Dems should be very happy with Afghanistan policy

[txlonghorn]

Skeptical Dems resign themselves to Obama war plan - Yahoo! News

But instead, they have to "resign" themselves to the plan set in motion.

Seems like they win the battle, so to speak, as our brilliant military minds have concluded that we will tell them when we're coming, how many are coming and when they will be leaving.

Why don't we just NOT go? What good is it doing us to give the enemy ALL the information they need to make their plans to defeat the infidels?

Obama has killed no birds with one stone. He got support from the right for sending troops and he got support from the left for bringing them home in a year and half. By the way, a year and a half is not nearly enough time to beat back the taliban, much less teach the Afghans how to protect themselves.

But it was a very well delivered speech. You can at least credit the silver tongued master for his ability to read well.

I just wish it made sense.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It's the same story from the Democrats. Nothing has changed. We must set a schedule and we must let the entire world know what it is. And to hell with it if the enemy knows all our plans. It's only fair after all.

I've never been so glad to say I am US Army RETIRED.

 

[JimH52]

The far right is not happy with the time line. The far left is not happy that we are sending more troops. The center seems to be pleased. Is Obama finally approaching the moderate stance we thought he was going to pursue?

 

[The Rabbi]

The far right is not happy with the time line. The far left is not happy that we are sending more troops. The center seems to be pleased. Is Obama finally approaching the moderate stance we thought he was going to pursue?

Or else he's alienated anyone paying attention to what he's doing.

 

[JimH52]

The far right is not happy with the time line. The far left is not happy that we are sending more troops. The center seems to be pleased. Is Obama finally approaching the moderate stance we thought he was going to pursue?

Or else he's alienated anyone paying attention to what he's doing.

I don't think he really had a choice. Time will tell how this comes out. We need to crush Quida and the Taliban quickly though. Pakistan is a huge player in all this. I hope he takes that into account.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I love the hyperbole used by the OP and Ollie. So, Obama has given AQ and the Taliban ALL of our plans?
What are they - beyond the obvious, number of troops and a tentative date to begin removal? Both of which, btw, are not set in stone.
You guys crack me up. Or maybe I'm all wrong. Did both of you attend a military academy and war college? Please accept my apology which I will tender after reading your CV's and more detail on everything that will be done in Afghanistan.

 

[VaYank5150]

Skeptical Dems resign themselves to Obama war plan - Yahoo! News

But instead, they have to "resign" themselves to the plan set in motion.

Seems like they win the battle, so to speak, as our brilliant military minds have concluded that we will tell them when we're coming, how many are coming and when they will be leaving.

Why don't we just NOT go? What good is it doing us to give the enemy ALL the information they need to make their plans to defeat the infidels?

Obama has killed no birds with one stone. He got support from the right for sending troops and he got support from the left for bringing them home in a year and half. By the way, a year and a half is not nearly enough time to beat back the taliban, much less teach the Afghans how to protect themselves.

But it was a very well delivered speech. You can at least credit the silver tongued master for his ability to read well.

I just wish it made sense.

IF you were surprised or shcoked by this news and the "plan", then you are dumber than a box or rocks. What Obama told the world and yes, the Taliban, was no secret. So, what exactly are you whining about? Please tell me YOU are not retired military....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Folks who have REALLY served in the military realize:

1) It's not a "secret" to anyone when you move in 30,000 troops

2) If the military and political objectives are secured, then opponents who have been "hiding out and waiting to spring back into action the second the U.S. leaves" will emerge from their spider holes to find a very different environment - an environment that does not tolerate their usual activities.

3) If the military and political objectives have NOT been secured, the withdrawal deadline will be adjusted.

I STILL disagree with the decision - but jeez, let's keep the discussion real anyway.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Do people really think that increasing our presence in the region will make them less inclined to kill Americans?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Do people really think that increasing our presence in the region will make them less inclined to kill Americans?

No - the objective right now is NOT to get them to stop shooting at us. Right NOW the objective is to kill a whole lot more of them than they kill of us so they will not be in a position to shelter terrorist organizations in the future or at the very least, make them think very long and very hard about it in the future.

And THAT is what will save American lives. We believe there are some things that are worth risking lives for.

The Taliban response: "This will mean the death of more Americans." makes me want to respond, "Yeah, maybe. But it's gonna mean the death of a WHOLE LOT MORE of you guys."

Don't try to scare us or intimidate us into doing what you want. You won't like the results you get.

And THIS is coming from a guy who opposes the decision.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Do people really think that increasing our presence in the region will make them less inclined to kill Americans?

No - the objective right now is NOT to get them to stop shooting at us. Right NOW the objective is to kill a whole lot more of them than they kill of us so they will think long and hard about sheltering terrorist organizations in the future.

And THAT is what will save American lives.

By killing their families, occupying their country, and making them hate us?

That's like the Romans sending their armies to suppress a rebellion onto to find that their actions spark revolts in the rest of Gaul.

You idiots are going to get us all killed someday.

 

[VaYank5150]

Folks who have REALLY served in the military realize:

1) It's not a "secret" to anyone when you move in 30,000 troops

2) If the military and political objectives are secured, then opponents who have been "hiding out and waiting to spring back into action the second the U.S. leaves" will emerge from their spider holes to find a very different environment - an environment that does not tolerate their usual activities.

3) If the military and political objectives have NOT been secured, the withdrawal deadline will be adjusted.

I STILL disagree with the decision - but jeez, let's keep the discussion real anyway.

<insert sarcasm here>REALLY? We can't simply SNEAK in 30,000 additional troops? Shit, there goes our sneaky plan.....

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

So, how do we plan to indocrinate all the children so they grow up as loya Westerners and lover of the USA?

Or are we just going to pretend that the military alone can sway the hearts of the people and make them love us- and then act surprised the next time someone kills a bunch of us?

You're worrying about changing the hearts of people who didn't support Talibalqueda (or whatever we're fighting now)in the firsty place. The elements that want us dead, you're simply giving more reason.

 

[Alvin]

Do people really think that increasing our presence in the region will make them less inclined to kill Americans?

No - the objective right now is NOT to get them to stop shooting at us. Right NOW the objective is to kill a whole lot more of them than they kill of us so they will not be in a position to shelter terrorist organizations in the future or at the very least, make them think very long and very hard about it in the future.

And THAT is what will save American lives. We believe there are some things that are worth risking lives for.

The Taliban response: "This will mean the death of more Americans." makes me want to respond, "Yeah, maybe. But it's gonna mean the death of a WHOLE LOT MORE of you guys."

Don't try to scare us or intimidate us into doing what you want. You won't like the results you get.

And THIS is coming from a guy who opposes the decision.

You do realize that these people don't actually care about that?

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

'They will kill many of us, we shall kill a few of them, and they will tire of it first'

 

[nodoginnafight]

Do people really think that increasing our presence in the region will make them less inclined to kill Americans?

No - the objective right now is NOT to get them to stop shooting at us. Right NOW the objective is to kill a whole lot more of them than they kill of us so they will think long and hard about sheltering terrorist organizations in the future.

And THAT is what will save American lives.

By killing their families, occupying their country, and making them hate us?

That's like the Romans sending their armies to suppress a rebellion onto to find that their actions spark revolts in the rest of Gaul.

You idiots are going to get us all killed someday.

First: We are not "putting down a revolt." We are giving the people of Afghanistan the opportunity to decide their own fate WITHOUT the sword of the Taliban raised above their head. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Second: If we kill innocent civilians it's an accident - NOT the objective as it is with the terrorists - BIG DIFFERENCE.

Third: We don't care if they love us or hate. They are free to decide that - as well as every other public decision - on their own. It's THEIR county. BUT if they choose to shoot at us or target our civilians in terrorist attacks OR chose to offer safe harbor for those who do those things - we WILL have something to say about it.

 

[Alvin]

First: We are not "putting down a revolt." We are giving the people of Afghanistan the opportunity to decide their own fate WITHOUT the sword of the Taliban raised above their head. BIG DIFFERENCE.

They chose the Talliban in the first place. Mostly because there was an invading army in their country running around and blowing shit up.
Sound familiar?

Second: If we kill innocent civilians it's an accident - NOT the objective as it is with the terrorists - BIG DIFFERENCE.

Not to the person who owns the smoking hole in the ground where his house used to be. Point is, there is a difference to you, not to them.

Third: We don't care if they love us or hate. They are free to decide that - as well as every other public decision - on their own. It's THEIR county. BUT if they choose to shoot at us or target our civilians in terrorist attacks OR chose to offer safe harbor for those who do those things - we WILL have something to say about it.

You know that works fine on paper, but it almost never works in reality.

(Time till WWII analogy 5...4...3...2....1)

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

No - the objective right now is NOT to get them to stop shooting at us. Right NOW the objective is to kill a whole lot more of them than they kill of us so they will think long and hard about sheltering terrorist organizations in the future.

And THAT is what will save American lives.

By killing their families, occupying their country, and making them hate us?

That's like the Romans sending their armies to suppress a rebellion onto to find that their actions spark revolts in the rest of Gaul.

You idiots are going to get us all killed someday.

First: We are not "putting down a revolt." We are giving the people of Afghanistan the opportunity to decide their own fate WITHOUT the sword of the Taliban raised above their head. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Yeah- now it's our sword... The moment they support6 Iran, tell us to leave, or raise the price of oil, that sword will swiftly behead them. This is all to protect American economic interests, just like Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico, and every other nation we've tinkered with.

Second: If we kill innocent civilians it's an accident - NOT the objective as it is with the terrorists - BIG DIFFERENCE.

*coughblackwatercough*

Of course, we get to define 'civilian' (and 'enemy combatant') to fit our needs

Third: We don't care if they love us or hate. They are free to decide that - as well as every other public decision - on their own.

So long as they support our interests- after all, that's why we deposed their last government in the first placce.

It's THEIR county.

yet there we are, deciding what government they should have and how things should be run. What was it you said earlier in your post?

BUT if they choose to shoot at us or target our civilians in terrorist attacks OR chose to offer safe harbor for those who do those things - we WILL have something to say about it.

We could jyust stop doing the things that make them want to kill us in the first place- you know, like invading countries and selecting dictators and choosing sides in a religious conflict

 

[nodoginnafight]

They chose the Talliban in the first place. Mostly because there was an invading army in their country running around and blowing shit up.
Sound familiar?

NOPE - the Taliban was in control of their government BEFORE we got there.

Yeah- now it's our sword... The moment they support6 Iran, tell us to leave, or raise the price of oil, that sword will swiftly behead them. This is all to protect American economic interests, just like Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico, and every other nation we've tinkered with.

Pure hypothetical speculation. We've tinkered where we had no business tinkering - given. THIS ain't one of those times.

So long as they support our interests- after all, that's why we deposed their last government in the first placce.

Nope - we deposed their last government because they sheltered the 9/11 criminals. Nuff said.

Has America made mistakes - yup, no doubt about it imho. Did those mistakes somehow justfy the 9/11 attacks - of course not. Should our previous mistakes prompt us to respond, "oh shucks, I guess we deserved to have our planes hijacked and civilians attacked?"
Of course not. And if you feel differently then I will respectfully agree to diasgree with you and pray that those who agree with you NEVER get the opportunity to run this country.

 

[Alvin]

NOPE - the Taliban was in control of their government BEFORE we got there.

Sheesh. I was talking about the Warlords. You know the ones that helped you over throw the Talliban?

Of course not. And if you feel differently then I will respectfully agree to diasgree with you and pray that those who agree with you NEVER get the opportunity to run this country.

None of that changes the fact that blowing shit up is not the way to win this war.