon, Zions National Park, Monument Valley, Moab and all the mountains up north gave me plenty to look at. Wish I had taken more photos, however.
Check out the Street View of this road going down a stretch of road known as Moki Dugway. It's a nail biter. I can't believe the Street View guy did this in the snow.
Good grief! My palms got all yucky just looking at that! I can't imagine being there and driving.
Where I live (and learned to drive) is very flat. I was grown before I ever knew what the lower gears were in a car with automatic transmission. I don't think I would ever get the hang of driving downhill on those sorts of roads.
| 307 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:38:11pm |
re: #272 albusteve
yep
So you are in favor of surging the 700,000 troops that Patraeus' playbook says we would need to suppress the insurgency?
| 308 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:38:17pm |
re: #299 avanti
Guaranteed that's not the last time Bush is blamed.
| 309 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:38:28pm |
| 310 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:38:58pm |
re: #275 recusancy
It's more troops then the Iraq surge.
more are needed than that one, and the bad guys were on the ropes then anyway...where the fuck is NATO?
| 311 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:39:09pm |
re: #258 mich-again
Go big or go home.
re: #272 albusteve
yep
How big would "big" be?
JDAMing every village where our excellent monolingual intelligence tells us there might be two or more Taliban?
Lining all the men in a suspect village up against the wall and shooting every third one?
Hanging all the dogs?
Or do you have other, gentler SS tactics in mind?
| 312 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:39:32pm |
re: #265 cliffster
You better believe they think it undermines their work. And yet he will stand up in front of them and lecture them.
I took your bait (that you repeatedly and sarcastically offered) and gave the likely (if obvious) political reasons why he wouldn't discuss the trials tonight. S
The man is trying to build a coalition of support on the home front, re-motivate international allies, inspire troops, and win a war. Of course he isn't going to bring up a severely contentious issue that could undermine many of those goals.
Why are you so concerned about that distracting issue right now?
| 313 |
prairiefire Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:39:32pm |
re: #302 albusteve
Ah, Steve. The moon didn't cheer you up? Play some Stones. Oh, it's not Friday yet.
Wars and rumors of wars...Night lizards.
| 314 |
Mikko_Sandt Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:39:35pm |
They should be sent but it should be made clear that if things don't work out the way they did in Iraq, withdrawal is the only reasonable option left with the right to intervene in the future reserved. And if Karzai starts acting more like an asshole then no American should die protecting his regime.
| 315 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:39:56pm |
re: #272 albusteve
yep
My biggest concern is the supply line. 30,000 more troops to a landlocked hostile location.
| 316 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:40:11pm |
re: #241 austin_blue
Could not disagree more. Iraq in 2002, when the plans were being generated to invade, was no more a geopolitical threat to the US, nor had as much to do with Islamic Fundamentalism and terror, as Iceland. Are you now saying we invaded for oil? Uh oh...
And as far as "except as far as it can be a terrorist haven"???
Really, DF, wasn't that the freaking point after 9/11? Remember that day? Where it was planned? Where they were?
This selective memory is disturbing to me.
To answer that: I did not say we invaded for oil. What I said is that Iraq has something we need and that makes it more important than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is only important in as far as its strategic position and its danger if it is a failed state. Simply put:
Iraq is a more important theater because it is a more important country.
| 317 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:40:22pm |
re: #300 BryanS
You mean heir? Though I suppose Kim's hair is kinda goofy. Why were waiting for it to turn, though, I'm not sure :)
No, I mean the bouffant. It's a secret agent, trained by the Japanese, Mossad, and the CIA. Specially programmed. When it senses the time is right, it's gonna take out Kim, and everyone close to him.
| 318 |
pingjockey Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:40:40pm |
re: #310 albusteve
At home doing meals on wheels or knitting. Ya gotta remember, most of the EUs military is basically crap. All their money is tied up in domestic welfare programs.
| 319 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:40:41pm |
re: #304 freetoken
The Russians have been quite open about allowing increased use of their territory, as long as its not actual combat personnel.
I for one think they hope we get stuck there forever. It would sap US money, strength, and prestige, something which they wouldn't mind.
Well.. At least we don't have John "We're all Georgians now!" McCain saber rattling them.
| 320 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:40:44pm |
re: #283 BryanS
You really think he could get more from the peacenik hard left in the House or the Senate? As it is, spending for this call for more troops will have a hard enough time getting through the congress.
Bah, it's chickenfeed if he really wanted it. Stimulus for the military industrial complex. Probably less than a trillion.
| 321 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:41:04pm |
re: #293 albusteve
I believe in the life of our troops...I don't give a rats ass about Afghanistan...flood the country with Marines or go home...BOs half measures will prove fruitless...if we don't control the entire country, what's the point?
How does 30,000 troops (out of 40,000 asked for by Gen. McC., who, like all generals, was setting a high limit and hoping for half) come out to be a half-measure in your tiny brain?
| 322 |
ghazidor Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:41:09pm |
re: #293 albusteve
I believe in the life of our troops...I don't give a rats ass about Afghanistan...flood the country with Marines or go home...BOs half measures will prove fruitless...if we don't control the entire country, what's the point?
See my post at #225 and then come back when you have a clue what your talking about. It doesn't matter what Obama had announced, if it was 500,000 more troops you'd still be bitching, don't bother denying it, I have read enough of your posts to know better.
Fine you hate the government, you hate Obama more, and the democrats in congress even worse, what the heck ever.
| 323 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:41:15pm |
re: #307 austin_blue
So you are in favor of surging the 700,000 troops that Patraeus' playbook says we would need to suppress the insurgency?
38, 39...whatever it takes
| 324 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:41:28pm |
re: #304 freetoken
The Russians have been quite open about allowing increased use of their territory, as long as its not actual combat personnel.
I for one think they hope we get stuck there forever. It would sap US money, strength, and prestige, something which they wouldn't mind.
Afghanistan screwed them, with our assistance. They would not mind seeing us get some of the same.
| 325 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:42:06pm |
re: #302 albusteve
I'm very close to just that...we need more than those numbers and ROEs that we can cut loose on full auto...I'm not happy
I'm a little perplexed then. Would it make better sense to talk to the guys on the ground and get their opinion first?
Because I never thought I would see anyone here say its OK to wave the white flag of defeat and walk away from Afghanistan. Never. Not after what those assholes did to us on 9/11.
| 326 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:42:12pm |
re: #229 prairiefire
As Comander In Chief, it is President Obama's war now.
That is the undeniable fact on the face of it.
| 327 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:43:04pm |
re: #298 SanFranciscoZionist
You ain't seen the peacenik hard left, kiddo. They ain't NOTHIN' like those bourgeois soft-centered liberals we got in the House and the Senate.
Well, maybe Barbara Lee is a little hard left.
A number of Dems announced today opposition to increased troops, nomatter what the number. Feingold and Obey from my state have gone on record opposing the increases.
| 328 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:43:08pm |
re: #315 mich-again
My biggest concern is the supply line. 30,000 more troops to a landlocked hostile location.
I have faith in our generals that our troops will get what they need.
| 329 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:43:32pm |
Also, bear in mind that this is merely the President's plan. Congress still has to authorize and fund the troop increase. I hope the President has counted his votes to make sure this gets done. Or else, things are going to get ugly in more ways than one.
| 330 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:43:40pm |
re: #312 EastSider
I took your bait (that you repeatedly and sarcastically offered) and gave the likely (if obvious) political reasons why he wouldn't discuss the trials tonight. S
The man is trying to build a coalition of support on the home front, re-motivate international allies, inspire troops, and win a war. Of course he isn't going to bring up a severely contentious issue that could undermine many of those goals.
Why are you so concerned about that distracting issue right now?
In reality, it's for purely emotional reasons, and if what I said meant a shit, I wouldn't bring it up. But it doesn't, and so I can't help point this out: He has to look these marines in the eye and ask them to put their lives on the line. They deserve better.
| 331 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:43:57pm |
re: #319 recusancy
Well.. At least we don't have John "We're all Georgians now!" McCain saber rattling them.
OT, mostly: I hate Putin. I absolutely hate Putin. I want bad shit to happen to him. Eternity isn't long enough and hell isn't hot enough as far as that cold-hearted bastard is concerned.
End rant.
| 332 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:44:10pm |
re: #315 mich-again
My biggest concern is the supply line. 30,000 more troops to a landlocked hostile location.
we either OWN that country or need to leave...it's a hostile environment and the Talis will outlast us...35k more troops is not gonna get it done, mark my words...it will be so long and expensive that you have to be in for the long haul...we aren't
| 333 |
borgcube Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:44:14pm |
re: #264 Racer X
re: #246 borgcube
You really want the U.S. to call it quits today? Pack up all our shit and leave now? Really?
Yep. The war was over years ago, as soon as the Taliban got kicked out. Then the nation building and babysitting crap started. The only working strategy I see is to keep them in their beloved 7th century state of mind and infrastructure. This entire charade of building a "modern" democracy there is pure insanity and will fail. Guaranteed. Bush failed. Obama will fail. And everyone else has as well who tried their hand at it for that matter.
I want them kept in a state that makes it impossible for them to be threat to our national interests. Period. Eight years and we're still fighting people in caves and caring for a bunch of cultural infants. Time to go with the caveat that we'll be watching and will annihilate them if they dare to fuck with us again. All or nothing. This middle ground shit hasn't worked out too well for us over the past six decades or so in case you haven't noticed.
| 334 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:44:16pm |
re: #324 SanFranciscoZionist
The Russians find themselves in a win-win solution here.
If the US eradicates (significantly) the Taliban/AQ system, all the better for Russia as they are fighting Islamic terrorists too (and work with the US on that.)
If the US loses face and world prestige from not being seen as a "success" in Afghanistan, all the better for Russia as it plies its foreign policy in Asia.
| 335 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:44:49pm |
BBL
NO, I'm not cutting and running. Unlike some here want to do.
Fuck me.
| 336 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:44:50pm |
| 337 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:44:57pm |
re: #321 Cato the Elder
How does 30,000 troops (out of 40,000 asked for by Gen. McC., who, like all generals, was setting a high limit and hoping for half) come out to be a half-measure in your tiny brain?
fuck you kay toe
| 338 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:44:57pm |
re: #324 SanFranciscoZionist
Afghanistan screwed them, with our assistance. They would not mind seeing us get some of the same.
Kind've like that girlfriend/boyfriend you broke up with a decade ago. You've long forgotten. They haven't.
| 339 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:46:21pm |
| 340 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:46:49pm |
re: #322 ausador
See my post at #225 and then come back when you have a clue what your talking about. It doesn't matter what Obama had announced, if it was 500,000 more troops you'd still be bitching, don't bother denying it, I have read enough of your posts to know better.
Fine you hate the government, you hate Obama more, and the democrats in congress even worse, what the heck ever.
35k will not subdue the Taliban permanently...your rant is pointless
| 341 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:46:53pm |
re: #335 Racer X
BBL
NO, I'm not cutting and running. Unlike some here want to do.
Fuck me.
I'm with you. Finish the job strong and don't hesitate during the tough times. I fear our president doesn't have the will to win. I would love to hear him say we are seeking victory but I won't hold my breath.
| 342 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:47:09pm |
re: #304 freetoken
The Russians have been quite open about allowing increased use of their territory, as long as its not actual combat personnel.
I for one think they hope we get stuck there forever. It would sap US money, strength, and prestige, something which they wouldn't mind.
I'm sure the Russians have at least some schadenfreude tinted thinking that it serves us right for what we did to the Russians in Afghanistan.
| 343 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:47:17pm |
re: #304 freetoken
They interfered in our basing of troops at a staging area in Kyrgyzstan. I foresee them trying to do more of the same, since it would be a low-risk method of entrapping and knocking down the US a notch or two.
| 344 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:47:49pm |
re: #340 albusteve
35k will not subdue the Taliban permanently...your rant is pointless
We're not going at the Taliban. We'd be there for 100 years. We're going after Al Quaeda.
| 346 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:48:19pm |
re: #319 recusancy
Well.. At least we don't have John "We're all Georgians now!" McCain saber rattling them.
Although over at Deuce the Goddessofhypocrisy now includes "Georgia/Ossetia" in her pseudo-prayers.
| 347 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:48:22pm |
So by dialing up a surge...does he have to give the peace prize back?
| 348 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:48:25pm |
| 349 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:48:30pm |
re: #316 Dark_Falcon
To answer that: I did not say we invaded for oil. What I said is that Iraq has something we need and that makes it more important than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is only important in as far as its strategic position and its danger if it is a failed state. Simply put:
Iraq is a more important theater because it is a more important country.
Again, you miss the point. Oil exports today from Iraq are about what they were in February 2003. That supply was secure because Saddam's regime depended on it to stay in power. His teeth were pulled after Desert Storm. He was no longer a threat to our interests in the region.
If it was *really* a war on terror, Afghanistan was The Front. Unless you wanted to invade and destroy Salafism in the Kingdom. Iraq? Pfft.
You keep dancing around your original statement. Iraq is "a more important country". It "has something we need". What would that be?
| 350 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:48:35pm |
re: #325 Racer X
I'm a little perplexed then. Would it make better sense to talk to the guys on the ground and get their opinion first?
Because I never thought I would see anyone here say its OK to wave the white flag of defeat and walk away from Afghanistan. Never. Not after what those assholes did to us on 9/11.
Afghanistan did something to us? Don't blame the rat-hole. Blame the rat. We'd have gone to Sudan if it had happened some earlier.
What do you want? A stable democratic Afghanistan? Possibly unachievable. The total destruction of al-Qaeda? We'll keep working on that in or out of Afghanistan. Bin Laden's head in a basket? Hell, I'd like that too, but he may well be buried in a cave on Tora Bora. If leaving because we don't see a purpose to staying is defeat, what would winning look like?
| 351 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:48:36pm |
re: #317 SanFranciscoZionist
No, I mean the bouffant. It's a secret agent, trained by the Japanese, Mossad, and the CIA. Specially programmed. When it senses the time is right, it's gonna take out Kim, and everyone close to him.
Heh.
| 352 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:48:57pm |
re: #346 Cato the Elder
Although over at Deuce the Goddessofhypocrisy now includes "Georgia/Ossetia" in her pseudo-prayers.
Don't know what that means.
| 354 |
Sharmuta Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:49:32pm |
It would be nice if the anti-corruption measures the President said were coming to Afghanistan would be applied to the Palestinian Authority too.
Just a thought.
| 355 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:49:37pm |
re: #339 mich-again
Terrorize the terrorists.
Find them first. Distinguish them from friendly or indifferent villagers.
I know! Pass a law in Kabul making terrorists wear armbands. That'll do it.
Simpleton.
| 356 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:49:53pm |
re: #320 Spare O'Lake
Bah, it's chickenfeed if he really wanted it. Stimulus for the military industrial complex. Probably less than a trillion.
Maybe it could help create jobs ?
//
| 357 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:49:59pm |
re: #323 albusteve
38, 39...whatever it takes
Wow. So much for caring about the troops. It's just ODS with you, isn't it?
| 358 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:50:00pm |
I wonder when we have all these new troops in Afghanistan and there is some new evidence found of Iran supporting the Taliban how Obama will respond. What will it take to call it an act of war.
| 359 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:50:07pm |
re: #353 sngnsgt
More troops instead of the retreat he promised.
He said constantly that Afganistan was the war of necessity and we should focus on it. We're getting out of Iraq. Also as he said he would do. Where's the waffle?
| 361 |
laZardo Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:50:30pm |
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when credit is due." - I forget who, but I saw it in Modern Warfare 2 which was pretty fun but kinda short compared to the first one. :B
| 362 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:50:30pm |
re: #325 Racer X
I'm a little perplexed then. Would it make better sense to talk to the guys on the ground and get their opinion first?
Because I never thought I would see anyone here say its OK to wave the white flag of defeat and walk away from Afghanistan. Never. Not after what those assholes did to us on 9/11.
fine...lets get down to the business of killing Talis then...will BO see this out?...will he win it for all practical purposes?...reduce the Taliban and AQ to a rag tag insignificant few?...we'll see...how can that happen when he gave them a timeline to simply wait us out?
| 363 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:50:50pm |
re: #349 austin_blue
Again, you miss the point. Oil exports today from Iraq are about what they were in February 2003. That supply was secure because Saddam's regime depended on it to stay in power. His teeth were pulled after Desert Storm. He was no longer a threat to our interests in the region.
If it was *really* a war on terror, Afghanistan was The Front. Unless you wanted to invade and destroy Salafism in the Kingdom. Iraq? Pfft.
You keep dancing around your original statement. Iraq is "a more important country". It "has something we need". What would that be?
That thing is oil. I've never shied away from that. Oil is not the reason we went in, but it is a major reason why we have to win there.
| 364 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:51:05pm |
re: #341 NJDhockeyfan
I'm with you. Finish the job strong and don't hesitate during the tough times. I fear our president doesn't have the will to win. I would love to hear him say we are seeking victory but I won't hold my breath.
Define "victory". Please. Or go back to playing World of Warcraft.
| 365 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:51:18pm |
re: #358 mich-again
I wonder when we have all these new troops in Afghanistan and there is some new evidence found of Iran supporting the Taliban how Obama will respond. What will it take to call it an act of war.
It will cause a strongly worded letter to be sent with a threat of sanctions. Obama don't play.
| 366 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:52:10pm |
re: #353 sngnsgt
More troops instead of the retreat he promised.
He never promised a retreat in Afghanistan. Quite the opposite. False witness does not become one.
| 367 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:52:17pm |
re: #355 Cato the Elder
I know! Pass a law in Kabul making terrorists wear armbands. That'll do it.
Simpleton.
Oh bite me.
If you expect that any military action against the Taliban should exclude any potential civilians who are being used as shields by the animals, then you are the simpleton.
| 368 |
ghazidor Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:52:24pm |
re: #340 albusteve
35k will not subdue the Taliban permanently...your rant is pointless
BTW the military commanders are already whining about how they can't put as many troops in there as fast as Obama wants them to. They have no staging area and everything pretty much has to be flown in. We will be lucky to see even the increase in troop levels that Obama called for within the next year much less more.
The military commanders have apparently said that they ideally need almost 3 months for each increase in the troop level of 3,000 soldiers. At that rate this would take almost three full years just to add the 34,000 troops Obama approved.
| 369 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:52:25pm |
re: #365 NJDhockeyfan
It will cause a strongly worded letter to be sent with a threat of sanctions. Obama don't play.
Iran is Shiite and Taliban is Sunni. They aren't going to be in cohoots.
| 370 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:52:51pm |
re: #362 albusteve
fine...lets get down to the business of killing Talis then...will BO see this out?...will he win it for all practical purposes?...reduce the Taliban and AQ to a rag tag insignificant few?...we'll see...how can that happen when he gave them a timeline to simply wait us out?
Got news for you. In Afghanistan, they already are a "ragtag insignificant few" - at least AQ is.
Everybody who's anybody is in Pakistan.
Aye, there's the rub.
| 371 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:52:57pm |
re: #329 lawhawk
Also, bear in mind that this is merely the President's plan. Congress still has to authorize and fund the troop increase. I hope the President has counted his votes to make sure this gets done. Or else, things are going to get ugly in more ways than one.
Could he be looking at that as his way out?
| 372 |
sngnsgt Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:53:05pm |
re: #359 recusancy
He said constantly that Afganistan was the war of necessity and we should focus on it. We're getting out of Iraq. Also as he said he would do. Where's the waffle?
And has no clear strategy there either.
| 373 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:53:14pm |
re: #357 austin_blue
Wow. So much for caring about the troops. It's just ODS with you, isn't it?
I don't see your problem...take over the country, exterminate the Talis and their AQ bretheren, or leave it to them...
| 374 |
laZardo Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:53:14pm |
re: #363 Dark_Falcon
Well, someone still has to benefit from the surge in oil prices 2006-2007ish. Certainly wasn't US Government coffers.
| 375 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:53:21pm |
re: #369 recusancy
To screw with us... They'll hold their noses and cooperate.
| 376 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:53:22pm |
| 377 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:53:40pm |
re: #342 BryanS
I'm sure the Russians have at least some schadenfreude tinted thinking that it serves us right for what we did to the Russians in Afghanistan.
Undoubtedly. And I feel for the poor bastards that got sent out there, but Russia was fighting a purely ugly war out there, and that was one of the few times that Cold War tit for tat approached mitzvah status.
About the sixth thing I thought when I realized what was going on 9/11 was 'well, now the Chechens are totally screwed'. I was correct.
| 378 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:53:43pm |
re: #367 mich-again
Oh bite me.
If you expect that any military action against the Taliban should exclude any potential civilians who are being used as shields by the animals, then you are the simpleton.
It works for the Israelis. I guess we're to dumb for that.
| 379 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:53:46pm |
re: #368 ausador
The military commanders have apparently said that they ideally need almost 3 months for each increase in the troop level of 3,000 soldiers. At that rate this would take almost three full years just to add the 34,000 troops Obama approved.
Well fuck then, what's the point of setting July 2011 as the goal?
| 380 |
laZardo Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:53:50pm |
re: #369 recusancy
Iran is Shiite and Taliban is Sunni. They aren't going to be in cohoots.
The enemy of their enemy...
"You will find that cuts both ways." - the villain from Modern Warfare 2.
| 381 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:54:14pm |
re: #368 ausador
BTW the military commanders are already whining about how they can't put as many troops in there as fast as Obama wants them to. They have no staging area and everything pretty much has to be flown in. We will be lucky to see even the increase in troop levels that Obama called for within the next year much less more.
The military commanders have apparently said that they ideally need almost 3 months for each increase in the troop level of 3,000 soldiers. At that rate this would take almost three full years just to add the 34,000 troops Obama approved.
well yeah...duh!
| 382 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:54:49pm |
re: #347 Big Steve
So by dialing up a surge...does he have to give the peace prize back?
That's for the Norwegians to decide. They were stupid enough to give it to a man presiding over two shooting wars--they might have figured something just like this might happen.
| 383 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:54:50pm |
re: #373 albusteve
I don't see your problem...take over the country, exterminate the Talis and their AQ bretheren, or leave it to them...
Ah.
Ex-term-i-nate.
Now I understand what kind of person you are.
kthxbye
| 384 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:55:00pm |
re: #380 laZardo
The enemy of their enemy...
"You will find that cuts both ways." - the villain from Modern Warfare 2.
Isn't that simple. No matter how many movies you quote.
| 385 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:55:19pm |
re: #364 Cato the Elder
Define "victory". Please. Or go back to playing World of Warcraft.
Smash the terrorists. Go into their area and destroy them. Squish them like the cockroaches they are. Coordinate with Pakistan to chase them to the border where we are waiting for them. They will have no place to go.
I don't believe killing a handful of them once in a while with drones do much good.
BTW...I never played World of Warcraft.
| 386 |
laZardo Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:55:52pm |
re: #385 NJDhockeyfan
BTW...I never played World of Warcraft.
You shouldn't.
/and that's all I got to say about that. :B
| 387 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:56:23pm |
re: #378 Cato the Elder
It works for the Israelis. I guess we're to dumb for that.
So there weren't any civilian casualties in the last war Israel fought?
| 388 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:56:28pm |
re: #368 ausador
The military commanders have apparently said that they ideally need almost 3 months for each increase in the troop level of 3,000 soldiers. At that rate this would take almost three full years just to add the 34,000 troops Obama approved.
That's what happens when you drop the ball and go play another game in Iraq, based on bogus lies and fraud. You use up your troops.
| 389 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:56:32pm |
re: #352 recusancy
Don't know what that means.
Ex-Lizard, went to our crosstown rivals--well, our crosstown wannabe-rivals. Has a prayer list for them. Used to run ours. But Hoosier Hoops does ours now. Ours is better.
Bragging on your superior prayer list seems kind of dopey, no?
| 390 |
laZardo Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:56:47pm |
re: #384 recusancy
It's not that simple, but it's been policy for pretty much every government since...probably even before WWII.
| 391 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:56:55pm |
re: #370 Cato the Elder
For AQ and the Taliban, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is merely a line on the map. It holds no special relevance to them. If they get pressure from Afghanistan, they move to Pakistan. All the same, pressure from the Pakistani government in the frontier provinces sends 'em back the other way.
The US needs the troops there, so that when there's a significant push by the Pakistanis, they run the Taliban right into the anvil of US force.
re: #371 MandyManners
I think the speech was political in focus, and was designed to get enough in Congress on board with the surge. I think the votes are there, but there will be a vocal bunch of Democrats complaining about the troop increase.
| 392 |
captdiggs Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:57:13pm |
re: #369 recusancy
Iran is Shiite and Taliban is Sunni. They aren't going to be in cohoots.
Shiite and Sunni set aside their differences when it comes to waging war on 3rd party infidels.
Just look at Iran's support of Hamas.
| 393 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:57:30pm |
Bagua's Music Break™
Army man in Vietnam
- Big Joe Williams
If you don’t’ stop the war in Vietnam
I believe Ill drop that ol’ atom bomb
| 394 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:57:59pm |
re: #391 lawhawk
For AQ and the Taliban, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is merely a line on the map.
On a map they've never seen a copy of.
| 395 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:58:01pm |
re: #388 Cato the Elder
That's what happens when you drop the ball and go play another game in Iraq, based on bogus lies and fraud. You use up your troops.
I call BS on that one. George W Bush told no lies. It is true has was wrong about the WMDs, but his mistake was an honest one.
| 396 |
bratwurst Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:58:35pm |
re: #335 Racer X
BBL
NO, I'm not cutting and running. Unlike some here want to do.
Fuck me.
I'll pass.
| 397 |
avanti Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:58:42pm |
re: #371 MandyManners
Could he be looking at that as his way out?
No way he won't get the votes, with a few defections from either side. The right can't seem weak on the national defense, it's their best card. Who wants to risk not supporting the troops ?
| 399 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:59:05pm |
re: #395 Dark_Falcon
I call BS on that one. George W Bush told no lies. It is true has was wrong about the WMDs, but his mistake was an honest one.
Clinton agreed - WMD's were there, and must be dealt with.
| 400 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:59:13pm |
re: #390 laZardo
It's not that simple, but it's been policy for pretty much every government since...probably even before WWII.
Well... It's not the case here. It isn't Muslim world versus Us. Al Quaeda and Taliban are Sunni. They don't like Shiites such as the persians in Iran and, now that we've gotten rid of Saddam, Iraq. They are enemies of each other as well. You see the world too black and white.
| 401 |
ghazidor Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:59:31pm |
re: #373 albusteve
I don't see your problem...take over the country, exterminate the Talis and their AQ bretheren, or leave it to them...
Right and the "Talis" and "AQ" are easily identified from the rest of the population by...uhh...their beards? Your just spouting BS without any kind of thought or reasoning for it. That is one idiotic statement, I know you can do better because I have seen you do it.
| 402 |
bratwurst Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:59:34pm |
re: #341 NJDhockeyfan
I would love to hear him say we are seeking victory but I won't hold my breath.
A little earlier you said you didn't hear it at all!
| 403 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:59:42pm |
re: #383 Cato the Elder
Ah.
Ex-term-i-nate.
Now I understand what kind of person you are.
kthxbye
it took you long enough...are you dense?
| 404 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:00:20pm |
“There is no Substitute for Victory”
General Douglas MacArthur
"I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”
Barack Obama
| 405 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:00:27pm |
re: #369 recusancy
Iran is Shiite and Taliban is Sunni. They aren't going to be in cohoots.
Hamas is Sunni, and Iran backs them. Iran's willing to play a bit. When it's useful.
| 406 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:00:59pm |
re: #385 NJDhockeyfan
Smash the terrorists. Go into their area and destroy them. Squish them like the cockroaches they are. Coordinate with Pakistan to chase them to the border where we are waiting for them. They will have no place to go.
I don't believe killing a handful of them once in a while with drones do much good.
BTW...I never played World of Warcraft.
Hmm. You'd think, if all that were possible, that Rummy the Red-Nosed Ranter and Dick "Dick" Cheney would have figured out a way to do it.
But they fucked around with drones for years while waging a war elsewhere for Achmed Chalabi's business interests. Obama is putting more boots on the ground.
Maybe you should play WoW, it might give you a basic clue about army stuff.
| 407 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:01:21pm |
re: #373 albusteve
I don't see your problem...take over the country, exterminate the Talis and their AQ bretheren, or leave it to them...
Neither sounds good to me.
| 408 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:01:29pm |
re: #389 SanFranciscoZionist
Ex-Lizard, went to our crosstown rivals--well, our crosstown wannabe-rivals. Has a prayer list for them. Used to run ours. But Hoosier Hoops does ours now. Ours is better.
Bragging on your superior prayer list seems kind of dopey, no?
Deciding that the folks on your prayer list are no longer worthy of your prayers is even dopier, imo.
| 409 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:01:31pm |
re: #387 mich-again
So there weren't any civilian casualties in the last war Israel fought?
Fewer than you seem to find acceptable in Afghanistan.
| 410 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:01:35pm |
re: #392 captdiggs
Shiite and Sunni set aside their differences when it comes to waging war on 3rd party infidels.
Just look at Iran's support of Hamas.
That's also a lot more complicated.
Either way... the point I was making is worrying about the Taliban and Iran is missing the point. Al Queda and the terrorist is who we need to focus foremost on.
| 411 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:01:37pm |
re: #404 NJDhockeyfan
"You play to win the game." - Herm Edwards
| 412 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:01:38pm |
re: #402 bratwurst
A little earlier you said you didn't hear it at all!
I didn't hear it. I didn't hear the speech.
| 413 |
laZardo Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:01:42pm |
re: #400 recusancy
Well... It's not the case here. It isn't Muslim world versus Us. Al Quaeda and Taliban are Sunni. They don't like Shiites such as the persians in Iran and, now that we've gotten rid of Saddam, Iraq. They are enemies of each other as well. You see the world too black and white.
Actually no, otherwise I wouldn't have said it's been everyone's policy (including the myriad different 'factions' within the Muslim world). It would be black and white if they were really following ideology. But really, as long as it provides some benefit to them in the long run, they'll do it.
| 414 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:01:58pm |
re: #330 cliffster
In reality, it's for purely emotional reasons, and if what I said meant a shit, I wouldn't bring it up. But it doesn't, and so I can't help point this out: He has to look these marines in the eye and ask them to put their lives on the line. They deserve better.
Agreed. The detainees do not deserve constitutional rights or a civilian trial. That said, keeping them permanently in Cuba, without sentencing, executing, or releasing them gives significant political ammo to our enemies and tarnishes the idea of American exceptionalism.
Beyond that, I think the marines can and will still find purpose in Afghanistan. Whether or not it is in Obama's words and actions, or even if it is despite some of those words and actions. I tend to give the marines more credit than to be significantly de-motivated or disheartened by that kind of political transgression at home. There are many truly important things to put your lives on the line for--freedom, the constitution, the safety of your friends, family and neighbors, and the idea of America itself--its exceptionalism.
| 415 |
Girth Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:02:04pm |
re: #404 NJDhockeyfan
And what's the problem there? Is Mullah Omar or bin Laden gonna sit down and surrender to McChrystal? Seems like a reasonable thing to say, seeing how that image isn't gonna happen.
| 416 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:02:14pm |
re: #378 Cato the Elder
It works for the Israelis. I guess we're to dumb for that.
I love you when you agree with me Cato--but that's a very different setting.
| 417 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:03:01pm |
re: #369 recusancy
Iran is Shiite and Taliban is Sunni. They aren't going to be in cohoots.
Thats just ridiculous. Of course Iran supports Sunni groups. You don't get out much, do you.
| 418 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:03:17pm |
re: #385 NJDhockeyfan
Smash the terrorists. Go into their area and destroy them. Squish them like the cockroaches they are. Coordinate with Pakistan to chase them to the border where we are waiting for them. They will have no place to go.
[...].
Ok, so you would kill all the adult and adolescent males on the wrong side of the Pashtun civil war in Afghanistan. But what of those in Pakistan, kill all of them as well?
| 419 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:03:24pm |
If John McCain had made that same speech tonight - timetable and all - would there still be Lizards calling for a total surrender? Turn our tails and run away? Wave the white flag - sorry not enough troops for me, lets go home?
I doubt it.
| 420 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:03:33pm |
re: #406 Cato the Elder
Maybe you should play WoW, it might give you a basic clue about army stuff.
Is that where you get your military strategy ideas from?
| 421 |
captdiggs Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:04:07pm |
re: #410 recusancy
That's also a lot more complicated.
Either way... the point I was making is worrying about the Taliban and Iran is missing the point. Al Queda and the terrorist is who we need to focus foremost on.
Iran will deal with anyone killing Americans and Israelis.
They are already recovering Iranian arms and explosives in Afghanistan.
[Link: www.nytimes.com...]
| 423 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:04:37pm |
we took out alot of bad guys in Iraq, a good thing...now we move ahead and do the same in Afghanistan...if people think that this violence breeds more terorists, then so be it, that's the world we live in until the paradigm changes...I don't like it but who would?...we are committed and have to make good on our promise to these people over there...if we can't or won't then to hell with it
| 425 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:04:57pm |
re: #363 Dark_Falcon
That thing is oil. I've never shied away from that. Oil is not the reason we went in, but it is a major reason why we have to win there.
Thank you. Honest question asked and answered. I will just respectfully disagree that invading Iraq was worth losing any momentum we could have had in Afghanistan, where 9/11 was planned and the planners existed.
| 426 |
Vicious Babushka Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:05:18pm |
re: #378 Cato the Elder
It works for the Israelis. I guess we're to dumb for that.
It "works" for the Israelis? As in, being accused of war crimes by the UN, who rely on Hamas testimony?
| 427 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:05:28pm |
re: #418 Bagua
Ok, so you would kill all the adult and adolescent males on the wrong side of the Pashtun civil war in Afghanistan. But what of those in Pakistan, kill all of them as well?
Did I say that?
| 429 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:07:45pm |
re: #427 NJDhockeyfan
Did I say that?
Yes, you said:
Smash the terrorists. Go into their area and destroy them. Squish them like the cockroaches they are. Coordinate with Pakistan to chase them to the border where we are waiting for them. They will have no place to go.
I don't believe killing a handful of them once in a while with drones do much good.
| 430 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:08:15pm |
re: #423 albusteve
we took out alot of bad guys in Iraq, a good thing...now we move ahead and do the same in Afghanistan...if people think that this violence breeds more terorists, then so be it, that's the world we live in until the paradigm changes...I don't like it but who would?...we are committed and have to make good on our promise to these people over there...if we can't or won't then to hell with it
What have we been doing in Afghanistan for all these years if not taking out bad guys? I seem to recall we got several.
| 431 |
irving Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:08:27pm |
re: #399 cliffster
Clinton agreed - WMD's were there, and must be dealt with.
It didn't help that Saddam was trying to convince his neighbors very badly that he did have WMDs, to appear strong when he had very little control over his economy and his grip on power was shaky.
Something to keep very, very, very firmly in mind when worrying about Iran...
| 432 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:09:08pm |
re: #426 Alouette
It "works" for the Israelis? As in, being accused of war crimes by the UN, who rely on Hamas testimony?
As in, they adhere to their own moral code, and successfully keep down civilian casualties.
| 433 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:09:12pm |
| 434 |
laZardo Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:09:14pm |
re: #426 Alouette
It "works" for the Israelis? As in, being accused of war crimes by the UN, who rely on Hamas testimony?
I may be liberal, but any group that teaches children to become furry fundamentalist suicide bombers deserves a missile up the rear end.
/and that's all I got to say about that.
| 435 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:09:18pm |
re: #425 austin_blue
Thank you. Honest question asked and answered. I will just respectfully disagree that invading Iraq was worth losing any momentum we could have had in Afghanistan, where 9/11 was planned and the planners existed.
I've never really thought it was anything other than oil, and I've never had a problem with it. I'm sure we've gone into it before, but there are plenty of oppressed people the world over. No US troops, Senate debates, or presidential elections being decided over them. These particular oppressed people are sitting on an unbelievably important resource.
| 436 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:09:20pm |
re: #409 Cato the Elder
Fewer than you seem to find acceptable in Afghanistan.
Now you are moving the goal posts. When I posted this..
If you expect that any military action against the Taliban should exclude any potential civilians who are being used as shields by the animals, then you are the simpleton.
Which pointed out how it is impossible to fight a war against an enemy that hides out among civilians and not kill some civilians. To which you replied...
It works for the Israelis. I guess we're to dumb for that.
Which says that somehow the Israelis can do just that. But now you admit they can't, just that they are somehow better at it than us, but you provide no metrics to prove your point. Just Cato being Cato.
| 437 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:09:32pm |
| 438 |
Bear Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:09:46pm |
30,000 more troops. I wonder just how many of those will be front line?
I seam to recall that in WW2 for every 1 in the front line there were 10 behind needed to supply the that one. Any one know if that ratio still holds today?
| 439 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:10:00pm |
re: #430 SanFranciscoZionist
What have we been doing in Afghanistan for all these years if not taking out bad guys? I seem to recall we got several.
good...press on full bore
| 441 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:10:32pm |
re: #429 Bagua
Looks like I said kill the terrorists. What's wrong with that? Should we get a court order from a judge to search their homes then arrest them instead?
| 442 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:10:35pm |
| 443 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:10:41pm |
re: #395 Dark_Falcon
I call BS on that one. George W Bush told no lies. It is true has was wrong about the WMDs, but his mistake was an honest one.
Right.
About as honest as Hillary Clinton's "misspeaking" when she lied about flying into Bosnia under heavy fire.
| 444 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:11:22pm |
re: #435 cliffster
I've never really thought it was anything other than oil, and I've never had a problem with it. I'm sure we've gone into it before, but there are plenty of oppressed people the world over. No US troops, Senate debates, or presidential elections being decided over them. These particular oppressed people are sitting on an unbelievably important resource.
well we don't use it...so how valuable is it to the US?
| 445 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:11:22pm |
re: #441 NJDhockeyfan
Looks like I said kill the terrorists. What's wrong with that? Should we get a court order from a judge to search their homes then arrest them instead?
Whom do you consider the "terrorists"? The Talib?
| 446 |
Girth Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:11:29pm |
re: #428 gulfloafer
What is best in Life?
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women.
| 447 |
Dark_Falcon Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:11:47pm |
re: #425 austin_blue
Thank you. Honest question asked and answered. I will just respectfully disagree that invading Iraq was worth losing any momentum we could have had in Afghanistan, where 9/11 was planned and the planners existed.
Fair enough. We often don't agree, but we always stay civil, and we always listen. And that is best way to interact. It's also one of the reasons I respect and like you.
| 448 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:11:47pm |
re: #438 Bear
30,000 more troops. I wonder just how many of those will be front line?
I seam to recall that in WW2 for every 1 in the front line there were 10 behind needed to supply the that one. Any one know if that ratio still holds today?
Its not so easy to define the front line here.
| 449 |
gulfloafer Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:11:56pm |
re: #442 SanFranciscoZionist
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you ... and to hear the lamentation of their women!
Conan the barbarian
| 450 |
Cato the Elder Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:11:57pm |
re: #391 lawhawk
For AQ and the Taliban, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is merely a line on the map. It holds no special relevance to them. If they get pressure from Afghanistan, they move to Pakistan. All the same, pressure from the Pakistani government in the frontier provinces sends 'em back the other way.
The US needs the troops there, so that when there's a significant push by the Pakistanis, they run the Taliban right into the anvil of US force.
Right, and Obama is putting the troops there. So what is all the pissing and moaning about here tonight?
| 451 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:12:03pm |
re: #438 Bear
30,000 more troops. I wonder just how many of those will be front line?
I seam to recall that in WW2 for every 1 in the front line there were 10 behind needed to supply the that one. Any one know if that ratio still holds today?
Probably even higher. Considering the "front line" now consists of things like predator drones, Cruise missiles etc.
It also depends on your definition of "front line." There's no clear eastern/western front in this kind of a war.
| 452 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:12:03pm |
re: #441 NJDhockeyfan
Looks like I said kill the terrorists. What's wrong with that? Should we get a court order from a judge to search their homes then arrest them instead?
Who's a terrorist? How do you know who's a terrorist? Are all Taliban terrorists? Is anyone who's related to a Taliban a terrorist? Are terrorists on our side terrorists? What is the dry, unladen weight of an African swallow?
| 454 |
BryanS Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:12:31pm |
| 455 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:12:43pm |
re: #445 Bagua
Whom do you consider the "terrorists"? The Talib?
The ones blowing shit up in Pakistan? Sure them too.
| 456 |
Obdicut Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:12:50pm |
re: #452 SanFranciscoZionist
What is the dry, unladen weight of an African swallow?
Male or female, and, if female, is she gravid?
| 457 |
mich-again Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:12:58pm |
| 458 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:13:00pm |
re: #445 Bagua
Whom do you consider the "terrorists"? The Talib?
We're down to one? Hell, this is gonna be easier than I thought. Shoot 'im!
| 459 |
captdiggs Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:13:00pm |
re: #432 SanFranciscoZionist
As in, they adhere to their own moral code, and successfully keep down civilian casualties.
The new rules of engagement in Afghanistan are so restrictive due to concern for civilians, that they are arguably dangerous for the troops.
| 460 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:13:18pm |
re: #449 gulfloafer
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you ... and to hear the lamentation of their women!
Conan the barbarian
Tiramisu!
| 461 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:13:47pm |
re: #455 NJDhockeyfan
The ones blowing shit up in Pakistan? Sure them too.
Do you know who they are? What group are they? Which side of the 300 year old civil war they are on?
| 462 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:13:52pm |
re: #450 Cato the Elder
Right, and Obama is putting the troops there. So what is all the pissing and moaning about here tonight?
He doesn't mean it as much as Bush used to. And he didn't say 'victory'.
//
| 463 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:14:07pm |
re: #443 Cato the Elder
Right.
About as honest as Hillary Clinton's "misspeaking" when she lied about flying into Bosnia under heavy fire.
so what about her point of view with regard to Hussein and WMDs?...or Teds...or Kerrys and all the rest?...what a bullshit, after the fact argument
| 464 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:14:31pm |
| 465 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:14:56pm |
| 466 |
Obdicut Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:15:19pm |
re: #464 SanFranciscoZionist
Errr...what is your favorite color?
Blue.
No, wait!
/exeunts into chasm accompanied by screams.
| 468 |
Bear Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:16:07pm |
re: #448 mich-again
OK I mean infantry not the supply troops. Definately the supply troops are in danger.
Guess my WW2 background does not reflect modern word meaning. I was in infantry and then supply.
| 469 |
solomonpanting Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:16:24pm |
re: #443 Cato the Elder
Right.
About as honest as Hillary Clinton's "misspeaking" when she lied about flying into Bosnia under heavy fire.
Moreover, Bush was able to get the world's major intelligence agencies to cover for him AND made Clinton retroactively address the issue years before Bush became President. He is the king.
| 470 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:16:34pm |
re: #461 Bagua
Do you know who they are? What group are they? Which side of the 300 year old civil war they are on?
It's the ones who are sending children with bombs strapped to them into areas to explode and kill civilians. The ones we read about every day who bomb hotels, schools, office building to cause mass casualties. Don't you read the news?
| 471 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:16:41pm |
re: #373 albusteve
I don't see your problem...take over the country, exterminate the Talis and their AQ bretheren, or leave it to them...
The country is as big as Texas with 28 million people in it. 100,000 troops? It's a stop gap. We are praying for the miracle we got in Iraq, where as the surge was beginning, the decision was made by various Sunni tribes in Iraq that they were tired of being whipsawed by the Shiia on one side and the whack Sunni Fundies on the other that was getting them killed. They formed a partnership with the Allied troops that secured their villages and cities to an extent that our troops, even with the surge, could not have done. This allowed our surged troops to secure Baghdad, which put the lid on the insurgent pot.
Hope it works in Afghanistan. We have to give it a shot.
| 472 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:16:51pm |
re: #462 SanFranciscoZionist
He doesn't mean it as much as Bush used to. And he didn't say 'victory'.
//
it's the timeline for withdrawal...pretty simple
| 473 |
captdiggs Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:16:58pm |
re: #438 Bear
30,000 more troops. I wonder just how many of those will be front line?
I seam to recall that in WW2 for every 1 in the front line there were 10 behind needed to supply the that one. Any one know if that ratio still holds today?
Generals don't really request by number. They request by unit types (ie. combat infantry, air cavalry, artillery, civil affairs, military police, etc.)
The requested troop number was based on the type of troop mix requested.
| 474 |
austin_blue Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:18:46pm |
re: #435 cliffster
I've never really thought it was anything other than oil, and I've never had a problem with it. I'm sure we've gone into it before, but there are plenty of oppressed people the world over. No US troops, Senate debates, or presidential elections being decided over them. These particular oppressed people are sitting on an unbelievably important resource.
As long as you are OK with over 4,000 dead and half a trillion dollars (and counting) I suppose that works for you. I think it has been a travesty.
| 475 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:18:52pm |
re: #470 NJDhockeyfan
It's the ones who are sending children with bombs strapped to them into areas to explode and kill civilians. The ones we read about every day who bomb hotels, schools, office building to cause mass casualties. Don't you read the news?
I see, so we are fighting "the ones". From what population or ethnic group do they come from? Where are they located? Which side of the 300 year old Afghan civil war are they on?
Does anyone arguing for pursuing the war know this answer?
| 476 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:19:41pm |
re: #474 austin_blue
As long as you are OK with over 4,000 dead and half a trillion dollars (and counting) I suppose that works for you. I think it has been a travesty.
And you're only counting our dead.
| 477 |
mdr20854 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:19:48pm |
Its sad to see that Obama is making the same mistake that George W. Bush made. Neither of them realize that they are politicians not soldiers.
I recognize that he is the Commander-in-Chief but Obama should listen to the experts like General McCrystal.
| 478 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:19:53pm |
re: #474 austin_blue
As long as you are OK with over 4,000 dead and half a trillion dollars (and counting) I suppose that works for you. I think it has been a travesty.
I respect that position. Security is more than just people landing boats on your shores though.
| 479 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:19:57pm |
re: #471 austin_blue
The country is as big as Texas with 28 million people in it. 100,000 troops? It's a stop gap. We are praying for the miracle we got in Iraq, where as the surge was beginning, the decision was made by various Sunni tribes in Iraq that they were tired of being whipsawed by the Shiia on one side and the whack Sunni Fundies on the other that was getting them killed. They formed a partnership with the Allied troops that secured their villages and cities to an extent that our troops, even with the surge, could not have done. This allowed our surged troops to secure Baghdad, which put the lid on the insurgent pot.
Hope it works in Afghanistan. We have to give it a shot.
we do...anything is possible I guess...otherwise the loss of life is not worth it
| 480 |
ghazidor Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:20:57pm |
re: #435 cliffster
I've never really thought it was anything other than oil, and I've never had a problem with it. I'm sure we've gone into it before, but there are plenty of oppressed people the world over. No US troops, Senate debates, or presidential elections being decided over them. These particular oppressed people are sitting on an unbelievably important resource.
We don't need it, we hardly use middle eastern oil anymore, we get most of our imports from Canada and South America nowadays. We could sever all ties with middle eastern oil tomorrow if we wanted to and barely feel it.
We are fighting and dieing and spending trillions we don't have because we are playing world policeman again. A couple of our allies need the oil to flow, our stock market needs the oil to flow, we don't really need it anymore ourselves for domestic use.
This isn't really about oil, it really isn't, it is about money.
| 481 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:21:37pm |
re: #469 solomonpanting
Moreover, Bush was able to get the world's major intelligence agencies to cover for him AND made Clinton retroactively address the issue years before Bush became President. He is the king.
I heard he also secretly orchestrated the 9/11 bombings, and nobody except Charlie Sheen knew anything about it. Amazing.
| 482 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:21:45pm |
re: #478 cliffster
I respect that position. Security is more than just people landing boats on your shores though.
can you be more precise about your definition of security?
| 483 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:23:08pm |
re: #474 austin_blue
As long as you are OK with over 4,000 dead and half a trillion dollars (and counting) I suppose that works for you. I think it has been a travesty.
I don't know about him, but I'm more outraged at the trillions of dollars spent otherwise, especially since October of 2008.
| 484 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:23:37pm |
Let me expand my question and make it easy.
Which side in the 300 year Afghan civil war are we allied with?
Does that group make up the bulk of the Afghan forces on "our" side?
Surely we all know who our local allies are.
| 485 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:24:45pm |
re: #482 EastSider
can you be more precise about your definition of security?
How about my definition of "insecure"? A whole landmass of people governed by insane, America-hating, Israel-hating radicals having control over untold wealth in natural resources.
| 486 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:25:55pm |
re: #483 TheMatrix31
I don't know about him, but I'm more outraged at the trillions of dollars spent otherwise, especially since October of 2008.
the trillions of dollars spent in an [arguably misguided] effort to save American lives and jobs?
Yes, thats much more outrageous than the trillions of dollars spent in an [arguably misguided] effort to protect American lives.
| 487 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:27:00pm |
re: #486 EastSider
LOL. The dollars that were supposed to keep our unemployment under 8% and is now at 10.2%?
Stupid.
| 488 |
Velvet Elvis Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:27:00pm |
re: #368 ausador
BTW the military commanders are already whining about how they can't put as many troops in there as fast as Obama wants them to. They have no staging area and everything pretty much has to be flown in. We will be lucky to see even the increase in troop levels that Obama called for within the next year much less more.
The military commanders have apparently said that they ideally need almost 3 months for each increase in the troop level of 3,000 soldiers. At that rate this would take almost three full years just to add the 34,000 troops Obama approved.
Got any links backing that up? I'm not arguing with it, I just might want to use it in argument in the future.
| 489 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:27:58pm |
re: #483 TheMatrix31
I don't know about him, but I'm more outraged at the trillions of dollars spent otherwise, especially since October of 2008.
Yes, that is absolute insanity.
| 490 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:29:07pm |
re: #487 TheMatrix31
LOL. The dollars that were supposed to keep our unemployment under 8% and is now at 10.2%?
Stupid.
LOL. the dollars that were supposed to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan, but now are unstable?
Stupid.
| 491 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:29:55pm |
re: #490 EastSider
Iraq is unstable now? If it is, it still more stable than it has ever been, thanks to America.
| 492 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:31:27pm |
re: #491 TheMatrix31
Iraq is unstable now? If it is, it still more stable than it has ever been, thanks to America.
Yes, but it took significantly longer than was expected and cost significantly more than was expected.
Will you be equally as satisfied with the results if/when the economy recovers?
| 493 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:33:57pm |
re: #485 cliffster
How about my definition of "insecure"? A whole landmass of people governed by insane, America-hating, Israel-hating radicals having control over untold wealth in natural resources.
Yeah that's pretty insecure. Can we agree to at least try to take a combo approach?
1) Secure resources.
2) Reduce America hatred.
3) Devalue their "untold wealth" (or at least our dependency on it) by outmoding oil as a necessary natural resource.
| 494 |
ghazidor Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:34:15pm |
re: #488 Conservative Moonbat
Got any links backing that up? I'm not arguing with it, I just might want to use it in argument in the future.
I'll try to find you one but that was based on a supposedly direct quote from a "military source" as used by a reporter on CBS. If it really is a direct quote it will surface in a day or so if it hasn't already.
| 495 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:34:46pm |
re: #492 EastSider
Since there's a precedent set for pumping ungodly amounts of money into circulation in order to help "stimulate" an economy, I doubt I'll be too happy.
| 496 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:35:43pm |
re: #495 TheMatrix31
Since there's a precedent set for pumping ungodly amounts of money into circulation in order to help "stimulate" an economy, I doubt I'll be too happy.
because it wasn't an original idea?
| 497 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:37:07pm |
re: #493 EastSider
Yeah that's pretty insecure. Can we agree to at least try to take a combo approach?
1) Secure resources.
2) Reduce America hatred.
3) Devalue their "untold wealth" (or at least our dependency on it) by outmoding oil as a necessary natural resource.
Word
| 498 |
TheMatrix31 Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:37:31pm |
re: #496 EastSider
Because its a failing idea that will help cripple the prosperity of mine and future generations.
| 499 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:37:41pm |
Interesting that in a thread of 492 comments and 58 users online, no-one can answer my question as to who we are fighting in Afghanistan, who are our allies, who are their allies among the varies groups.
Should we be fighting a war in which we do not know whose side we are on and who are our allies?
Should we be committing another 30 thousand troups to the slaughterhouse with a "Clear Mission" that is impossible in the time frame proposed?
| 500 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:39:19pm |
re: #498 TheMatrix31
Because its a failing idea that will help cripple the prosperity of mine and future generations.
My kids won't be able to vote for another 16 years. Therefore, not one single politician in Washington cares about them.
| 501 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:40:59pm |
re: #499 Bagua
Interesting that in a thread of 492 comments and 58 users online, no-one can answer my question as to who we are fighting in Afghanistan, who are our allies, who are their allies among the varies groups.
Should we be fighting a war in which we do not know whose side we are on and who are our allies?
Should we be committing another 30 thousand troups to the slaughterhouse with a "Clear Mission" that is impossible in the time frame proposed?
I don't know if 58 users on a blog, some of which weren't directly discussing your topic, are a sufficient sample to use the royal "we" for ignorance.
I think you need to look at the nuances of the plan. Obama did not say "bomb the bastards," or take on the slightly toned down view of that staement that NJDevils was going with for a while.
What is your alternative plan?
| 502 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:41:22pm |
| 503 |
J.S. Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:43:34pm |
re: #43 Killgore Trout
I voted a tentative approve...(I'm guessing that the Leftist wing of the Democrats are really, really angry about a surge. CNN had on Dennis Kucinich...that alien-looking critter...he was angry. He felt that all troops should be withdrawn now and that any "rebuilding" should be done in America, not in Afghanistan or Iraq.)
| 504 |
cliffster Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:43:45pm |
| 505 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:44:19pm |
re: #501 EastSider
[...]
What is your alternative plan?
My alternate plan?
Should we not first know who we are fighting, who their allies are, and who is fighting on our side, and who their allies and troops are?
How can we talk in terms of a "plan" until we know who our enemy is and who are allies are?
| 506 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:45:35pm |
re: #498 TheMatrix31
Because its a failing idea that will help cripple the prosperity of mine and future generations.
As opposed to printing money to pay for the war?
Sorry that I'm being so contrarian. My point is that there are two very analogous situations going on here, and its unfair to lambast one and defend another on their economics or stated goals.
1) Large deficit spending to finance military actions with a noble stated goal.
2) Large deficit spending to finance economic/healthercare actions with a noble stated goal.
Attack inefficient government and deficit spending on both, but you can't attack one for those and defend the other.
| 507 |
Ojoe Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:48:49pm |
re: #209 Bagua
I would confidently say we are looking at one term for The One.
Yes and IMHO Palin will be next.
(Big pendulum swing, as big as you can imagine)
| 508 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:49:38pm |
re: #505 Bagua
My alternate plan?
Should we not first know who we are fighting, who their allies are, and who is fighting on our side, and who their allies and troops are?
How can we talk in terms of a "plan" until we know who our enemy is and who are allies are?
Do you want to know?
Was Obama supposed to get on the TeeVee tonight and go province by province outlining the local issues? Cause really, the problem is that this entire war is being fought neighborhood by neighborhood, and macro scale thinking will only get you a nicely wrapped speech.
You want to know who are allies and who are enemies are? Lets get you on the horn with the captains in the tribal areas. You can talk to all of them and then let us know what you think.
Or, if that's not feasible, they can report to their superiors, who can report to their superiors, who can report to Obama and request more troops based on his aggregated assessment on the ground. Then Obama can cautiously consider that recommendation, seek alternative opinions, and come to a final, reasoned decision about what to do.
I wouldn't say I have blind faith in our military and elected leaders (that would be, in a word, insane), but I trust them, to an extent, to make the right call here.
| 509 |
J.S. Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:53:58pm |
David Gergen made a number of interesting comments. He said that given the current state of politics in America (divisive), the audience will tend to focus on that aspect of the speech which he/she doesn't like. So the Left will focus on the "surge" aspect (increasing troop levels), while the Right will focus on giving a time-table (it's 18 months). (Ironically, of course, Obama attempted to keep both sides happy -- give both a portion of what they wanted, but not give one side everything asked for -- but in doing this, David Gergen suggested, it would probably end up not pleasing anyone. In other words, Obama was proposing a middling ground, when in wars you need to be either "all in" or "all out.")
| 510 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:56:22pm |
re: #509 J.S.
David Gergen made a number of interesting comments. He said that given the current state of politics in America (divisive), the audience will tend to focus on that aspect of the speech which he/she doesn't like. So the Left will focus on the "surge" aspect (increasing troop levels), while the Right will focus on giving a time-table (it's 18 months). (Ironically, of course, Obama attempted to keep both sides happy -- give both a portion of what they wanted, but not give one side everything asked for -- but in doing this, David Gergen suggested, it would probably end up not pleasing anyone. In other words, Obama was proposing a middling ground, when in wars you need to be either "all in" or "all out.")
how is a 34,000 troop increase by May (when General's asked for 40k by August) not all in?
| 511 |
borgcube Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:56:59pm |
re: #335 Racer X
BBL
NO, I'm not cutting and running. Unlike some here want to do.
Fuck me.
No need to cut and run. Just leave in an orderly fashion and then bomb the crap out of them from time to time if and when needed. And it will be needed most assuredly. The same objective will be achieved as staying there now, with a much lesser chance of loss of American life, unless you really believe that we are going to install a stable democracy in Afghanistan and leave in less than two years. Ain't gonna happen if we stayed 100 years. My pet fish have a better chance of walking upright than Afghanistan has transforming into anything remotely resembling a modern nation state.
| 512 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:57:11pm |
re: #508 EastSider
So you don't know then, is that your answer? You allege they have no other affiliation than their particular "neighbourhood"?
And yes, I would expect those arguing for or against the war in Afghanistan to know who we were fighting and who we were allied with if they wish their views to be taken seriously.
The very suggestion that we can intervene in a civil war that has been going on for 300 years and have an "exit strategy" when we don't even know whose side we are on is ridiculous.
| 513 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:03:09pm |
re: #512 Bagua
So you don't know then, is that your answer? You allege they have no other affiliation than their particular "neighbourhood"?
And yes, I would expect those arguing for or against the war in Afghanistan to know who we were fighting and who we were allied with if they wish their views to be taken seriously.
The very suggestion that we can intervene in a civil war that has been going on for 300 years and have an "exit strategy" when we don't even know whose side we are on is ridiculous.
Fine, lets assume you get me and everyone to agree with your main thesis.
What is your plan? The "we need to plan this out and pick a side to do this right" ship sailed. It left 8 years ago. We're there with 30,000 troops. Their stated goal is not to "win a war," but to suppress terrorism and create sustainable local ability to continue to suppress terrorism.
Do you think leaving right now is going to solve problems?
| 514 |
Bagua Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:08:02pm |
re: #513 EastSider
Fine, lets assume you get me and everyone to agree with your main thesis.
What is your plan? The "we need to plan this out and pick a side to do this right" ship sailed. It left 8 years ago. We're there with 30,000 troops. Their stated goal is not to "win a war," but to suppress terrorism and create sustainable local ability to continue to suppress terrorism.
Do you think leaving right now is going to solve problems?
What is my thesis? At this point I just want to establish if anyone knows who the combatants are and what the war is about.
I'm taking this to the active thread.
| 515 |
ArdentCapitalist Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:13:31pm |
Without having read the 500+ comments above my own, let me just simply say... you anti-war types need to understand a few things from the mind of an enlisted Marine.
1) You anti-war types are not more anti-war than I, or any of my fellow warriors for that matter. We answer a higher calling, and simply because we answer the call of the warrior does not make us "pro-war." What it reveals is that we are willing to sacrifice our lives and the happiness of our loved ones for the safety, security, liberty, and happiness of others. This is our goal: the security of a free nation.
2) You anti-war types need to stop thinking of "sending 34,000 additional troops in terms of "placing 34,000 more Americans in harm's way." This couldn't be further from the truth. We are pack hunters. There is safety in numbers. You can not tell me that safety of troops is not improved by having more barrels pointed down range at the scum we are trying to wage vicious war with. When we are with each other, with greater numbers, we are better able to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver. This means less of us die horrible deaths in lands far from our families and far from our natural time.
3) You anti-war types need to remember that although this was not "technically" a war due to the lack of a Congressional Declaration of War, we face an enemy far more vicious than most people even begin to understand. Consider just for a moment, how do you think it feels to have a commander-in-chief so out of touch with our customs and traditions that he does goofy things like hand-shake a young Marine rendering a salute, or hold his hands over his genitals AT the TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER, while flanked by military officers rendering salutes on each side, AS THE NATIONAL ANTHEM PLAYS??? This might seem small potatoes to many, but to anyone who earned the uniform they wear, this is an absolute disgrace to be lead by a man who claims to have his finger on the pulse of military morale, and wants to improve it by telling the world that the military he commands cannot handle the mission so inconveniently handed to him by his predecessor almost a year ago that he was aware of over a year ago by campaigning for the position.
| 516 |
efuseakay Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:18:47pm |
The reason I voted no, is because I don't think 34,000 troops (most of which will be support troops) will be enough to bring things to an "end" in 3 years.
| 517 |
Diane Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:38:05am |
I wish the troops and the President the best. I am concerned that giving a time table will help the enemy although I can understand the President 's political reasons at home.
Wars are horrible and tough to fight, like a cancer! As Andrew Coyne said, if we only fought wars we were sure of winning, we should never have fought any wars at all.
It saddened me to see the faces of the troops Obama was addressing. They did not look too confident. God Bless Them!
| 518 |
Mugwump Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:39:52am |
Until something is done with Pakistan, any American involvement in Afghanistan is just playing 'Whack a Mole' with the Taliban.
This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.
Comments are closed.
Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
- Featured PagesClick to refresh
Gateway Pundit, Sued by Election Workers, Declares BankruptcyA onetime favorite, now just pathetic figure around these parts, Jim Hoft aka SMOTI ("Stupidest Man On The Internet"), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the defamation lawsuits filed against him to the same election workers that ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
5 days ago
Views: 227 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 3
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,014 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 989 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 1,391 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 532 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1- Pictures From Today’s Exhibition of Paintings Done by Jane LilienthalPROPS TO MICHELE AND SAGEHEN FOR CATCHING THE SPELLING ERROR IN THE TITLE THAT MY DIABETIC EYES COULDN'T CATCH I wanted to share pictures of the art show I visited today. The portraits were created by the mother of my ...Joe Bacon ✅
4 weeks ago
Views: 615 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 11
- Recent PagesClick to refresh
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ... Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Yesterday
Views: 63 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
3 days ago
Views: 172 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 5
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 417 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
