Political discussions belong here. Please review the Forum Guidelines posted at the top of each forum before posting.
Before Obama does anything with troops I would hope he will advise the American people just what the mission is and what we are trying to do. This article seems to say he is about to decide about the troops. To me because he is going to tie it to some date to turn it over to the Afghanistani's that he is about to declare the war on terror officially over in the middle east.
[quote=6863m]
Before Obama does anything with troops I would hope he will advise the American people just what the mission is and what we are trying to do. This article seems to say he is about to decide about the troops. To me because he is going to tie it to some date to turn it over to the Afghanistani's that he is about to declare the war on terror officially over in the middle east.
Richard, Obama is the pres for good or bad. He does get to choose how to prosecute the war or redefine to suit what ever reason he wants. If he chooses to abandon the longest war in the history of this country, then he can. He will be held accountable at the next election, or not. Depending on how the fickle voters of this country cast their votes. From what I heard was that he was going to send 40,000 new troops to the war.
You have to remember that Obama is very naive in world affairs and has to depend on old Mr reliable, Joe Biden. Talk about the blind leading the blind. Sad as it is, its true.
You and I are just along for the ride.
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
Please note, the war has become Obama's in that he does not accept recommendations from his own team.. This should prove interesting.
More dithering by our so-called commander in chief. Bet the troops have respect for him NOT
I told you....he flip flop[ed like he always does.
Obie stop playing politics with our troops!
Message to Obie....
Please retire from military and let a real man take over.
Obie is the worst president ever imagined...you cant make Obie up in a bad dream.
[quote=don4975]
More dithering by our so-called commander in chief. Bet the troops have respect for him NOT
I told you....he flip flop[ed like he always does.
Obie stop playing politics with our troops!
Message to Obie....
Please retire from military and let a real man take over.
Obie is the worst president ever imagined...you cant make Obie up in a bad dream.[/quote]
Don, what exactly did he flip flop on? He campaigned on the importance of the Afghan war, the general said he needed 40k more troops, and he is giving them to the general.
please share what the flip flop was?
Don wrote, "You can't make obie up in a bad dream"
Yes I can, "Bush"
Dave
[quote=dte948]
Don wrote, "You can't make obie up in a bad dream"
Yes I can, "Bush"
Dave[/quote]
I believe that would be classified as a nightmare . . .
7 years of failure after failure... Richard were you critical of Bushes failed policy? 10 months of Obama and you want him to clean up 7 years of failure overnight. Amazingly stupid. Maybe if Dick and W dithered, instead of using knee jerk reactions we wouldnt be in this mess.
[quote=don4975]
More dithering by our so-called commander in chief. Bet the troops have respect for him NOT
I told you....he flip flop[ed like he always does.
Obie stop playing politics with our troops!
Message to Obie....
Please retire from military and let a real man take over.
Obie is the worst president ever imagined...you cant make Obie up in a bad dream.[/quote]
Hey Don, why then in Oct 2001 did Bush only throw a handful of soldiers in there? Instead, he and Rummy, and Dick, and Condi had a hard on for another country that:
1) Had no WMDs
2) no ties to 911
3) No ties to Al CIAduh
4) Was no threat to his neighbors
5) Did NOT reconstitute a nuclear program
And we turned 150K troops and vast amounts of resources there. Who screwed it up?
"President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday."
WOW, Obama doesn't want to commit more troops unless there is a plan for turning over responsibility?
Obama doesn't want endless war?
sounds responsible to me
Well, Obama already said victory was not the goal in Afghanistan. But he also said it was a war of necessity. I'm just waiting for him to make up his mind and tell us what the goal is. With that information, we can make a judgement on if his actions or lack there of are correct.
[quote=mg6t8b]
Well, Obama already said victory was not the goal in Afghanistan. But he also said it was a war of necessity. I'm just waiting for him to make up his mind and tell us what the goal is. With that information, we can make a judgement on if his actions or lack there of are correct.[/quote]
Cris, was would the definition of victory be in Afghanistan??
[quote=walshja]
[quote=mg6t8b]
Well, Obama already said victory was not the goal in Afghanistan. But he also said it was a war of necessity. I'm just waiting for him to make up his mind and tell us what the goal is. With that information, we can make a judgement on if his actions or lack there of are correct.[/quote]
Cris, was would the definition of victory be in Afghanistan??[/quote]
1) the death of every muslim
2) total control of the poppy fields
3) completion of the pipeline from the Caspian sea region
4) a US puppet govt.
I don't know what the definition of victory will be. Neither do either of you. It must be defined by the CIC. As such, Obama needs to let us know. He has the responsibillity to define the goals and objectives of the mission. Whether he inherited the war from Bush or started it him self he is the CIC and must make the decision. I will hold off my opinion on how he is doing based on his decisiions. For the two of you to start attacking based on my first statement is just amazing.
[quote=mg6t8b]
I don't know what the definition of victory will be. Neither do either of you. It must be defined by the CIC. As such, Obama needs to let us know. He has the responsibillity to define the goals and objectives of the mission. Whether he inherited the war from Bush or started it him self he is the CIC and must make the decision. I will hold off my opinion on how he is doing based on his decisiions. For the two of you to start attacking based on my first statement is just amazing.[/quote]
cCis, sorry if it appeared I was attacking, I was only asking what your definition of victory is, cause I don't believe Bush had that defined, nor does Obama.
I don't think victory is an option, we already lost. we are in a position of minimizing further losses.
I wasnt attacking either.. I was listing things that could be clear cut defintiions of winning.
A reasonable discussion very refreshing. I don't think Afghanistan was ever thought out by either of them. Bush sent in troups and focused on Iraq. He was the CIC and had to take responsibility for his actions. The reaction came in the last election. But we can't change the past. What can change is the future. Obama has taken Asghanistan as his war in several ways. Saying it was a war of necessity and today by "rejecting" all of the plans given to him. Right after the election, he said he was focusing on the war. He chose the General in charge of the war effort and asked for his report. He received one I believe in Feb and one about 4 months ago. Obama acted on the first report by sending in support personnel, but no warriors. It has been almost 4 months since request for more troops and he has not made a decision yet. Thinking about the right course of action is an admirable quality. But, as the CIC he is paid to make decisions. Many of them life and death not acting on the request is in a way a decision. But, how long is he going to think?
As a vetran of the first Gulf War, If my requests for more security troops for my security forces ABGD team had taken 4 months for approval not to mention implementation I would have been in big trouble.
[quote=walshja]
[quote=don4975]
More dithering by our so-called commander in chief. Bet the troops have respect for him NOT
I told you....he flip flop[ed like he always does.
Obie stop playing politics with our troops!
Message to Obie....
Please retire from military and let a real man take over.
Obie is the worst president ever imagined...you cant make Obie up in a bad dream.[/quote]
Don, what exactly did he flip flop on? He campaigned on the importance of the Afghan war, the general said he needed 40k more troops, and he is giving them to the general.
please share what the flip flop was?[/quote]
Joe, I think Obama is NOT going to send more troops based on this latest leak. It looks more like a Viet Nam style abandament of the war.
The cruxt of the whole mess is the arab/muslim penchant for coruption... its indemic and will not allow a democracy to flourish, soooooo why throw bad money after good. The GNP in Afganistanistan is only 25 billion,,guessing that is drug production, and sending 40 K troops will cost 50 billion. Doesnt make sense to me.
[quote=cstrong45]
[quote=walshja]
[quote=don4975]
More dithering by our so-called commander in chief. Bet the troops have respect for him NOT
I told you....he flip flop[ed like he always does.
Obie stop playing politics with our troops!
Message to Obie....
Please retire from military and let a real man take over.
Obie is the worst president ever imagined...you cant make Obie up in a bad dream.[/quote]
Don, what exactly did he flip flop on? He campaigned on the importance of the Afghan war, the general said he needed 40k more troops, and he is giving them to the general.
please share what the flip flop was?[/quote]
Joe, I think Obama is NOT going to send more troops based on this latest leak. It looks more like a Viet Nam style abandament of the war.
The cruxt of the whole mess is the arab/muslim penchant for coruption... its indemic and will not allow a democracy to flourish, soooooo why throw bad money after good. The GNP in Afganistanistan is only 25 billion,,guessing that is drug production, and sending 40 K troops will cost 50 billion. Doesnt make sense to me.[/quote]
So Chuck I guess there is no penchant for corruption right here in the USA by our Christian friends in DC? Also do you kno who funds this corruption? Do you know the USA toppled democratic leaderships in the Mid East and installed dictators? You do know this right? This is a fact.. See Saddam Hussien, Iranian President Mossedegh. Then come back and tell me who will not let democracy flourish.
i hope you are right !!! and I agree with your assertions. it will take a tough decision to pull out, Obama will get hammered by the right.
[quote=cstrong45]
[quote=walshja]
[quote=don4975]
More dithering by our so-called commander in chief. Bet the troops have respect for him NOTI told you....he flip flop[ed like he always does.
Obie stop playing politics with our troops!
Message to Obie....
Please retire from military and let a real man take over.
Obie is the worst president ever imagined...you cant make Obie up in a bad dream.
Don, what exactly did he flip flop on? He campaigned on the importance of the Afghan war, the general said he needed 40k more troops, and he is giving them to the general.
please share what the flip flop was?[/quote]
Joe, I think Obama is NOT going to send more troops based on this latest leak. It looks more like a Viet Nam style abandament of the war.
The cruxt of the whole mess is the arab/muslim penchant for coruption... its indemic and will not allow a democracy to flourish, soooooo why throw bad money after good. The GNP in Afganistanistan is only 25 billion,,guessing that is drug production, and sending 40 K troops will cost 50 billion. Doesnt make sense to me.[/quote]
So Chuck I guess there is no penchant for corruption right here in the USA by our Christian friends in DC? Also do you kno who funds this corruption? Do you know the USA toppled democratic leaderships in the Mid East and installed dictators? You do know this right? This is a fact.. See Saddam Hussien, Iranian President Mossedegh. Then come back and tell me who will not let democracy flourish.[/quote]
Saddam Hussien was elected. Come on over and have a beer and lets talk. It was as corrupt as you can get.
Bribes illegal gifts etc are way of life in muslim Arab countries. Get a grip and do be stupidly argumentative just to be that way.
[quote=cstrong45]
[quote=cstrong45]
[quote=walshja]
[quote=don4975]
More dithering by our so-called commander in chief. Bet the troops have respect for him NOT
I told you....he flip flop[ed like he always does.
Obie stop playing politics with our troops!
Message to Obie....
Please retire from military and let a real man take over.
Obie is the worst president ever imagined...you cant make Obie up in a bad dream.
Don, what exactly did he flip flop on? He campaigned on the importance of the Afghan war, the general said he needed 40k more troops, and he is giving them to the general.
please share what the flip flop was?[/quote]
Joe, I think Obama is NOT going to send more troops based on this latest leak. It looks more like a Viet Nam style abandament of the war.
The cruxt of the whole mess is the arab/muslim penchant for coruption... its indemic and will not allow a democracy to flourish, soooooo why throw bad money after good. The GNP in Afganistanistan is only 25 billion,,guessing that is drug production, and sending 40 K troops will cost 50 billion. Doesnt make sense to me.[/quote]
So Chuck I guess there is no penchant for corruption right here in the USA by our Christian friends in DC? Also do you kno who funds this corruption? Do you know the USA toppled democratic leaderships in the Mid East and installed dictators? You do know this right? This is a fact.. See Saddam Hussien, Iranian President Mossedegh. Then come back and tell me who will not let democracy flourish.[/quote]
Saddam Hussien was elected. Come on over and have a beer and lets talk. It was as corrupt as you can get.
Bribes illegal gifts etc are way of life in muslim Arab countries. Get a grip and do be stupidly argumentative just to be that way.[/quote]
No Saddam was installed when the US threw out the democratically elected Soviet friendly regime and allowed the Bathists to rise to power. I was just pointing this out, along with Mossedegh were democratic elections, that we overthrew.
I would like a beer.
I guess there are no bribes and illegal gifts in our political system right?
We arent discussing our system, we are discussing theirs.
Thouhgt we went to Afghanistan to get Osama? Guess not!
Dave
nope, Bush doesn't even spend too much time on Osama, his own words
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o[/video]
[quote=walshja]
nope, Bush doesn't even spend too much time on Osama, his own words
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o[/video][/quote]
AWESOME... I was just looking for that clip..
The alleged mastermind of the murder of 3000 Americans..... and Bush doesnt spend time on him.... too funny. .
Chuck,
A great deal of rewriting history going on here. The Bush mission in Afghanistan was to depose the Taliban for harboring terrorists. Mission accomplished. Capturing Osama Bin Laden was a secondary mission and he was not caught. After the fall of the Taliban and the Al Queada fleeing to the mountains it was determined that they were of no further danger to any of the NATO forces sovereign countries and could be contained. In fact they were contained and those jihadist who wanted to fight did so in Iraq.
A new mission was developed for Iraq and Mission number 1 was to topple Saddam's regime, mission accomplished with the troop size decided on by the COC. The insurgency started and Mission number 2 was developed. This is where the mistakes were made as to troop size and tactics. This had nothing to do with Powell or others wanting a Desert Storm size force. Mission 3 was developed and the surge of new troops was given to have the necessary troops to win the counter insurgency. The overall mission of having Iraq with an elected leadership and able to govern and protect themselves has largely been accomplished.
The point of my post was to try to understand what the mission is. Since March 09 we have lost the reason we are there. This is not a COC doing a deep thinking excecise to understand what he wants to do. This is a COC who no longer believes in the mission he had in March 09. He does not know what he wants to do. He is being looked at by his counter parts as indicisive and weak and he better get off the dime and decide what he is going to do. Everyone is losing troops without a justifiable mission.
[quote=6863m]
Chuck,
A great deal of rewriting history going on here. The Bush mission in Afghanistan was to depose the Taliban for harboring terrorists. Mission accomplished. Capturing Osama Bin Laden was a secondary mission and he was not caught. After the fall of the Taliban and the Al Queada fleeing to the mountains it was determined that they were of no further danger to any of the NATO forces sovereign countries and could be contained. In fact they were contained and those jihadist who wanted to fight did so in Iraq.
A new mission was developed for Iraq and Mission number 1 was to topple Saddam's regime, mission accomplished with the troop size decided on by the COC. The insurgency started and Mission number 2 was developed. This is where the mistakes were made as to troop size and tactics. This had nothing to do with Powell or others wanting a Desert Storm size force. Mission 3 was developed and the surge of new troops was given to have the necessary troops to win the counter insurgency. The overall mission of having Iraq with an elected leadership and able to govern and protect themselves has largely been accomplished.
The point of my post was to try to understand what the mission is. Since March 09 we have lost the reason we are there. This is not a COC doing a deep thinking excecise to understand what he wants to do. This is a COC who no longer believes in the mission he had in March 09. He does not know what he wants to do. He is being looked at by his counter parts as indicisive and weak and he better get off the dime and decide what he is going to do. Everyone is losing troops without a justifiable mission.[/quote]
Hey Bush Jr, did you fly in and land on a carrier with a laptop with your Mission Accomplished pronouncement? Wear a codpiece with that? If you right our boys will be coming back tomorrow?
Now this mission in Iraq, what reasoning that was given was proven to be correct? Can you provide that?
Jihadists in Iraq? Cheney, come on now, really? Only you and Cheney can pull those one liners out.
Iraqis electing American puppets is elected leadership? Largely accomplished mission, well lets say your project was largely accomplished, would you keep the current workforce or reduce it?
[quote=dte948]
Thouhgt we went to Afghanistan to get Osama? Guess not!
Dave[/quote]
Dave, I think we did originally, but like Iraq, we had to change the missioin.
Note this is an archived discussion from the MG Forums.
If you would like to participate please click below for the live version:
Off Topic - Politics Forum: Afghanistan mission