"I have lost understanding of and confidence..."

[Huh?]

Remember this:

"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

And exactly what is wrong with that statement?
Bin Laden dead simply means his nuymber 2 takes over.
To continue to chase him through the mountains is a waste of resources.

Bush roughly 6 months prior referring to Bin Laden:

"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, "Wanted: Dead or Alive.""

And a few days prior to that:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

That in no way excuses Obama but it does address your post...

 

[Mr Natural]

If you don't know what is wrong with that statement, I can't........no, I won't help you.

Please...be honest....you yourself can not figure out anything wrong with that statement either.

Thus your pathetic response.

We went to Afghanistan in response to being attacked on 9/11 and to make those responsible pay for what they did and to take away their ability to do so again. If you can't see how Bush not caring about bin Laden (who was ultimately responsible) in favor of an easier target in Iraq is a problem......I can't help you.

But, since the majority were Saudis, shouldn't we have bombed the crap out of Saudi Arabia?

I know that sounds simplistic but sonce they were unable or unwilling to keep their lunatics on a short leash, shouldn't they have paid the price?

 

[Oldandtired]

If you don't know what is wrong with that statement, I can't........no, I won't help you.

Please...be honest....you yourself can not figure out anything wrong with that statement either.

Thus your pathetic response.

We went to Afghanistan in response to being attacked on 9/11 and to make those responsible pay for what they did and to take away their ability to do so again. If you can't see how Bush not caring about bin Laden (who was ultimately responsible) in favor of an easier target in Iraq is a problem......I can't help you.

I thought you were up on the news. Instead you are nothing mnore than a blog reader.

We went into afghanistan to eliminate al queda and those that harbor them.

Once al-queda ran ito Pakistan, chasing them was a waste of sources.

I know...Bush lied...but the intel said that Iraq had WMD's...and the world and their intel said the same thing...and Hussein made it seem more likely by not lving up to his end of the bargain.

So Bush could have ignored Hussein and left Iraq alone....and the next thing we know we have 50K dead soldiers when he applied some chemical warfare on A-stan battlefield...

In other words he could have pulled a CLinton..."You have Bin Laden? Well, we dont want him so you can let him go"........

But you see...Bush wasnt wiulling to take that chance...and he was willing to die in shame if he was wrong.......

How I wish all Presidents had that much love for their country.

Obama is afraid to fart and turn people off....so he does not fart at all......

We

 

[AllieBaba]

I guess now that a Republican is out of the oval office Republicans are more than happy to start the comparisons between Iraq or Afghanistan to Vietnam... a comparison that 2 years ago Republicans would have vehemently disagreed with(and I agreed with them).

Of course it was Bush's complete and utter neglect of the Afghanistan War that left Afghanistan in such a shitty state. But hey fuck it, Bush never actually wanted to really fight those actually responsible for 9/11...

I agree. The war started as it should have, a war against terrorism. It was when they suddenly changed horses and went to Iraq that was questionable. Iraq became too hard to sell especially when the Bush administration couldn't get their stories straight about why.

I like Obama but it's going to get tough if he doesn't get Afghanistan under control now.

I agree.

On a peripheral observation. If the guy has lost "understanding of" our role in Afghanistan, is it really surprising that he has no confidence in it? Can you really have confidence in something you don't understand? And if you admit that you don't understand a situation, then what are your opinions about that situation worth?

Heaven forbid you should listen to your GENERALS.

 

[AllieBaba]

Please...be honest....you yourself can not figure out anything wrong with that statement either.

Thus your pathetic response.

We went to Afghanistan in response to being attacked on 9/11 and to make those responsible pay for what they did and to take away their ability to do so again. If you can't see how Bush not caring about bin Laden (who was ultimately responsible) in favor of an easier target in Iraq is a problem......I can't help you.

But, since the majority were Saudis, shouldn't we have bombed the crap out of Saudi Arabia?

I know that sounds simplistic but sonce they were unable or unwilling to keep their lunatics on a short leash, shouldn't they have paid the price?

B-b-but...they're our FRIENDS!

I've wanted to wipe Saudi Arabia off the map for most of my life. Has anything positive ever come out of that lunatic shit hole?

 

[Diuretic]

I guess now that a Republican is out of the oval office Republicans are more than happy to start the comparisons between Iraq or Afghanistan to Vietnam... a comparison that 2 years ago Republicans would have vehemently disagreed with(and I agreed with them).

Of course it was Bush's complete and utter neglect of the Afghanistan War that left Afghanistan in such a shitty state. But hey fuck it, Bush never actually wanted to really fight those actually responsible for 9/11...

I agree. The war started as it should have, a war against terrorism. It was when they suddenly changed horses and went to Iraq that was questionable. Iraq became too hard to sell especially when the Bush administration couldn't get their stories straight about why.

I like Obama but it's going to get tough if he doesn't get Afghanistan under control now.

Like him or not, you can not deny that Bush made military decisions without concern of his popularity.
That is how military decisions MUST be made...as war is NEVER popular.
Seems Obama is waiting for the poll numbers to make his decision.
There is absolutley nothing else he could be waiting for....and it is sinful he is using the A-stan elections as his reason for waiting....as he could make his decisoons NOW BASED on the different results of the elctions...and implement the decision immediately at that time, based on the election results.

HIS way is waiting, then making the decison...and THEN implementing it...and that is wasting a lot of dead time...and soldiers are dying in the meantime.

War is popular. It's always popular in the beginning. It becomes unpopular when things aren't going so well.

The over-simplification of the occupation of Afghanistan is obscuring the situation that is occurring in the region. Any policy reaction has to be analysed for its intended and unintended consequences. If Obama was a populist he would pull out of Afghanistan and bring the troops home to rapturous applause. I don't think he's a populist.

 

[Diuretic]

BO has no interest in pursuing victory in Afghanistan or against terrorism.

He's content to let this issue sit on the backburner while our troops are dying.

Remember this:

"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

And exactly what is wrong with that statement?
Bin Laden dead simply means his nuymber 2 takes over.
To continue to chase him through the mountains is a waste of resources.

Besides....exactly what has the anointed one done to find the guy?

Then why was Afghanistan invaded?

I need to amend this. I saw a later post in which you stated that AQ fled to Pakistan and it would be a waste of resources to pursue them.

Is that why Bush dropped the ball? Or was it that little diversion Cheney dreamed up, the one that involved invading Iraq to control its oil?

 

[Mr Natural]

We went to Afghanistan in response to being attacked on 9/11 and to make those responsible pay for what they did and to take away their ability to do so again. If you can't see how Bush not caring about bin Laden (who was ultimately responsible) in favor of an easier target in Iraq is a problem......I can't help you.

But, since the majority were Saudis, shouldn't we have bombed the crap out of Saudi Arabia?

I know that sounds simplistic but sonce they were unable or unwilling to keep their lunatics on a short leash, shouldn't they have paid the price?

B-b-but...they're our FRIENDS!

I've wanted to wipe Saudi Arabia off the map for most of my life. Has anything positive ever come out of that lunatic shit hole?

Wouldn't you just love to smack the shit out of that prince whateverthefuck his name is?

 

[Huh?]

So Bush could have ignored Hussein and left Iraq alone....and the next thing we know we have 50K dead soldiers when he applied some chemical warfare on A-stan battlefield...

First, he didn't have any to apply but secondly, let's assume that he did...have you ever looked at a map of the Middle East?

How do you propose he would have got those weapons clear across Iran?

Sorry, but that sounds a bit absurd.

 

[Oldandtired]

Remember this:

"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

And exactly what is wrong with that statement?
Bin Laden dead simply means his nuymber 2 takes over.
To continue to chase him through the mountains is a waste of resources.

Besides....exactly what has the anointed one done to find the guy?

Then why was Afghanistan invaded?

That was where al-queda was allowed to develop...and the Taliban gave them a safe home.

Are you serious with tis question?...Are you truly that naive as to why the war in afghanistan?

 

[Oldandtired]

So Bush could have ignored Hussein and left Iraq alone....and the next thing we know we have 50K dead soldiers when he applied some chemical warfare on A-stan battlefield...

First, he didn't have any to apply but secondly, let's assume that he did...have you ever looked at a map of the Middle East?

How do you propose he would have got those weapons clear across Iran?

Sorry, but that sounds a bit absurd.

Yeah...you are right....sounds a bit absurd.
10 years earlier they had SCUDS hitting Israel....to think that they may have advanced their technology in 10 years is absurd.
Jeez...I just dont get you guys.

 

[Diuretic]

And exactly what is wrong with that statement?
Bin Laden dead simply means his nuymber 2 takes over.
To continue to chase him through the mountains is a waste of resources.

Besides....exactly what has the anointed one done to find the guy?

Then why was Afghanistan invaded?

That was where al-queda was allowed to develop...and the Taliban gave them a safe home.

Are you serious with tis question?...Are you truly that naive as to why the war in afghanistan?

Sometimes naievete is a good thing, it means I can learn. But not this time. It's my recollection that Afghanistan was invaded to get the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks in the US. My memory of that time is that it was a good and brave decision and a very difficult task but one worthwhile. It's still worthwhile. Unfortunately it seems that that worthwhile task was discarded by the BushCheney Administration. What should have been an invade and snatch operation turned into a full-blown occupation of a country. The mess that is Afghanistan is a creation of BushCheney. Obama has been left once more with the bucket and mop.

 

[Huh?]

So Bush could have ignored Hussein and left Iraq alone....and the next thing we know we have 50K dead soldiers when he applied some chemical warfare on A-stan battlefield...

First, he didn't have any to apply but secondly, let's assume that he did...have you ever looked at a map of the Middle East?

How do you propose he would have got those weapons clear across Iran?

Sorry, but that sounds a bit absurd.

Yeah...you are right....sounds a bit absurd.
10 years earlier they had SCUDS hitting Israel....to think that they may have advanced their technology in 10 years is absurd.
Jeez...I just dont get you guys.

Compare the distance between Iraq and Israel to the distance between Iraq and Afghanistan...also consider what happened to Iraq after they had attacked...oh yeah, they had developed Al-Samoud 2's with a range of 180 km...I refer you again to a map of the Middle East...now, if you would at least try, you just might get it but I won't hold my breath on that one...you seem pretty set in your argument regardless of what is presented, have a good day.

 

[Oldandtired]

First, he didn't have any to apply but secondly, let's assume that he did...have you ever looked at a map of the Middle East?

How do you propose he would have got those weapons clear across Iran?

Sorry, but that sounds a bit absurd.

Yeah...you are right....sounds a bit absurd.
10 years earlier they had SCUDS hitting Israel....to think that they may have advanced their technology in 10 years is absurd.
Jeez...I just dont get you guys.

Compare the distance between Iraq and Israel to the distance between Iraq and Afghanistan...also consider what happened to Iraq after they had attacked...oh yeah, they had developed Al-Samoud 2's with a range of 180 km...I refer you again to a map of the Middle East...now, if you would at least try, you just might get it but I won't hold my breath on that one...you seem pretty set in your argument regardless of what is presented, have a good day.

You are correct. No one has technology that can fly a warhead that far.
No one at all.

 

[Huh?]

Yeah...you are right....sounds a bit absurd.
10 years earlier they had SCUDS hitting Israel....to think that they may have advanced their technology in 10 years is absurd.
Jeez...I just dont get you guys.

Compare the distance between Iraq and Israel to the distance between Iraq and Afghanistan...also consider what happened to Iraq after they had attacked...oh yeah, they had developed Al-Samoud 2's with a range of 180 km...I refer you again to a map of the Middle East...now, if you would at least try, you just might get it but I won't hold my breath on that one...you seem pretty set in your argument regardless of what is presented, have a good day.

You are correct. No one has technology that can fly a warhead that far.
No one at all.

Reading comprehension problems, eh?

I suppose you deserve an equally absurd comeback...no doubt the Brits would have sent Saddam some...

 

[Oldandtired]

Compare the distance between Iraq and Israel to the distance between Iraq and Afghanistan...also consider what happened to Iraq after they had attacked...oh yeah, they had developed Al-Samoud 2's with a range of 180 km...I refer you again to a map of the Middle East...now, if you would at least try, you just might get it but I won't hold my breath on that one...you seem pretty set in your argument regardless of what is presented, have a good day.

You are correct. No one has technology that can fly a warhead that far.
No one at all.

Reading comprehension problems, eh?

I suppose you deserve an equally absurd comeback...no doubt the Brits would have sent Saddam some...

Awww...heck...dont you know the sign of a man who recognized the err of something he said but is too dam proud to admit it?