Breaking: MSNBC : Prez Obama REJECTS ALL MILITARY OPTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

[Maple]

So he rejected a bunch of plans that had no clear end game and exit strategy. Good.

What an asshat. Wh the fuck gets into a war with their eye on how to get out of it.

What diminished intellect you demonstrate, Soggy. One goes into a war know exactly what the goals are, how to accomplish them, dedicate the signficant resources necessary, and have an exit strategy. The last administration failed miserably on how to successfully manage the initial military victories.

And you want to blame this administration for the failures of the previous administration?

No wonder you have no relevance when you post.

I don't know if you have noticed this yet, but we won in Iraq., It's your guy who is a very very weak commander in chief, who has stated over and over again that we can't lose in Afghanistan, who has stated over and over again that he will listen to the advise of his commanders on the ground. He's not listening and he's doing nothing but putting our troops at greater and greater risk over there. Keep in mind the taliban and Al Queda are watching this unfold and are very enboldened by the fact that we have just elected the weakest President in history. They are laughing all the way to their next major planned terrorist attack. Hell, Obama can't even call a terrorist a terrorist.

 

[namvet]

What diminished intellect you demonstrate, Soggy. One goes into a war know exactly what the goals are, how to accomplish them, dedicate the signficant resources necessary, and have an exit strategy. The last administration failed miserably on how to successfully manage the initial military victories.

And you want to blame this administration for the failures of the previous administration?

No wonder you have no relevance when you post.

Please.....this isn't "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" .....

When one goes to war one does have a set of goals, it's called winning....but one must adapt, change and plan new strategies along the way as the big picture changes. Right now the "how" from Obama's grandiose strategy speech in March of 2009 was a dismal failure. Right now our troops have no clear cut strategy, no leadership from the White House and no support outside their military chain of command. An exit strategy, at this point, appears to be a general retreat into the cities and then to leave once the American public is bamboozled into thinking the Taliban has been eradicated. This will result in us having to go back there again.

What exactly was the failure of the last Administration in Afghanistan? Explain in detail.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

any more blindingly stupid questions you'd like to pose?

Bin Laden's gone. there is no bin laden. he's history. Bush couldn't find him Osama's not even going to forth an effort. he got away scott free with the biggest attack in history.

 

[Liability]

I agree. If they can't come up with cogent plan to get the entire job done then the best thing to do is get the hell out.

The notion of an "exit strategy" is over-used pablum.

Having a grand strategy in wartime is no guarantee that the strategy will pan out.

The question is not, therefore, whether we have a fucking "exit strategy" of not.

The question is whether we have properly identified whether there is a clear goal or objective in fighting. If there is, and the price is worth it (itself difficult to calculate sometimes), then the decision is obvious. Fight. And when you fight, employ overwhelming force. Fight to win.

If the goal or objective is not considered worthy enough to justify the massive costs (meaning primarily the lives and blood of our fighting men and women), then don't get involved.

But once we are involved, the candy ass half measures and head fakes these politicians engage in make a mockery of the sacrifices our fighting forces make.

We are going to very much regret the election of President Obama and the stupid-ass decisions he is making as President.

Does ANYBODY think that any of the evil ass-suckers in the world who want us fucking DEAD now see us as a legitimate power anymore? Are we a credible opponent? Or are they now even more emboldened to take us on in a manner of their choosing at times of their choosing, confident that in the end we will simply fold?

The law of unintended consequences is going to bite us hard in the future. Real hard. And I am not at all confidant that we have time enough to set our affairs straight and get our shit together before "they" take some really tragic actions directed against us.

The eventual legacy of this President will be written in blood I am afraid. What the hell did we do?

that's entirely possible, but he's not the one who decided to go into afghanistan.

why, exactly, are we there?

To go after the support structure for al qaeda and for others who were aiding the insurgent motherfuckers in Iraq. Indeed, geniuses like President Iraq insisted that Afghanistan was actually the ONLY place to go to get those (like bin Laden) directly responsible for the 9/11/2001 attacks on us.

and regardless of why we are there, we ARE there. So the point of my prior post is that ONCE we ARE there and fighting, we should not be doing it by half assed measures. And we sure as hell should not be making "moves" that telegraph to the enemy that we are a meaningless, irrelevant paper-tiger on whom they can depend to just quit when the going gets tough.

 

[Maple]

I'd like to see us get out of Afghanistan, but I think we would be damning the female Afghanis to hell.

Maybe we could offer them sanctuary and leave the country to the assholes.

Not only the women but the children as well will be put in very grave danger.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Obviously you are not a student of history or you wouldn't make such idiotic claims. All one has to do is look to the Allied victories over Germany and Japan.
Marshall plan?
General MacArthur WROTE the Japanese constitution.

Seems to me those 2 countries are quite "civil" now doesn't it?

That ONLY works if you fight TOTAL WAR.

The US has not fought a total war since WWII, ergo it hasn't won one since then.

Two things.
1. You don't hit a fly with a sledgehammer.
2. Even if we fought in that manner, there is no reason to assume it would result in Afghanistan developing more stable institutions.

Uhhhhhh two things.
1. Wrong
2. Wrong again.

What you on the left are failing to realize is this one single fact. The only thing the Taliban and terrorists in general respect is brute force and extreme violence. When these tactics are employed against them they cower and run like the yellow bellyied dogs they are. We need to utterly destroy them and everything they represent. This will make them think that the cost of messing around with the USA is too high a price to pay for a little publicity for their fuck up beliefs.

 

[Contumacious]

Sending more troops isn't strategy, he is asking for strategic options. Makes sense.

Of course it is a very smart move. If he has to send more troops in the end, fine but they'd better have an exit strategy.

Obama got a military strategy for a military situation from McChrystal, a military man, on Labor Day. Read it - the strategy is there.

Let me remind you again, that the US Ambassador --Karl Eikenberry-- is a Retired General who was the Commander in Afghanistan for several years. He has advised the Prez not to send in more troops.

.

 

[del]

The notion of an "exit strategy" is over-used pablum.

Having a grand strategy in wartime is no guarantee that the strategy will pan out.

The question is not, therefore, whether we have a fucking "exit strategy" of not.

The question is whether we have properly identified whether there is a clear goal or objective in fighting. If there is, and the price is worth it (itself difficult to calculate sometimes), then the decision is obvious. Fight. And when you fight, employ overwhelming force. Fight to win.

If the goal or objective is not considered worthy enough to justify the massive costs (meaning primarily the lives and blood of our fighting men and women), then don't get involved.

But once we are involved, the candy ass half measures and head fakes these politicians engage in make a mockery of the sacrifices our fighting forces make.

We are going to very much regret the election of President Obama and the stupid-ass decisions he is making as President.

Does ANYBODY think that any of the evil ass-suckers in the world who want us fucking DEAD now see us as a legitimate power anymore? Are we a credible opponent? Or are they now even more emboldened to take us on in a manner of their choosing at times of their choosing, confident that in the end we will simply fold?

The law of unintended consequences is going to bite us hard in the future. Real hard. And I am not at all confidant that we have time enough to set our affairs straight and get our shit together before "they" take some really tragic actions directed against us.

The eventual legacy of this President will be written in blood I am afraid. What the hell did we do?

that's entirely possible, but he's not the one who decided to go into afghanistan.

why, exactly, are we there?

To go after the support structure for al qaeda and for others who were aiding the insurgent motherfuckers in Iraq. Indeed, geniuses like President Iraq insisted that Afghanistan was actually the ONLY place to go to get those (like bin Laden) directly responsible for the 9/11/2001 attacks on us.

and regardless of why we are there, we ARE there. So the point of my prior post is that ONCE we ARE there and fighting, we should not be doing it by half assed measures. And we sure as hell should not be making "moves" that telegraph to the enemy that we are a meaningless, irrelevant paper-tiger on whom they can depend to just quit when the going gets tough.

we've been in afghanistan since 2001. wouldn't someone who was "aiding the insurgent motherfuckers in iraq" then be opposing saddam hussein?

we went there 8 years ago to avenge ourselves against bin laden.

if it hasn't been done by now, it ain't gonna get done.

it would have helped, of course, if it had been a priority for the previous administration, rather than an excuse to go off on a nation building adventure in iraq.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We can send the willows to Afghanistan and expatriate a like number of Afghani to America.

you can over there Jake and whine.....that will drive the Taliban out...

 

[Sunni Man]

Obama is showing himself to be a true leader.

He is listening to both sides and not rushing to make a hasty decision on Afghanistan.

All Americans should be grateful we have been blessed with such a wise Commander-in-Cheif

 

[Wry Catcher]

He's a douchebag.

Brilliant post, dwiddle (now I remember, you're dwiddle dumber).
Negative Nellie, the dumber of the dwiddle sisters - self rigteous and quick to criticize.
So dwiddle, what do you suggest be done? Send more troops (other peoples kids into harms way)? Withdraw? Nuke Iran?
What would you do?

 

[Meister]

He's a douchebag.

Brilliant post, dwiddle (now I remember, you're dwiddle dumber).
Negative Nellie, the dumber of the dwiddle sisters - self rigteous and quick to criticize.
So dwiddle, what do you suggest be done? Send more troops (other peoples kids into harms way)? Withdraw? Nuke Iran?
What would you do?

Pot----Kettle---Black......

 

[Liability]

that's entirely possible, but he's not the one who decided to go into afghanistan.

why, exactly, are we there?

To go after the support structure for al qaeda and for others who were aiding the insurgent motherfuckers in Iraq. Indeed, geniuses like President Iraq insisted that Afghanistan was actually the ONLY place to go to get those (like bin Laden) directly responsible for the 9/11/2001 attacks on us.

and regardless of why we are there, we ARE there. So the point of my prior post is that ONCE we ARE there and fighting, we should not be doing it by half assed measures. And we sure as hell should not be making "moves" that telegraph to the enemy that we are a meaningless, irrelevant paper-tiger on whom they can depend to just quit when the going gets tough.

we've been in afghanistan since 2001. wouldn't someone who was "aiding the insurgent motherfuckers in iraq" then be opposing saddam hussein?

we went there 8 years ago to avenge ourselves against bin laden.

if it hasn't been done by now, it ain't gonna get done.

it would have helped, of course, if it had been a priority for the previous administration, rather than an excuse to go off on a nation building adventure in iraq.

No. Hussein was just one enemy. When he got his ass kicked by the U.S., the follow-up in Iraq was directed primarily against the scumsuckers who were aiding the inurgency.

Your quips are cute talking points, but they miss the real point of the concern. We are going to get a re-solidified international reputation as the roaring lion which quits early, turns tail and runs when things get hard and messy.

It does not bode well for us.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Let me remind you again, that the US Ambassador --Karl Eikenberry-- is a Retired General who was the Commander in Afghanistan for several years. He has advised the Prez not to send in more troops.

.

im sorry Contu.....i did not catch that can you repeat....

 

[Liability]

Obama is showing himself to be a true leader.

He is listening to both sides and not rushing to make a hasty decision on Afghanistan.

All Americans should be grateful we have been blessed with such a wise Commander-in-Cheif

He is setting the stage for much worse shit to rain down on us.

Grateful? Bull shit.

He should be impeached.

He is every bit the disgrace I knew he would be.

 

[del]

To go after the support structure for al qaeda and for others who were aiding the insurgent motherfuckers in Iraq. Indeed, geniuses like President Iraq insisted that Afghanistan was actually the ONLY place to go to get those (like bin Laden) directly responsible for the 9/11/2001 attacks on us.

and regardless of why we are there, we ARE there. So the point of my prior post is that ONCE we ARE there and fighting, we should not be doing it by half assed measures. And we sure as hell should not be making "moves" that telegraph to the enemy that we are a meaningless, irrelevant paper-tiger on whom they can depend to just quit when the going gets tough.

we've been in afghanistan since 2001. wouldn't someone who was "aiding the insurgent motherfuckers in iraq" then be opposing saddam hussein?

we went there 8 years ago to avenge ourselves against bin laden.

if it hasn't been done by now, it ain't gonna get done.

it would have helped, of course, if it had been a priority for the previous administration, rather than an excuse to go off on a nation building adventure in iraq.

No. Hussein was just one enemy. When he got his ass kicked by the U.S., the follow-up in Iraq was directed primarily against the scumsuckers who were aiding the inurgency.

Your quips are cute talking points, but they miss the real point of the concern. We are going to get a re-solidified international reputation as the roaring lion which quits early, turns tail and runs when things get hard and messy.

It does not bode well for us.

we should have thought of that before we went then, eh?
there was no upside nor reason to go into iraq. zero.

 

[PixieStix]

Obama is showing himself to be a true leader.

He is listening to both sides and not rushing to make a hasty decision on Afghanistan.

All Americans should be grateful we have been blessed with such a wise Commander-in-Cheif

He is setingthe stage for much worse shit to rain down on us.

Grateful? Bull shit.

He should be impeached.

He is every bit the disgrace I knew he would be.

He is an utter embarassment and I have never been so ashamed of a President.

 

[NYcarbineer]

mdn: a definition

A poster who has no clue to matters military. Move on.

"matters military"???

You mean a president, making decisions on military matters. He should let the Military Generals make the decisions and support them openly

Go away

Listen to his generals? Well, if Lincoln had listened to McClellan...

btw, didn't Bush fire General Casey when he didn't agree with the surge plan?

 

[Sunni Man]

Obama is showing himself to be a true leader.

He is listening to both sides and not rushing to make a hasty decision on Afghanistan.

All Americans should be grateful we have been blessed with such a wise Commander-in-Cheif

He is setingthe stage for much worse shit to rain down on us.

Grateful? Bull shit.

He should be impeached.

He is every bit the disgrace I knew he would be.

He is an utter embarassment and I have never been so ashamed of a President.

Even worse than Jimmy Carter?

 

[Harry Dresden]

No. Hussein was just one enemy. When he got his ass kicked by the U.S., the follow-up in Iraq was directed primarily against the scumsuckers who were aiding the inurgency.

Your quips are cute talking points, but they miss the real point of the concern. We are going to get a re-solidified international reputation as the roaring lion which quits early, turns tail and runs when things get hard and messy.

It does not bode well for us.

i understand what you are saying Liability.....but it seems thats what this guy is going to do,or wants to do.....and there are plenty of people who are going to be telling him he is doing the right thing.....i say send Jake Starky in there...he will whine about everyone whining and those guys will say...."we will do anything you want...JUST GET THIS GUY OUT OF HERE"....

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no more enemy in Afghanistan that is a threat to our national security. Al Qaeda is not a country; you can't defeat an Al Qaeda invading and occupying countries.