European leaders turned their backs on the US President.

European nations aren't interested in sending their boys into that graveyard of empires.

They look at out "plan" and realize that it is not viable.

We are not going to democratize Afghanistan, folks.

The only thing our troops should be doing there is tracking down AlQada and killing them.

The central government we are propping up will fall the moment we stop supporting it.
The 'war' there is a waste of time and materials, we should leave.

If they set up new terror camps we can easily destroy them from the air.
 
European nations aren't interested in sending their boys into that graveyard of empires.

They look at out "plan" and realize that it is not viable.

We are not going to democratize Afghanistan, folks.

The only thing our troops should be doing there is tracking down AlQada and killing them.

The central government we are propping up will fall the moment we stop supporting it.

I agree that should be our only goal there. We need to push back Al Qaida, eliminate as many as we can and allow the people of that country to rise up and become a part of the 21st century.

We've wasted too much time, lives and money over there.
 
European nations aren't interested in sending their boys into that graveyard of empires.

They look at out "plan" and realize that it is not viable.

We are not going to democratize Afghanistan, folks.

The only thing our troops should be doing there is tracking down AlQada and killing them.

The central government we are propping up will fall the moment we stop supporting it.
The 'war' there is a waste of time and materials, we should leave.

If they set up new terror camps we can easily destroy them from the air.

You may be right about that.

I say "may be" because I don't pretend to know what our military capacity really is or how effectively simply bombing training camps really is.

When it comes to Bid Laden and his henchmen, I suspect that the only way we're ever going to track them down is with boots on the ground.

Well...that or the judicious use of nuclear weapons, but since those aren't an option, we've got to do it the hard way.
 
April 4, 2009
Barack Obama fails to win Nato troops he wants for Afghanistan

Leading article: Alliance for Liberty | Pictures: Nato Summit | Obama dazzles Europe with campaigning style | Brown under fire over Afghan troopsBarack Obama made an impassioned plea to America's allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent's leaders turned their backs on the US President.

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you say NOBAMA?

Mr. Obama...If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance maybe you can baffle them with your bull schit.

It works for the idiot liberals here in the states.

Who would have thought it would take more than 2 months to correct 8 years of damage.
 
April 4, 2009
Barack Obama fails to win Nato troops he wants for Afghanistan

Leading article: Alliance for Liberty | Pictures: Nato Summit | Obama dazzles Europe with campaigning style | Brown under fire over Afghan troopsBarack Obama made an impassioned plea to America's allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent's leaders turned their backs on the US President.

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you say NOBAMA?

Mr. Obama...If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance maybe you can baffle them with your bull schit.

It works for the idiot liberals here in the states.

Who would have thought it would take more than 2 months to correct 8 years of damage.

Ya cause borrowing 3 TIMES the current deficit and shoving ones nose up European leaders asses will sure "fix" things. One way or another, anyway.
 
April 4, 2009
Barack Obama fails to win Nato troops he wants for Afghanistan

Leading article: Alliance for Liberty | Pictures: Nato Summit | Obama dazzles Europe with campaigning style | Brown under fire over Afghan troopsBarack Obama made an impassioned plea to America's allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent's leaders turned their backs on the US President.

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you say NOBAMA?

Mr. Obama...If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance maybe you can baffle them with your bull schit.

It works for the idiot liberals here in the states.

Who would have thought it would take more than 2 months to correct 8 years of damage.

Better yet--who would have thought he would have used the first 2 months to make things worse ?
 
European nations aren't interested in sending their boys into that graveyard of empires.

They look at out "plan" and realize that it is not viable.

We are not going to democratize Afghanistan, folks.

The only thing our troops should be doing there is tracking down AlQada and killing them.

The central government we are propping up will fall the moment we stop supporting it.

I agree that should be our only goal there. We need to push back Al Qaida, eliminate as many as we can and allow the people of that country to rise up and become a part of the 21st century.

We've wasted too much time, lives and money over there.

The reason why 'we've wasted so much time, lives and money there is because we decided to spread ourselves too thin and attacked Iraq (yeah, fucking attacked) while we were in Afghanistan. We - meaning the US - had the consent of the international community when it came to Afghanistan, but then we shat at our own doorstep and started that Iraq BS... You might not be able to WIN in Afghanistan per se, but you can succeed in what were the main objectives - hunt down Osama, kill him or just simply take him out and fatally wound Al-Qaeda. I think it WAS doable and still might be. Taking down Taliban, is imho a part of it... (after all, US is one of the reasons why Taliban was in power in the first place)... Were it not for the idiotic neo-con government that we've had for the past 8 years, THIS would not have happened - in Afghanistan that is. Even Francis Fukuyama has denounced the neo-con bullshit...

Here's Fukuyama's famous article titled "After Neoconservatism": http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Fukuyama-2006-After-Neoconservatism.pdf

A few suggestion from the former neo-con Francis Fukuyama:
What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a "realistic Wilsonianism" that better matches means to ends.

The United States needs to come up with something better than "coalitions of the willing" to legitimate its dealings with other countries.

Doesn't it seem that maybe Obama is trying to do something similar?

And I like especially this analysis/point:

There were other reasons as well why the world did not accept American benevolent hegemony. In the first place, it was premised on American exceptionalism, the idea that America could use its power in instances where others could not because it was more virtuous than other countries. The doctrine of pre-emption against terrorist threats contained in the 2002 National Security Strategy was one that could not safely be generalized through the international system; America would be the first country to object if Russia, China, India or France declared a similar right of unilateral action. The United States was seeking to pass judgment on others while being unwilling to have its own conduct questioned in places like the International Criminal Court.
 
April 4, 2009
Barack Obama fails to win Nato troops he wants for Afghanistan

Leading article: Alliance for Liberty | Pictures: Nato Summit | Obama dazzles Europe with campaigning style | Brown under fire over Afghan troopsBarack Obama made an impassioned plea to America's allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent's leaders turned their backs on the US President.

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you say NOBAMA?

Mr. Obama...If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance maybe you can baffle them with your bull schit.

It works for the idiot liberals here in the states.

Who would have thought it would take more than 2 months to correct 8 years of damage.

Ya cause borrowing 3 TIMES the current deficit and shoving ones nose up European leaders asses will sure "fix" things. One way or another, anyway.

Since when does acting like one has some raising become "shoving ones [sic] nose up European leaders [sic] asses"?
 
European nations aren't interested in sending their boys into that graveyard of empires.

They look at out "plan" and realize that it is not viable.

We are not going to democratize Afghanistan, folks.

The only thing our troops should be doing there is tracking down AlQada and killing them.

The central government we are propping up will fall the moment we stop supporting it.

I would have to agree with you there. Maybe that's why Bush put so much more effort into Iraq.
 
European nations aren't interested in sending their boys into that graveyard of empires.

They look at out "plan" and realize that it is not viable.

We are not going to democratize Afghanistan, folks.

The only thing our troops should be doing there is tracking down AlQada and killing them.

The central government we are propping up will fall the moment we stop supporting it.

I agree that should be our only goal there. We need to push back Al Qaida, eliminate as many as we can and allow the people of that country to rise up and become a part of the 21st century.

We've wasted too much time, lives and money over there.

Statements like this just go to show the complete lack of understanding. We can't make these backwards people think like us even when we try to force our values upon them. Why would they rise up and become a part of the 21st century on their own?
 
April 4, 2009
Barack Obama fails to win Nato troops he wants for Afghanistan

Leading article: Alliance for Liberty | Pictures: Nato Summit | Obama dazzles Europe with campaigning style | Brown under fire over Afghan troopsBarack Obama made an impassioned plea to America's allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent's leaders turned their backs on the US President.

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you say NOBAMA?

Mr. Obama...If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance maybe you can baffle them with your bull schit.

It works for the idiot liberals here in the states.

Who would have thought it would take more than 2 months to correct 8 years of damage.

All we are getting with Obama is Bush squared.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top