- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
so you're for staying indefinitely?"Occupying" is a bit of a stretch. How does one occupy a virtual desert run by a glorified gang of drug smugglers with no rule of law?
It is a staging area for the long, arduous task of gradually weeding out terrorists where they used to find complete freedom to roam.
targeted attacks, i think. really gone after bin laden. bombed the **** out of the taliban, but no occupying forces.
so you're for staying indefinitely?
No, but I'm not leaving just because it's "hard". The more dedicated we are to it, the shorter it'll be.
For that matter, we're still in Germany. We're still in Korea. We're still in Japan.
And we should not be in any of those countries, these are just prime examples that the taliban will use to continue to recruit....
good question. india?
And now McClatchey and others are claiming that "finish the job" means "34,000 more troops"
Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan | McClatchy
Obama's come out to deny every one of these trial balloons so far, so I'm not putting much stock in this one yet.
The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.
"We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said.
It's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.
As part of its new plan, the administration, which remains skeptical of Karzai, will "work around him" by working directly with provincial and district leaders, a senior U.S. defense official told McClatchy.
http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34123718/ns/politics-white_house
Obama vows to ‘finish the job’ in Afghanistan
Does anyone think this can end well, or soon? I can't imagine a scenario that works.
he's between a rock and a hard place.....damned if he does.......
can you imagine the outcry if we pulled out completely right now?
[/b]I must be the only person here who thinks Pres. Obama has done the right thing with Afghanistan by taking his time[/b], pulling together his war cabinet staff, discussing matters with those nations that have a vested interest in how this War in Afghanistan plays out, i.e., Pakistan, India, England and even NATO, and reviewing every detail no matter how trivial it might seem in an effort to come up with a comprehensive strategy to stablize that country and place them on a footing to better government themselves.
As much as many would like to think otherwise, the War on Terror isn't an American war; the lives of many foreign nations were lost on 9/11. As such, the soveignty of several nations were brought into the frey on that dreadful day. It's only right that more nations reaffirm their commitment to halt terrorism in the region and bring a end to this war.
I think he has done the right thing in putting pressure on Pakistan to do alot more to combat terrorism in the south-west region where Taliban and Al Quaida are reportedly holding up, using that area as a safe haven. Why keep giving them millions of U.S. dollars if they're not going to step up to the plate? Perhaps most people overlooked this, but have you noticed how the Pakistan military has taken the fight to the Taliban of late rather than sitting back and waiting for the next terrorist act to occur? Have you noticed that British and NATO forces have begun to get more involved in the fighting? But more important, have you noticed reports coming out of Afghanistan itself where more training of local police and military forces is taking place and that more Afghan security personnel are patrolling the streets where U.S./coalition forces have strongholds?
I'm a long way from praising our President, but I think he has done the right thing here in taking the time to re-evaluate what's really going on over there and working with all entities to find a better way to fight this war and win it.
No. I appear to be the only person on this forum capable of admitting an obviously glaring truth:
Afghanistan doesn't have a viable export that can be used to generate monies to provide opportunities to its people better then those the insurgents can. It's why Bush never dealt with it in 7 years. Because it doesn't exist. Replacing Bush with Obama does not change this core central fact. What bothers me is that the partisans here don't understand what should be a really, really, really simple concept. But apparently if Obama is now dealing with the same problem Bush never fixed, only Obama deserves criticism. Frankly, neither of them deserve criticism because the problem cannot be fixed.
Hyperpartisan hypocritical loonies are everywhere here.
Why is it stupid for him to carefully assess the situation from all sides - military and political - before making a informed decision on how to proceed?
Why is it stupid for him to carefully assess the situation from all sides - military and political - before making a informed decision on how to proceed?
Because, as someone whose supposed to be a leader, he needs to display some decisiveness and the ability to think on his feet. What PBO has done was prove that he doesn't possess either quality and tried to pass it off as being careful. Caution is a bad thing in warfare. It sucks when politicians worry more about their politics than they do about their soldiers that on the battlefield.
It's better to be stupid than rational. It's better to be rash than thoughtful. It's better to be wrong than right.
Apdst has strange views, and lives in a strange world.
The first objective of any fighting force, is to do more damage, in less time, than the enemy
You have clear evidence that he took troops away from that specific mission, which had adverse effects?He wouldn't be the first president or world leader to do that. Granted, at least he's not taking troops away from hunting down Bin Laden like a former president did.
For everyone that criticizes Obama on this, why have none of them actually addressed the real problem of lack of development that also existed under Bush?
Seems to me this is just another pathetic veiled partisan mode of attack.
Originally Posted by obvious Child
He wouldn't be the first president or world leader to do that. Granted, at least he's not taking troops away from hunting down Bin Laden like a former president did.
he's between a rock and a hard place.....damned if he does.......
can you imagine the outcry if we pulled out completely right now?
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?