Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Still not able to come up with a legitimate objective that remains to be accomplished?
I'm listening
So in August it was "fundamental to the defense of our people." And today he's looking for ways out of it.As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight and we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a -- this is fundamental to the defense of our people.
I'm no expert on military tactics, nor are you, nor is Obama. But he does have experts telling him exactly what to do and he does nothing, still.Si - I have come to enjoy your input as being a lot more than empty rhetoric.
And I just keep getting more and more curious - maybe you can be the one to help me out. In your opinion, are there remaining objectives to achieve in Afghanistan? Objectives worthy of the sacrfices our folks over there (and their loved ones still at home) are making?
What different tact would you endorse and why?
I've come to expect the empty and banal rhetoric from some posters, but I've always held you in higher regard. I'd appreciate your input.
Still not able to come up with a legitimate objective that remains to be accomplished?
I'm listening
Wasn't the Left screaming that as long as we hadn't found bin Laden then all our efforts were a waste? Wasn't that, like, last week or so?
Wasn't Obama giving a speech about how Afghanistan was the good war and we needed to fight it, like 4 months ago? Like to the VFW:
So in August it was "fundamental to the defense of our people." And today he's looking for ways out of it.As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight and we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a -- this is fundamental to the defense of our people.
Has he put ANY on the ground since the help was requested and since he was told time is critical for that help and since we've had the deadliest month?I'm no expert on military tactics, nor are you, nor is Obama. But he does have experts telling him exactly what to do and he does nothing, still.Si - I have come to enjoy your input as being a lot more than empty rhetoric.
And I just keep getting more and more curious - maybe you can be the one to help me out. In your opinion, are there remaining objectives to achieve in Afghanistan? Objectives worthy of the sacrfices our folks over there (and their loved ones still at home) are making?
What different tact would you endorse and why?
I've come to expect the empty and banal rhetoric from some posters, but I've always held you in higher regard. I'd appreciate your input.
He put an extra 20,000 boots on the ground already.
Still not able to come up with a legitimate objective that remains to be accomplished?
I'm listening
Wasn't the Left screaming that as long as we hadn't found bin Laden then all our efforts were a waste? Wasn't that, like, last week or so?
Wasn't Obama giving a speech about how Afghanistan was the good war and we needed to fight it, like 4 months ago? Like to the VFW:
So in August it was "fundamental to the defense of our people." And today he's looking for ways out of it.As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight and we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a -- this is fundamental to the defense of our people.
Maybe the left was screaming that - I don't know. I wasn't.
But in the text you quote from Obama it seems to me that he is allowing a bit of mission creep - that is to draw the Taliban into the same category as Al Qaeda which I'm not sure is justified.
Has he put ANY on the ground since the help was requested and since he was told time is critical for that help and since we've had the deadliest month?I'm no expert on military tactics, nor are you, nor is Obama. But he does have experts telling him exactly what to do and he does nothing, still.
He put an extra 20,000 boots on the ground already.
It doesn't matter what YOU think, the experts have told this joke as 'commander' in Chief exactly what he needs to do over and over and over again. He clearly doesn't give a shit about the military and especially those in harms way.Has he put ANY on the ground since the help was requested and since he was told time is critical for that help and since we've had the deadliest month?He put an extra 20,000 boots on the ground already.
So do you believe that we've suffered the deadliest month because the requested help hasn't been provided yet?
If that is truly the case, then I would question the commander who extended the mission into Taliban controlled territoties without the people he needed to protect themselves. But I don't really believe that is the case.
I believe the reason that we are suffering more casualties is because we have taken a more agressive approach (like taking up positions in Taliban controlled areas) and that the extra troops are a request to expand that policy. Much like the "surge" in Iraq.
But Afghanistan is not Iraq. And I can't really support an objective that calls for insertion of a democratic government of our liking and an attempt to wipe out the Taliban completely.
Al Qaeda attacked us and I think we've achieved the objective of eradicating Al Qaeda. Even the radical islamic community doesn't want anything to do with what's left of them anymore.
I also think shipping out 40,000 more folks without a clear objective and strategy for when to bring them back home would be incredibly irresponsible.
It doesn't matter what YOU think, the experts have told this joke as 'commander' in Chief exactly what he needs to do over and over and over again. He clearly doesn't give a shit about the military and especially those in harms way.Has he put ANY on the ground since the help was requested and since he was told time is critical for that help and since we've had the deadliest month?
So do you believe that we've suffered the deadliest month because the requested help hasn't been provided yet?
If that is truly the case, then I would question the commander who extended the mission into Taliban controlled territoties without the people he needed to protect themselves. But I don't really believe that is the case.
I believe the reason that we are suffering more casualties is because we have taken a more agressive approach (like taking up positions in Taliban controlled areas) and that the extra troops are a request to expand that policy. Much like the "surge" in Iraq.
But Afghanistan is not Iraq. And I can't really support an objective that calls for insertion of a democratic government of our liking and an attempt to wipe out the Taliban completely.
Al Qaeda attacked us and I think we've achieved the objective of eradicating Al Qaeda. Even the radical islamic community doesn't want anything to do with what's left of them anymore.
I also think shipping out 40,000 more folks without a clear objective and strategy for when to bring them back home would be incredibly irresponsible.
I think exactly what Gates and McChrystal think. And they want help for those in harms way. Obama does nothing almost four months later. Screw that. He has shown exactly what he thinks of the military. Nero.It doesn't matter what YOU think, the experts have told this joke as 'commander' in Chief exactly what he needs to do over and over and over again. He clearly doesn't give a shit about the military and especially those in harms way.So do you believe that we've suffered the deadliest month because the requested help hasn't been provided yet?
If that is truly the case, then I would question the commander who extended the mission into Taliban controlled territoties without the people he needed to protect themselves. But I don't really believe that is the case.
I believe the reason that we are suffering more casualties is because we have taken a more agressive approach (like taking up positions in Taliban controlled areas) and that the extra troops are a request to expand that policy. Much like the "surge" in Iraq.
But Afghanistan is not Iraq. And I can't really support an objective that calls for insertion of a democratic government of our liking and an attempt to wipe out the Taliban completely.
Al Qaeda attacked us and I think we've achieved the objective of eradicating Al Qaeda. Even the radical islamic community doesn't want anything to do with what's left of them anymore.
I also think shipping out 40,000 more folks without a clear objective and strategy for when to bring them back home would be incredibly irresponsible.
Then it doesn't matter what YOU think either.
....
It doesn't matter what YOU think, the experts have told this joke as 'commander' in Chief exactly what he needs to do over and over and over again. He clearly doesn't give a shit about the military and especially those in harms way.So do you believe that we've suffered the deadliest month because the requested help hasn't been provided yet?
If that is truly the case, then I would question the commander who extended the mission into Taliban controlled territoties without the people he needed to protect themselves. But I don't really believe that is the case.
I believe the reason that we are suffering more casualties is because we have taken a more agressive approach (like taking up positions in Taliban controlled areas) and that the extra troops are a request to expand that policy. Much like the "surge" in Iraq.
But Afghanistan is not Iraq. And I can't really support an objective that calls for insertion of a democratic government of our liking and an attempt to wipe out the Taliban completely.
Al Qaeda attacked us and I think we've achieved the objective of eradicating Al Qaeda. Even the radical islamic community doesn't want anything to do with what's left of them anymore.
I also think shipping out 40,000 more folks without a clear objective and strategy for when to bring them back home would be incredibly irresponsible.
Then it doesn't matter what YOU think either.
My opinion is as legitimate as yours and while the CIC has advisors, they don't dictate what he has to do - it's HIS call, not theirs. And I think that weighing the decision to put more folks in harms way carefully is the most sure sign of "giving a shit."
That's my opinion - and you are obviously free to have a differing opinion.
Have a nice evening.
The White House and military officials are leaning toward sending more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
Officials said President Obama will not announce his decision until after he returns Nov. 20 from his upcoming trip to Asia and stressed that no final decision has been made, even in private.
But the plan under serious consideration would split the difference between troop requests made by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. McChrystal had put forward a "high risk" request for only 10,000-15,000 troops, and a "medium risk" request of 40,000-45,000.
I think that's a good thing. Especially considering the blow Al Qaeda has taking from within the "jihadist" community as of late.
We can consider our job in Afghanistan to have been delivering a crippling blow to those resonsible for the 9/11 attacks. I consider that a legitimate goal.
Considering that while OBL's fate is uncertain BUT that the AQ leadership has been dealt a severe blow with the vast majority having been killed or captured and the swiftly disappearing role AQ has even within the radical muslim community - that we have accomplished our legitimate goals.
So much for that "Good War" stuff. That stuff is going the way of his "Changing the Tone of Washington" stuff has gone. Just another lie in the end.
The change in the white house now is, him not being all swager, ego and from texas. He is actually thinking about situations before saying things like mush room clouds and wmd's.
See the difference?
and how many kids are dying while he allegedly "thinks" ???? you left that one out huh ???
Si - I have come to enjoy your input as being a lot more than empty rhetoric.
And I just keep getting more and more curious - maybe you can be the one to help me out. In your opinion, are there remaining objectives to achieve in Afghanistan? Objectives worthy of the sacrfices our folks over there (and their loved ones still at home) are making?
What different tact would you endorse and why?
I've come to expect the empty and banal rhetoric from some posters, but I've always held you in higher regard. I'd appreciate your input.
