Obama to send 34,000 more troops to this "war of necessity"

2»

Comments

  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JR8805 wrote:
    One of the biggest reasons I was a Hillary supporter instead of an Obama supporter was because I thought he was making weird noises in terms of war. On the one hand he was saying, "Let's get the hell out of Iraq, because it's an unpopular war tainted by the Bush name and Bush "reasoning."" And on the other hand, he was saying, "And, instead, let's go fire up the war in Afghanistan because I think I can win that one if we leave Iraq." If we had to do one or the other, I support the Afghanistan war much more because it initially might have made sense to clean up in Afghanistan due to 9/11 considerations. Obama talked out of both sides of his mouth--No More War--Except Mine. Bugged then, bugs now. He's still a damn sight better than Bush, but Hillary would have been better yet.

    This war has nothing to do with terrorism. Never did, and never will.

    Take a look at the historical record. It's perfectly clear. The U.S government had planned to attack Afghanistan about 2 years prior to 9/11.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JR8805 wrote:
    One of the biggest reasons I was a Hillary supporter instead of an Obama supporter was because I thought he was making weird noises in terms of war. On the one hand he was saying, "Let's get the hell out of Iraq, because it's an unpopular war tainted by the Bush name and Bush "reasoning."" And on the other hand, he was saying, "And, instead, let's go fire up the war in Afghanistan because I think I can win that one if we leave Iraq." If we had to do one or the other, I support the Afghanistan war much more because it initially might have made sense to clean up in Afghanistan due to 9/11 considerations. Obama talked out of both sides of his mouth--No More War--Except Mine. Bugged then, bugs now. He's still a damn sight better than Bush, but Hillary would have been better yet.

    This war has nothing to do with terrorism. Never did, and never will.

    Take a look at the historical record. It's perfectly clear. The U.S government had planned to attack Afghanistan about 2 years prior to 9/11.
    they always have good excuses to take out some third world country don't they?


    communism, drugs, terrorism, protection....and on and on and on
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Commy wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JR8805 wrote:
    One of the biggest reasons I was a Hillary supporter instead of an Obama supporter was because I thought he was making weird noises in terms of war. On the one hand he was saying, "Let's get the hell out of Iraq, because it's an unpopular war tainted by the Bush name and Bush "reasoning."" And on the other hand, he was saying, "And, instead, let's go fire up the war in Afghanistan because I think I can win that one if we leave Iraq." If we had to do one or the other, I support the Afghanistan war much more because it initially might have made sense to clean up in Afghanistan due to 9/11 considerations. Obama talked out of both sides of his mouth--No More War--Except Mine. Bugged then, bugs now. He's still a damn sight better than Bush, but Hillary would have been better yet.

    This war has nothing to do with terrorism. Never did, and never will.

    Take a look at the historical record. It's perfectly clear. The U.S government had planned to attack Afghanistan about 2 years prior to 9/11.
    they always have good excuses to take out some third world country don't they?



    communism, drugs, terrorism, protection....and on and on and on


    And in fact, Bush's top adviser's predicted that attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 would have the result of increasing terrorism in the world, not preventing it. Kind of makes it pretty clear what their priorities were, and still are.
  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    I was being facetious.... OK ? Jeeeezz :roll:
    And no I didnt hear it on Fox or right wing radio and Brandon10 I don't appreciate you calling me Fing stupid. What's the point in doing so ? It just shows that you have no respect for others opinions. What you don't realize is when you attack people personally you automatically loose the debate. Why do you think it's necessary to act like that. Grow up or go post somewhere else.http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=67751

    Gen McChrystal asked for more troops over 3 months ago. IMO thats way to long. It shows that Obama is weak,indecisive and not fit to lead this country.So rather than sending more troops so that we can win this war and get our boys home, he's more concerned about throwing parties at the white house, or making sure KSM and his goons are geting constitutional rights. Obama was against the surge in Iraq. Just think for a minute how bad of a decision that would have been if Bush would have listned to Obama and not Gen. Patreus
  • Pepe Silvia
    Pepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    prfctlefts wrote:
    I was being facetious.... OK ? Jeeeezz :roll:
    And no I didnt hear it on Fox or right wing radio and Brandon10 I don't appreciate you calling me Fing stupid. What's the point in doing so ? It just shows that you have no respect for others opinions. What you don't realize is when you attack people personally you automatically loose the debate. Why do you think it's necessary to act like that. Grow up or go post somewhere else.viewtopic.php?f=13&t=67751

    Gen McChrystal asked for more troops over 3 months ago. IMO thats way to long. It shows that Obama is weak,indecisive and not fit to lead this country.So rather than sending more troops so that we can win this war and get our boys home, he's more concerned about throwing parties at the white house, or making sure KSM and his goons are geting constitutional rights. Obama was against the surge in Iraq. Just think for a minute how bad of a decision that would have been if Bush would have listned to Obama and not Gen. Patreus


    "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry Administration as there would have been a year ago,' Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. ‘There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute"
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    Brandon10......I'm not sure while you guys even acknowledge these losers. You must realize this is another talking point from Fox? Dick Cheney has been saying this garbage all week. Ya, like he really gave a shit about any troops.

    People like perfect left and aerial don't have any critical thought of their own, so they spew the talking points heard on fox. So it gets boring and mind numbing debating them. Simply because like the right wing loons on those shows, they have no solutions, just talking points and critisisms. And their talking points make no sense because they are fucking stupid!

    Back on topic....I think Obama basically had a choice between a bunch of bad decions. Do I think he made the right one? Not sure about that. I do like that it sounds like he's willing to assess the situation as it's happening and reverse his decision should the situation not improve. Imagine that perfectlft??? Not going in without thinking about strategy and exit plans?????....fucking idiots

    Why does it take you two paragraphs of hate to post your point?
    I don’t understand all the hatred you and others have inside you just because someone MAY watch a show you despise . . . Are you that guy that is only a BIG MAN on the net because its so easy to cross boundaries when your not face to face?....No one really cares what your opinion is about me so why don’t you stop posting opinions on someone you don’t even know....
    Why do you group all people on the right together? I am not even on the right!......you don’t see me posting how stupid and uncivil all left-wingers are, going only by your ugly, raging, post that articulates no ideas at all do you?....should I judge all left-wingers by the hatred you post? ...... NO!.......We should all judge people on there own merits and not by what TV program they watch. Could you try and be a little civil? Please?
    :?
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • Pepe Silvia
    Pepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    how much will this cost?

    from the 24th
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE-gVfQZ ... r_embedded

    from today
    Dennis Kucinich wrote:
    Tonight the President will announce an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. An additional 30,000 troops will bring the United States' total in Afghanistan to 100,000. Tomorrow I will offer an analysis of the President's plan.

    The community I represent in Cleveland, Ohio, is suffering from massive unemployment, record home foreclosures, and small business failures. People are losing their jobs, their health care, their homes, their savings, their investments, and their retirement security. The middle class is gravely threatened. What is happening in Cleveland is occurring nationwide. Yet, Wall Street received over $13 trillion in bailouts, with untold millions for high salaries and bonuses, while Main Street loses its power through unemployment, reduced wages and benefits and little or no access to credit or investment capital. There is something fundamentally wrong with our economy which borrowing more money to spend on war cannot and will not cure. Perhaps nation building should begin at home.

    An escalation of the war in Afghanistan at a time of such economic dislocation and hardship raises questions about America's priorities and whether or not we are losing our way as we attempt to stride aside the globe as some Colossus. Tomorrow we will begin anew the discussion.
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • beachdweller
    beachdweller Posts: 1,532
    no easy answer here, if he can truly hold to a decision to pull out in 2011, then it's worth the try. The Bush administation made this situation worse by basically ignoring the siutation, and it's true dangers of the Afghan/Pakistani region. The only danger Iraq has posed is in strengthening Iran when Saddam was removed. He may have been a bad person, but the U.S. generally calls men like him their buddy until the usefulness has wained.

    Pull out of Iraq over the next 18 months, and then we should be able to pull out of Afghanistan. If we can't help the Afghani's help themselves in that time, don't see more time helping unless we commit to forever.
    "Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)

    Stop by:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    Byrnzie wrote:
    There's a lot invested in Central Asian oil pipelines.

    Thank God that the brave men and women of America's armed forces are willing to kill and die for this natural resource. I mean, isn't that what they signed up for? If anything the ongoing conflict will distract us from having to confront the fact that we need to develop a more eco-friendly and long-term sustainable means of energy and power.

    Does anyone realize that this war is really about Pakistan and India? Pakistan tactically supports the Taliban. Why? Because Pakistan’s rival India supports the Afghan government. Then you have Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia meddling in Afghanistan. And China is contributing billions to relief aid and has a vested financial interest in Afghanistan. I am staunchly anti-war, however an immediate withdraw from Afghanistan is simply not feasible because of how increasingly complicated this area would become if we left before brokering a deal between all of the regional players that are involved.

    "In a recent report by General Stanley A McChrystal, parts of which were leaked to the press, the top US commander in Afghanistan said that India’s political and economic influence in Afghanistan was increasing, including significant development projects and financial investment.

    The report said the Afghan government was perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. “While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”

    A diplomat involved in the backchannel negotiations told Asia Times Online on the condition of anonymity, “The US mediation is aimed to settle Pakistan grievances over Indian interests in Afghanistan so that both countries can work together for the mutual cause of defeating terrorism in the region.”

    The groundwork is already being laid for the talks, which will include scholars, journalists and academics from Pakistan, India and the US to support diplomats from those countries, as well as from Afghanistan.

    The initial model for reconciliation between India and Pakistan has been drawn from that of post-World War II United States and Soviet relations, in which those two countries agreed not to meddle in Finland and Yugoslavia.

    Under a similar model, India would reduce its presence in the southern Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan. In return, India could consolidate its activities around Mazar-e-Sharif, the capital of the northern province of Balkh, where Pakistan would not interfere.

    However, in this process, which is expected to begin after Afghan President Hamid Karzai is confirmed for a second term in the coming months, the problem remains the Taliban.

    Players involved in the backchannel process told Asia Times Online that if the US withdrew from Afghanistan and handed over power to the Taliban, regional politics would return to square one. The old alliance of Russia, Tajikistan, Iran and India would form against Pakistan and its Taliban allies, and the elimination of militancy in areas like Kashmir would remain a dream.

    “This is the big challenge in the backchannel talks, to find a force in the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan that would be acceptable to the Western powers, as well as to forces like India, Russia and Pakistan,” said a diplomatic source.

    The administration of US President Barack Obama places much stock in Pakistan’s undivided support in the battle against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. By facilitating better relations between Islamabad and Delhi, it is helping make this happen."
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"

Categories