- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
After all this time it had better be one hell of an announcement
Obama said he did not want his successor as president to inherit the Afghan conflict, adding that a "multi-year occupation" would not serve the interests of the United States.
I'm very happy to see a Presdient who actually stands his principles and doesn't rush into a decision despite the fools who have come to expect that out of a leader. I'd much rather have someone that takes the time and makes a right decision than one who continually makes quick bad ones.
I'm very happy to see a Presdient who actually stands his principles and doesn't rush into a decision despite the fools who have come to expect that out of a leader. I'd much rather have someone that takes the time and makes a right decision than one who continually makes quick bad ones.
I'm very happy to see a Presdient who actually stands his principles and doesn't rush into a decision despite the fools who have come to expect that out of a leader. I'd much rather have someone that takes the time and makes a right decision than one who continually makes quick bad ones.
And what if "taking his time" jeopardizes the mission, or the troops' lives? What if it emboldens our enemies? Do you ever see a possible downside to anything Obama does?
Maybe if Bush would have taken longer to make a decision, Iraq wouldn't have seen as many U.S. troops killed. I'd rather him take time then rush and get even MORE troops killed by a dumb decision like Bush did.
Do you ever see a possible upside to anything Obama does?
Maybe if Bush would have taken longer to make a decision, Iraq wouldn't have seen as many U.S. troops killed. I'd rather him take time then rush and get even MORE troops killed by a dumb decision like Bush did.
Do you ever see a possible upside to anything Obama does?
He's had 10 months; that's a bit more than enough time.
There is no reason to continue stalling (and letting troops die in the process).
Normal People: Seriously, is there not a middle ground here between "Wooo lets invade everything!" and "I need to make a decision, contact me in 2013 when I don't have re-election to deal with"
at this point i am starting to think the only right decision is to bail.I'm very happy to see a Presdient who actually stands his principles and doesn't rush into a decision despite the fools who have come to expect that out of a leader. I'd much rather have someone that takes the time and makes a right decision than one who continually makes quick bad ones.
Normal People: Seriously, is there not a middle ground here between "Wooo lets invade everything!" and "I need to make a decision, contact me in 2013 when I don't have re-election to deal with"
Hyper Partisan Liberal: Of course, taking months upon months to make decisions on a generals recommendation is great. That's what we want, not some yahoo that makes snap judgements
Hyper Partisan Republican: Waiting months is going to kill troops, we need someone to act immedietely upon recommendation of a generals recommendations no matter what they are or how it affects the nation as a whole or the war effort as a whole.
Normal People: Seriously, is there not a middle ground here between "Wooo lets invade everything!" and "I need to make a decision, contact me in 2013 when I don't have re-election to deal with"
Hyper Partisan Liberal: Of course, taking months upon months to make decisions on a generals recommendation is great. That's what we want, not some yahoo that makes snap judgements
Hyper Partisan Republican: Waiting months is going to kill troops, we need someone to act immedietely upon recommendation of a generals recommendations no matter what they are or how it affects the nation as a whole or the war effort as a whole.
Normal People: Seriously, is there not a middle ground here between "Wooo lets invade everything!" and "I need to make a decision, contact me in 2013 when I don't have re-election to deal with"
So, sending needed troops to a war of necessity = "Woooo let's invade everything!"?
He's had 10 months; that's a bit more than enough time.
The idea that troops are dying due to his considered decision making is ludicrous fear mongering, and craven lying of the war lovers.There is no reason to continue stalling (and letting troops die in the process).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?