Obama and War

[jimnyc]

I've heard the libs here state countless times that we should never go to war in another country unless our homeland is in danger of imminent attack. We've been given countless reasons as to why GWB is a criminal for going to war in a country that did not attack us.

Now Obama is likely going to be adding an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan - for WAR. Shouldn't he just be bringing the troops home, and also home from Iraq? This is what he promised after all. How do you justify sending thousands of troops to die in Afghanistan without a declaration of war, or without our country in danger - and speak out the other end of your mouth about GWB? And don't give me any crap about how he must finish what Bush started, he could make the road easier by just bringing the troops home. Are we in imminent danger from Afghanistan?

** Is it possible that Obama is maybe listening to the generals on the ground and now realizes what needs to be completed in Iraq and what needs to be completed in Afghanistan? **

I suppose anything he does "war related" will be AOK with the libs. I also suppose his promises that have been broken before he has even taken the oath will be forgotten as well.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081220/D956L7L80.html

[darin]

People running for office say things out of ignorance and to get elected. Most folk who lament about the War have little clue as to the real situation until they have access to President-type info.

[Yurt]

what i don't get is why obama wants more troops for the military. if he is goign to pull troops from iraq, why does he need new troops for afgan? why not take veterans that are willing to go. if i recall, obama has always said he would take the war to afgan...something like to the hills and even into pakistan. the libs just put cotton in their ears and did whatever it took to elect a (d) to office.

[bullypulpit]

I've heard the libs here state countless times that we should never go to war in another country unless our homeland is in danger of imminent attack. We've been given countless reasons as to why GWB is a criminal for going to war in a country that did not attack us.

Now Obama is likely going to be adding an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan - for WAR. Shouldn't he just be bringing the troops home, and also home from Iraq? This is what he promised after all. How do you justify sending thousands of troops to die in Afghanistan without a declaration of war, or without our country in danger - and speak out the other end of your mouth about GWB? And don't give me any crap about how he must finish what Bush started, he could make the road easier by just bringing the troops home. Are we in imminent danger from Afghanistan?

** Is it possible that Obama is maybe listening to the generals on the ground and now realizes what needs to be completed in Iraq and what needs to be completed in Afghanistan? **

I suppose anything he does "war related" will be AOK with the libs. I also suppose his promises that have been broken before he has even taken the oath will be forgotten as well.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081220/D956L7L80.html

Perhaps its more a case of finishing the job Bush and Co left undone when they went haring off on an unnecessary and illegal war against a nation which posed no threat to anyone beyond its own borders. Since the invasion of Iraq, the Taliban have returned in strength to Afghanistan, striking from bases in the Afghan/Pakistan border regions as well as within Afghanistan.

The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan is just another of many flaming bags of dog-shit being left behind by the Bush administration for the incoming administration.

[bullypulpit]

People running for office say things out of ignorance and to get elected.

So, what's your excuse? :D

[darin]

So, what's your excuse? :D

ha! You're the doofus who thinks everything we have in the universe just magically, randomly, and accidently popped into existance! AND, iirc, you think species can magically decide to change into another.

:)

Merry Christmas, BP.

[namvet]

I've heard the libs here state countless times that we should never go to war in another country unless our homeland is in danger of imminent attack. We've been given countless reasons as to why GWB is a criminal for going to war in a country that did not attack us.

Now Obama is likely going to be adding an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan - for WAR. Shouldn't he just be bringing the troops home, and also home from Iraq? This is what he promised after all. How do you justify sending thousands of troops to die in Afghanistan without a declaration of war, or without our country in danger - and speak out the other end of your mouth about GWB? And don't give me any crap about how he must finish what Bush started, he could make the road easier by just bringing the troops home. Are we in imminent danger from Afghanistan?

** Is it possible that Obama is maybe listening to the generals on the ground and now realizes what needs to be completed in Iraq and what needs to be completed in Afghanistan? **

I suppose anything he does "war related" will be AOK with the libs. I also suppose his promises that have been broken before he has even taken the oath will be forgotten as well.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081220/D956L7L80.html



its Obama's fault

[Noir]

The job in afghanistan will be a long one, a very long one, just for some number crunching;

85% - percentage of Afghanistan controlled by Taliban when war began in 2001
75% - percentage of Afghanistan with permanent Taliban presence after 7 years.

[avatar4321]

Perhaps its more a case of finishing the job Bush and Co left undone when they went haring off on an unnecessary and illegal war against a nation which posed no threat to anyone beyond its own borders. Since the invasion of Iraq, the Taliban have returned in strength to Afghanistan, striking from bases in the Afghan/Pakistan border regions as well as within Afghanistan.

The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan is just another of many flaming bags of dog-shit being left behind by the Bush administration for the incoming administration.

Let me see if i understand it. For years youve been arguing that we should pull out because this is a mistake and not finish the job we were there to do because people were dying. Now that we have a new President with a D by his name we need to finish the job. Priceless.

[jimnyc]

Perhaps its more a case of finishing the job Bush and Co left undone when they went haring off on an unnecessary and illegal war against a nation which posed no threat to anyone beyond its own borders. Since the invasion of Iraq, the Taliban have returned in strength to Afghanistan, striking from bases in the Afghan/Pakistan border regions as well as within Afghanistan.

The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan is just another of many flaming bags of dog-shit being left behind by the Bush administration for the incoming administration.

This doesn't make much sense. If the Taliban are almost back to where they were, then Afghanistan is almost as it was before we went in. If we are only supposed to occupy/invade countries that are a threat to us, as so many libs have said here over the years, then why would it be necessary to "finish the job"?

IS Afghanistan a threat to us? Are we supposed to believe that going in to remove "bad people" in charge of the country is now somehow a good thing?

IS Obama possibly listening to what the generals on the ground are advising? If so, why make so many promises on the campaign trail before he gets officially briefed by them?

Bottom line that cannot be debated - Obama said what many wanted to hear in order to get elected. Now that he is president elect, there will be no "hope and change" but rather the same thing - taking good advice from others in charge and our best intelligence gathering.

[manu1959]

can anyone name a non-middle eastern country that has won a war in afganistan ......

[Yurt]

can anyone name a non-middle eastern country that has won a war in afganistan ......

didn't the mongols overrun the place? and most of the ME for that matter....

[manu1959]

didn't the mongols overrun the place? and most of the ME for that matter....

how did that work out for them?

[Yurt]

how did that work out for them?

i believe the mongols were in control for a while...wiki says 300 years

[manu1959]

i believe the mongols were in control for a while...wiki says 300 years

seems the afgans have it again

[Yurt]

seems the afgans have it again

i don't think the term afghans or afghanistan is that old, in relation to the history of that area of the world. i am sure the land has switched hands numerous times and that someo the former "owners" are no longer civilizations.

[bullypulpit]

ha! You're the doofus who thinks everything we have in the universe just magically, randomly, and accidently popped into existance! AND, iirc, you think species can magically decide to change into another.

:)

Merry Christmas, BP.

Magic implies an instantaneous effect. Evolution takes place over generations or eons in response to environmental pressures...nothing magical about it. And, when you get down to it, religion is little more than the magical thinking of children run amok in the hands of adults.

[red states rule]

Magic implies an instantaneous effect. Evolution takes place over generations or eons in response to environmental pressures...nothing magical about it. And, when you get down to it, religion is little more than the magical thinking of children run amok in the hands of adults.

Eh BP, are you ignoring this post from Jim? Or are you avoiding answering direct questions, and posting on emotion as usual

In case you forgot, I am still waitng for you to explain how a Federal prog can be gutted, while more money is being spent on that program year after year

This doesn't make much sense. If the Taliban are almost back to where they were, then Afghanistan is almost as it was before we went in. If we are only supposed to occupy/invade countries that are a threat to us, as so many libs have said here over the years, then why would it be necessary to "finish the job"?

IS Afghanistan a threat to us? Are we supposed to believe that going in to remove "bad people" in charge of the country is now somehow a good thing?

IS Obama possibly listening to what the generals on the ground are advising? If so, why make so many promises on the campaign trail before he gets officially briefed by them?

Bottom line that cannot be debated - Obama said what many wanted to hear in order to get elected. Now that he is president elect, there will be no "hope and change" but rather the same thing - taking good advice from others in charge and our best intelligence gathering.

[moon]

red states rule;

Now that he is president elect, there will be no "hope and change" but rather the same thing - taking good advice from others in charge and our best intelligence gathering.

'Taking good advice from others in charge and our best intelligence gathering' would, in fact, register as 'hope and change', the asshole incumbent having ignored both.
You knew that really, didn't you, red states rule? You was just playing the fool for larfs ?

[avatar4321]

red states rule;


'Taking good advice from others in charge and our best intelligence gathering' would, in fact, register as 'hope and change', the asshole incumbent having ignored both.
You knew that really, didn't you, red states rule? You was just playing the fool for larfs ?

He is keeping the same intelligent gathering and military advisors as President Bush. How is that change?

[red states rule]

red states rule;


'Taking good advice from others in charge and our best intelligence gathering' would, in fact, register as 'hope and change', the asshole incumbent having ignored both.
You knew that really, didn't you, red states rule? You was just playing the fool for larfs ?

Pres Bsuh has always listened to the Commanders on the ground - nothing new

PE Obama will now take the advice of the same commanders and not the appeasers over at the Daily Kos and Dem Underground - as they thought he would

[manu1959]

i don't think the term afghans or afghanistan is that old, in relation to the history of that area of the world. i am sure the land has switched hands numerous times and that someo the former "owners" are no longer civilizations.

true....but the area is and the people of the area have fought and held it for quite some time....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afganistan

[Yurt]

true....but the area is and the people of the area have fought and held it for quite some time....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afganistan

the people certainly have been there quite some time and during this time there have been numerous different governments/rulers...are you wondering about who should rule afghan? i'm not sure where you are going with this...

[Kathianne]

the people certainly have been there quite some time and during this time there have been numerous different governments/rulers...are you wondering about who should rule afghan? i'm not sure where you are going with this...

If I'm not mistaken, there are words of warning in Manu's posts. The huge 'surge' expected there mystifies me, unlike basically flat, developed Iraq, Afghanistan is mountainous and the 'bad guys' aka Taliban, are hiding in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Can't send tens of thousands of troops there, even if possible to train them for the terrain fighting. Have you read this one account?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081212/ap_on_re_us/ten_silver_stars

more here:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/12/10-silver-stars.html

[moon]

Guantanamo George heeded intelligence reports selectively, discarding those which didn't support his agenda of pandering to industrialists and other neocon profiteers. Obama is expected to act with integrity. Bush thinks 'integrity' is a mixture of breakfast cereals.

[moon]

Yurt;

i don't think the term afghans or afghanistan is that old, in relation to the history of that area of the world. i am sure the land has switched hands numerous times and that someo the former "owners" are no longer civilizations.

Somebody has suggested that it is better to clear the mall of zombies by educating them, rather than by shooting them in the head.

Old Pashtun proverb.
Not.



Afghan (native: افغان - Afghān) may refer to:
Something or someone of, from, with familial roots in, or pertaining to Afghanistan, a country in Central Asia.
The term by which Pashtuns are designated by Persian-speakers; as such, it may mean something of, from, or pertaining to the Pashtun ethnic community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan





Pashtuns (Pashto: پښتون Paṣtūn, Paxtūn, also rendered as Pushtuns, Pakhtuns, Pukhtuns), also called Pathans[11] (Urdu: پٹھان, Hindi: पठान Paṭhān), ethnic Afghans,[12] are an Eastern Iranian ethno-linguistic group with populations primarily in Afghanistan and in the North-West Frontier Province, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Balochistan provinces of western Pakistan. The Pashtuns are typically characterized by their usage of the Pashto language and practice of Pashtunwali, which is a traditional code of conduct and honor.[13]

The history of the Pashtuns is ancient, and much of it is not fully researched. Since the 2nd millennium BC, regions now inhabited by Pashtuns have seen invasions and migrations, including by Aryan tribes (Iranian peoples, Indo-Aryans), Medes, Persians, Mauryas, Scythians, Kushans, Hephthalites, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun

[emmett]

Bare in mind that before our entry into Iraq we did spend a breif period dominating the taliban in Afghanistan. It really wasn't that tough! While I am personally against any more war utilizing ground forces (I like the button at this point), I rather think the Taliban would be a poor adversary for the United States forces. Our ability to use air forces more effieciently, bunker buster boms and specially designed penetrating ordinance will be very helpful and will undoubtedly, like before, bring a conflict in that region to a quick close.

[Gaffer]

The taliban were defeated and driven into the mountains of pakistan. There they regrouped unmolested. History repeating itself. They were supplied and equipped by the paks and iran, with a new influx of fighters from the region. A number of attacks into afghanistan are made to inflict casualties on the NATO forces in order to influence the NATO countries populations, so they grow tired of the war. It's a tried and true method of destroying your enemies will to fight. It's a well designed, well calculated long ranging plan. And the NATO countries, including the US will follow the plan just as they are suppose too, because they are all too ignorant to see it.

The US military cannot be defeated on the battle ground. The US population can be defeated in a heart beat with just a little bad news.