Our ball-less Commander in Cheif

[geauxtohell]

He's taken a winning situation in Afganistan and turned it into failure.....

 

[High_Gravity]

Afganistan was more stable when Obama took office. He tried to copy Bush's surge strategy in Iraq (which he opposed) in Afganistan, and now it's on the verge of total collapse. Afgan leaders, the ones we helped bring to power, protect and finance, our trashing America instead of thanking us. This was not the same relationship when Obama took office. Obama has done nothing but alienate and bad mouth our military to garner support among our enemies. It hasn't worked.

The best strategy we can have for Afghanistan to leave, let the Taliban hang Karzai from a lamp post by his balls, fuck him.

At this point yes, we should leave and in a few years it will turn into the dump it was. But that was not the situation when Obama took office. We had a working relationship and were well on the way in training it's military to take care of its own business. He said he was going to make things better, remember?

Obama tried to use the surge strategy General Petreus used in Iraq, that worked there but not so much in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is much different than Iraq, there hasn't been a real government there since the 1970's and it is far more tribal and backwards than Iraq ever was, as this point the Afghan Troops and Police we are training are aiming their rifles at our men and women, to be honest I think we would have got to this point no matter who our commander in chief was. The Afghan war was mis managed, under manned and underfunded for too many years and that spurned a Taliban revival in 2005, now they are stronger, more organized and more moneyed than ever. We also don't understand the Afghan people, we have nothing in common with them, we don't want the same things and thats a big reason why things are failing there, its time to bring our Troops home, yesterday.

 

[High_Gravity]

A winning situation in Afghanistan? Lol that's rich, it's been a disaster there throughout. Should've blown up every gov't building and came home, but that strategy isn't warmongery enough for democans and republicrats.

And as Catzmeow's link shows, if a president's desire to warmonger is a measure for how tough he is (as it was with neocons and Bush) then Obama is as tough as they come.

Doesn't make him tough to me, but it sure as hell should for the pro-war crowd.

It's a sign of the defeatist attitude of the West that the concept of carpet bombing an enemy, without the requisite "nation building" caused great hand wringing.

I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but in this he had the right approach. Bomb them to dust, but never land troops. Shock and Awe in Iraq was a tremendous success. If Bush had had a brain, that would have been the end of it, leave it to the Iraqi people to rebuild.

Afghanistan is more of a challenge, these are stone age savages, not much infrastructure to destroy. So bomb the Taliban and the Al Qaeda caves. Every time they start to rebuild, bomb them again. But "boots on the ground" should never be done.

Yes, the ninnys will decry how awful we are, but the nation building in Iraq didn't exactly endear us to them, in fact, it did nothing for us.

Plus the fact that it seems like the people of afghanistan don't want democracy, they want a hardcore islamic dictatorship. We're trying to force freedoms on people who don't want them.

You just nailed it.

 

[Katzndogz]

The best strategy we can have for Afghanistan to leave, let the Taliban hang Karzai from a lamp post by his balls, fuck him.

His family's drug money along with U.S. support has been able to give him quite the security force, let's see how he does when it's just him and the people.

Well Karzai has cash in Switzerland and a huge flat in London, if Kabul starts to fall to the Taliban he will be in England before you can say Bob is your uncle.

Before we started giving him all that money, he was just another village war lord with a herd of goats.

Now he wants support of two billion a year.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Afganistan was more stable when Obama took office. He tried to copy Bush's surge strategy in Iraq (which he opposed) in Afganistan, and now it's on the verge of total collapse. Afgan leaders, the ones we helped bring to power, protect and finance, our trashing America instead of thanking us. This was not the same relationship when Obama took office. Obama has done nothing but alienate and bad mouth our military to garner support among our enemies. It hasn't worked.

The best strategy we can have for Afghanistan to leave, let the Taliban hang Karzai from a lamp post by his balls, fuck him.

At this point yes, we should leave and in a few years it will turn into the dump it was. But that was not the situation when Obama took office. We had a working relationship and were well on the way in training it's military to take care of its own business. He said he was going to make things better, remember?

The right time to leave was 10 years, every day we've stayed there since has been a mistake and it's gotten worse and worse.

 

[High_Gravity]

His family's drug money along with U.S. support has been able to give him quite the security force, let's see how he does when it's just him and the people.

Well Karzai has cash in Switzerland and a huge flat in London, if Kabul starts to fall to the Taliban he will be in England before you can say Bob is your uncle.

Before we started giving him all that money, he was just another village war lord with a herd of goats.

Now he wants support of two billion a year.

Hmm I was under the impression Karzai always had money. He doesn't strike me as an ignorant Afghan goat herder.

 

[bodecea]

It's not fair to say obama is ball-less. He merely has better things to do than the country's business. He's campaigning for reelection and has been campaigning for reelection since the day he was elected.

He's a ball-less bullshit artist that has managed to con an entire nation.

So...I take it he won't have your vote this time around?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Plus the fact that it seems like the people of afghanistan don't want democracy, they want a hardcore islamic dictatorship. We're trying to force freedoms on people who don't want them.

Exactly.

So if they get out of line, bomb the shit out of them. If they stick to themselves, leave them alone to be the savages they want to be.

 

[asaratis]

Roudy...I dunno what the cocky assholes of the world ever did to you to get lumped in with Barry but I don't think it's fair.

Exactly! Obama gives assholes a bad name!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well just bombing a country doesn't bring down the regime necessarily, we bombed the shit out of Iraq in the 90's numerous times and Saddam never went anywhere.

No, but he behaved for a short time afterwords.

Just bombing them in 2003 wouldn't do anything because the leaders and important people would just hide in bunkers while innocent people and cannon fodder soldiers get killed by our missiles, it takes ground forces to go in there and grab those fuckers by the balls to take down a regime, I am not saying whether the Iraq invasion was right or wrong but no US Troops on the ground in 2003 equals Saddam Hussein still running Iraq.

Bombing creates an incentive for the people to rise up against their rulers. It also, and most importantly, destroys the infrastructure those rules depend on for their nefarious plots and plans.

 

[Sunni Man]

What worries me is we have US Special Forces troops chasing Joseph Kony in the jungle in Uganda, I thought we were just there for training? now we are running and gunning in the jungle? WTF?

That is exactly how we got started in Vietnam.

 

[High_Gravity]

Well just bombing a country doesn't bring down the regime necessarily, we bombed the shit out of Iraq in the 90's numerous times and Saddam never went anywhere.

No, but he behaved for a short time afterwords.

Just bombing them in 2003 wouldn't do anything because the leaders and important people would just hide in bunkers while innocent people and cannon fodder soldiers get killed by our missiles, it takes ground forces to go in there and grab those fuckers by the balls to take down a regime, I am not saying whether the Iraq invasion was right or wrong but no US Troops on the ground in 2003 equals Saddam Hussein still running Iraq.

Bombing creates an incentive for the people to rise up against their rulers. It also, and most importantly, destroys the infrastructure those rules depend on for their nefarious plots and plans.

The Iraqi people rose up against Saddam after the first Gulf War and were slaughtered, even if we bombed the holy hell out of Iraq and destroyed their infrastructure somebody would have still had to go in and arrest or kill these top regime figures, we had to have Troops find Saddam hiding in a freakin spider hole in the ground. If we had just bombed Iraq like you said these guys would have stayed hidden and theres no guarantee what would have happened on the ground, the reason bombing Libya worked out is because we had a rebel force working with us on the ground fighting Gaddafi and his forces, we had no such thing in Iraq. You can only mercilessly pound a country for so long until the UN steps in and people start accusing us of war crimes also.

 

[geauxtohell]

Plus the fact that it seems like the people of afghanistan don't want democracy, they want a hardcore islamic dictatorship. We're trying to force freedoms on people who don't want them.

Exactly.

So if they get out of line, bomb the shit out of them. If they stick to themselves, leave them alone to be the savages they want to be.

You guys still haven't figured out that this /\ doesn't work. You can't accomplish anything without boots on the ground. Perhaps you've forgotten Bush's shoot a camel in the ass comment.

Your basic tactical illiteracy is why we find ourselves in these stupid wars.

 

[High_Gravity]

What worries me is we have US Special Forces troops chasing Joseph Kony in the jungle in Uganda, I thought we were just there for training? now we are running and gunning in the jungle? WTF?

That is exactly how we got started in Vietnam.

I also heard we gave Uganda $500 million to rebuild areas of their country, how are we still giving our charity like this when we are broke? as soon as things go to shit in Uganda we will be the first people they blame.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Plus the fact that it seems like the people of afghanistan don't want democracy, they want a hardcore islamic dictatorship. We're trying to force freedoms on people who don't want them.

Exactly.

So if they get out of line, bomb the shit out of them. If they stick to themselves, leave them alone to be the savages they want to be.

You guys still haven't figured out that this /\ doesn't work. You can't accomplish anything without boots on the ground. Perhaps you've forgotten Bush's shoot a camel in the ass comment.

Your basic tactical illiteracy is why we find ourselves in these stupid wars.

Uhhh, then why do democrats throw roses at Obama's feet for the war on terror and the war in Libya?

How many troops are involved with all the drone strikes in those places?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Which aspect of the operation did he take part in? None, other than give the nod.

If that's true, why didn't bush just NOD?

The pubs are turning themselves into pretzels trying to take credit for the death of bin Laden. Give it up. They walked away from even looking for him. Mittens said it would be a waste of money to go after our Number One Enemy but then did a flip flop because he sounded like the wimp he is.

One thing for sure, the pubs would much rather declare war, spend trillions and kill millions. They hate President Obama for pulling this off without one American life lost. Not to mention that he did the same with al Awaki, Gaddafi and many other Taliban and al Qeada.

Face it - the pubs are impotent. Damned expensive and impotent.

 

[Sunni Man]

What worries me is we have US Special Forces troops chasing Joseph Kony in the jungle in Uganda, I thought we were just there for training? now we are running and gunning in the jungle? WTF?

That is exactly how we got started in Vietnam.

I also heard we gave Uganda $500 million to rebuild areas of their country, how are we still giving our charity like this when we are broke? as soon as things go to shit in Uganda we will be the first people they blame.

Of which $4,999,999 was divided between the leaders; and $1 was to be divided between the people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Iraqi people rose up against Saddam after the first Gulf War and were slaughtered, even if we bombed the holy hell out of Iraq and destroyed their infrastructure somebody would have still had to go in and arrest or kill these top regime figures, we had to have Troops find Saddam hiding in a freakin spider hole in the ground. If we had just bombed Iraq like you said these guys would have stayed hidden and theres no guarantee what would have happened on the ground, the reason bombing Libya worked out is because we had a rebel force working with us on the ground fighting Gaddafi and his forces, we had no such thing in Iraq. You can only mercilessly pound a country for so long until the UN steps in and people start accusing us of war crimes also.

I guess that where we disagree is that I don't see it as our job to arrest or kill these leaders. To defend our nation, we need to make the price of fucking with us greater than they are willing to pay. The Iraqi people put the communist Ba'ath assholes in power. They allowed Saddam to stay in power. Frankly, he was their problem, not ours.

Defending ourselves means that if a dictator gets aggressive, we reduce his country to rubble. If the people get tired of having their homes and cities destroyed, then they can act against the root cause. But I don't see it as our problem.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You guys still haven't figured out that this /\ doesn't work. You can't accomplish anything without boots on the ground. Perhaps you've forgotten Bush's shoot a camel in the ass comment.

Your basic tactical illiteracy is why we find ourselves in these stupid wars.

So, you're saying that Clinton's approach was stupid, and Bush was brilliant?

 

[High_Gravity]

The Iraqi people rose up against Saddam after the first Gulf War and were slaughtered, even if we bombed the holy hell out of Iraq and destroyed their infrastructure somebody would have still had to go in and arrest or kill these top regime figures, we had to have Troops find Saddam hiding in a freakin spider hole in the ground. If we had just bombed Iraq like you said these guys would have stayed hidden and theres no guarantee what would have happened on the ground, the reason bombing Libya worked out is because we had a rebel force working with us on the ground fighting Gaddafi and his forces, we had no such thing in Iraq. You can only mercilessly pound a country for so long until the UN steps in and people start accusing us of war crimes also.

I guess that where we disagree is that I don't see it as our job to arrest or kill these leaders. To defend our nation, we need to make the price of fucking with us greater than they are willing to pay. The Iraqi people put the communist Ba'ath assholes in power. They allowed Saddam to stay in power. Frankly, he was their problem, not ours.

Defending ourselves means that if a dictator gets aggressive, we reduce his country to rubble. If the people get tired of having their homes and cities destroyed, then they can act against the root cause. But I don't see it as our problem.

Oh I agree, since we were still in Afghanistan in 2003 I think it was a bad idea to divert our attention and resources to Iraq when we were just getting started in Afghanistan. It really hurt the war effort there. I don't want us in the hearts and minds and rebuilding business anymore.