Why?

[VaYank5150]

I don't know.

Neither do I. Shouldn't WE THE PEOPLE know???

Ideally yes, but I think these "mission creep" things happen incrementaly. Probably be hard to point your finger at a single action/decision and say, "right there!"

Agreed. HOWEVER, for Obama to simply "go along" with a mission, that from our perspective continues to have no concrete goals, is completely wrong and in MY HUMBLE opinion, is in direct conflict with what he said he wanted to do on the campaign trail.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yank - some folks are determine to attach the failures of the previous adminstration to the current administration. Silly? Sophomoric? Of course.

But I think attaching blame is a lot less important than making the correct adjustments now.

 

[xsited1]

There is no reason to send troops, Val

I wonder if Obama is trying to right a wrong that is impossible to correct at this late date.

Or Obama wants to look like he is tough on the Domestic scene and this is for politics?

Or the administration actually sees a way to end Al Qaeda once and for all and it requires more troops in Afganistan.

There are alot of possible reaons. But the actual one, I have nary a clue.

But we do know one thing

IT IS BOOOOOOSH AND THE FAAAUUUUUUX NOOOOOOOSE FAULT.
(actually, it is!)

It's Bush's fault? Most of the Democrats were on-board with this from the beginning. They're the reason why Obama is going to send more troops. So much for campaign promises.

MOST? Do I have to print the vote results AGAIN, or will you modify your own post on this one?

I have the vote results. The big hitters were FOR these wars. And do I need to remind you that John Kerry is pushing for more troops and he ran for President in 2004? Look, the Democrats are just as culpable. Stop blindly following them.

 

[VaYank5150]

Here's the deal: the people in Washington are clueless. Obama WILL send more troops to Afghanistan and pretend that there is an exit strategy. In the meantime, more US soldiers will die and more money (that we don't have) will be spent. There is no 'Why'. Now be a good Obama supporter and support him!

Blindly following leaders and their poor decisions (ala Bush and Irag/Afghanistan) is what got us into this mess....no more for me, thanks.

So Iraq and Afghanistan are all Bush's fault?

Right...

Who asked Congress for permission to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Charles Stucker]

grow up... i can't help it if he's the gift that keeps on giving.

or did obama somehow start these problems?

oh wait...it's bush who let bin laden escape into the hills in 2003... hmmmmmm...

Clinton, the disaster that keeps on giving.
Clinton the president who set the stage for the WTC bombing through actions almost too numerous to count.
Almost
Start by counting the number of troops he left in Saudi Arabia, a move which infuriated Islamic conservatives. Poor Clinton he must not have Realized that Mecca is in Saudi Arabia and infidels (non-Muslims) are not allowed near the 'holiest of holy places'
Then count the number of times he bombed a random Islamic target and called 'terrorist' to get the press onto an issue because Monica.
Next count the economy that he and Gore deliberately sabotaged between the election of Bush and the time Bush actually took office.
Now count the partisan way Clinton managed the transfer of power, which led to the intelligence failure that permitted the WTC bombing.

Why don't we blame Clinton instead?
He started the problems.

Why are we still in Afghanistan? Because Obama makes political hay out of blaming
Booooooooosh

 

[nodoginnafight]

Neither do I. Shouldn't WE THE PEOPLE know???

Ideally yes, but I think these "mission creep" things happen incrementaly. Probably be hard to point your finger at a single action/decision and say, "right there!"

Agreed. HOWEVER, for Obama to simply "go along" with a mission, that from our perspective continues to have no concrete goals, is completely wrong and in MY HUMBLE opinion, is in direct conflict with what he said he wanted to do on the campaign trail.

Yes, I agree. I'll be waiting to see whether the goals he outlines for his Afghanistan policy are consistent with his campaign rhetoric.

 

[VaYank5150]

Ideally yes, but I think these "mission creep" things happen incrementaly. Probably be hard to point your finger at a single action/decision and say, "right there!"

Agreed. HOWEVER, for Obama to simply "go along" with a mission, that from our perspective continues to have no concrete goals, is completely wrong and in MY HUMBLE opinion, is in direct conflict with what he said he wanted to do on the campaign trail.

Yes, I agree. I'll be waiting to see whether the goals he outlines for his Afghanistan policy are consistent with his campaign rhetoric.

Good idea. I should wait to hear what he has to say tomorrow, before I bash his decision.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Agreed. HOWEVER, for Obama to simply "go along" with a mission, that from our perspective continues to have no concrete goals, is completely wrong and in MY HUMBLE opinion, is in direct conflict with what he said he wanted to do on the campaign trail.

Yes, I agree. I'll be waiting to see whether the goals he outlines for his Afghanistan policy are consistent with his campaign rhetoric.

Good idea. I should wait to hear what he has to say tomorrow, before I bash his decision.

Why not beat the rush - Whether I think it is in conflict with his campaign rhetoric or not - I disagree with sending more troops and I think we ought to be getting the troops already there out ASAP. And it appears that he is not going to be making THAT decision.

I'll listen to see if I think he makes a good case for his decision. But I don't think he'll be able to convince me.

 

[WillowTree]

This is such HORSESHIT! The GOP President started this little excursion. He left Afghanistan idle while pouring most of our resources into an unwinnable situation in Iraq. For you to blame Democrats alone for the hopeless situation in Afghanistan merely shows how uneducated and partisan you truly are. Good show!

But it is OBAAAAMA AND MSNBC NEEEEEEWWWWWS Fault

Oh wait--I am 8 years to early for that one, huh?

Does anyone else know what the hell this was supposed to mean?

Yes! I know exactly what it is supposed to mean.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The left does not have the courage to answer this question. They feel the need to go fight a drug war against poor people in Afghanistan...........

Another Vietnam now, because Democrats can only fail. It's what they do, and why a clown like Bush was President twice. Look at his competition. The education of our young continues..............

This is such HORSESHIT! The GOP President started this little excursion. He left Afghanistan idle while pouring most of our resources into an unwinnable situation in Iraq. For you to blame Democrats alone for the hopeless situation in Afghanistan merely shows how uneducated and partisan you truly are. Good show!

There you go again.......
rewriting history will not help your cause....It's a matter of record that Bush soundly defeated the Taliban Army and Al Qaeda fighters in country. The ones who were the most chicken shit fled to Pakistan.

Now what Bush did was rely on NATO, specifically European countrys TO PROVIDE THE COMBAT TROOPS THEY PROMISED IN 2001!!!! THEY NEVER GAVE THE "COALITION" SHIT!!!!

HOW LONG BEFORE YOU GET THIS FACT THROUGH YOUR HEAD??? HOW LONG????

There is a COALITION of forces in Iraq...NOT JUST THE GODDAM U.S.A.!!!!!!!!

 

[VaYank5150]

The left does not have the courage to answer this question. They feel the need to go fight a drug war against poor people in Afghanistan...........

Another Vietnam now, because Democrats can only fail. It's what they do, and why a clown like Bush was President twice. Look at his competition. The education of our young continues..............

This is such HORSESHIT! The GOP President started this little excursion. He left Afghanistan idle while pouring most of our resources into an unwinnable situation in Iraq. For you to blame Democrats alone for the hopeless situation in Afghanistan merely shows how uneducated and partisan you truly are. Good show!

There you go again.......
rewriting history will not help your cause....It's a matter of record that Bush soundly defeated the Taliban Army and Al Qaeda fighters in country. The ones who were the most chicken shit fled to Pakistan.

Now what Bush did was rely on NATO, specifically European countrys TO PROVIDE THE COMBAT TROOPS THEY PROMISED IN 2001!!!! THEY NEVER GAVE THE "COALITION" SHIT!!!!

HOW LONG BEFORE YOU GET THIS FACT THROUGH YOUR HEAD??? HOW LONG????

There is a COALITION of forces in Iraq...NOT JUST THE GODDAM U.S.A.!!!!!!!!

It is?? What "record" are you speaking of? Seriously. I would like to know when we declared victory and why Bush didn't pull our troops out, or at the very least thin our troops levels down after our victory.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Actually, I read the thread again, and the question appears to be why is Obama outbushing Bush on Iraq and Afghanistan?

I would have to assume at this point, that less than 20% of the dimwitted liberals still support Obama's continued expansionary tactics there.

 

[VaYank5150]

Actually, I read the thread again, and the question appears to be why is Obama outbushing Bush on Iraq and Afghanistan?

I would have to assume at this point, that less than 20% of the dimwitted liberals still support Obama's continued expansionary tactics there.

Thank you for taking the time. And yes, basically, I am concerned that Obama is throwing more troops at a situation that is completely untenable. Bush showed him how it could be done, but I thought Obama was smarter than that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Actually, I read the thread again, and the question appears to be why is Obama outbushing Bush on Iraq and Afghanistan?

I would have to assume at this point, that less than 20% of the dimwitted liberals still support Obama's continued expansionary tactics there.

So glad you found time to interupt your vulgar posts on what part of Yank's body was attached to what part of Obama's body long enough to realize he is disagreeing with Obama on this issue.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

This is such HORSESHIT! The GOP President started this little excursion. He left Afghanistan idle while pouring most of our resources into an unwinnable situation in Iraq. For you to blame Democrats alone for the hopeless situation in Afghanistan merely shows how uneducated and partisan you truly are. Good show!

There you go again.......
rewriting history will not help your cause....It's a matter of record that Bush soundly defeated the Taliban Army and Al Qaeda fighters in country. The ones who were the most chicken shit fled to Pakistan.

Now what Bush did was rely on NATO, specifically European countrys TO PROVIDE THE COMBAT TROOPS THEY PROMISED IN 2001!!!! THEY NEVER GAVE THE "COALITION" SHIT!!!!

HOW LONG BEFORE YOU GET THIS FACT THROUGH YOUR HEAD??? HOW LONG????

There is a COALITION of forces in Iraq...NOT JUST THE GODDAM U.S.A.!!!!!!!!

It is?? What "record" are you speaking of? Seriously. I would like to know when we declared victory and why Bush didn't pull our troops out, or at the very least thin our troops levels down after our victory.

You can't be serious....are you? You just admitted you don't know jack shit about the topic your trying to discuss....this means you are either a LIBTARD troll, a dupe or a total jackass partisan shitbag. Which is it???? I'll go with dupe for now.

Beijing Times
U.S. Formally Announces Defeat of Taliban
The United States on Tuesday formally announced that the Taliban has been completely defeated and can no longer control any territory in Afghanistan.

The United States on Tuesday formally announced that the Taliban has been completely defeated and can no longer control any territory in Afghanistan.

"I hereby determine as of this date that the Taliban controls no territory within Afghanistan and modify the description of the term 'territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban' to reflect that the Taliban controls no territory within Afghanistan, " U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in a statement published in the Federal Register.

The statement is a technical amendment to a presidential order which imposed sanctions against the regime.

The order, issued by former U.S. president Bill Clinton, had covered restrictions on property and transactions within the " territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban."

Armitage's statement means that the above description in the order was no longer valid.

The judgment was made despite the fact the U.S. troops are still hunting down remnants of the Taliban, including its leader Mohammad Omar.

U.S. Formally Announces Defeat of Taliban

War in Afghanistan (2001–present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Troop levels have been steadily INCREASING over the course of the entire Afghanistan conflict, which means BUSH WAS NOT IGNORING AFGHANISTAN...SOMETHING YOU LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO BULLSHIT AMERICA WITH!!!

Troop Levels in Afghanistan Since 2001 - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Care to do some MORE rewriting of historical fact!

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Wait until the media gives Obama a free pass on Iraq and Afghanistan. It is now 11 months with Obama in office, and now we are going to hear the short aversion of what he intends to do with our troops lives and our expansionist government policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. What took so long? When are we pulling out? When's the timetable ass holes? Oh, did I say aversion?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It doesn't matter at this point. This President has already blown it in Afghanistan. He will now approve a modest increase in troop levels but it wont be what was asked for. Another 30,000 troops in Afghanistan wont amount to any significant gains there. It's just a Half-Measure by this President for political reasons. This President has been shameful in his Half-Hearted approach to helping our kids out over there. This is just too little too late. How sad.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I'd like to hear what anyone agrees with Obama on actually. The massive deficit, 9000 earmarks, the ripoff stimulus that create no jobs, 15% real unemployment across our nation, worse for blacks, the massive foreclosures, the massive layoffs, the declining tax revenues, failed government programs, selling out to the health insurance industry and calling it healthcare "reform"???, millions of jobs lost to India and Asia without a whimper, handcuffinging the future of our children, or appointing more tax evaders?

I mean really, someone speak up. The good news keeps coming from this Democrat clown show. Someone let me know when the honesty begins, or if they figured out where all the TARP money went.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Troop levels have been steadily INCREASING over the course of the entire Afghanistan conflict, which means BUSH WAS NOT IGNORING AFGHANISTAN...SOMETHING YOU LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO BULLSHIT AMERICA WITH!!!

Actually the troop levels (per your link) have gone up and down during the Bush Administration. The most he ever had deployed there was about 34,000 (compared to a top level of 157,000 in Iraq - pretty clear where the priority was misplaced, huh?).
Under Obama, however, troop levels have doubled to 68,000 - a 100% increase in nine months.

The numbers are pretty clear that during the Bush Admin - Afghanistan was playing second fiddle to his bigger priority.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Wow, it looks like we DOUBLED our troops in Afghanistan since the lame Democrat administration came in, and our enemies relied on the cluster fuck they knew Obama would bring to the table. Isn't that just great. Any more good news?

Can we set a timetable for the day when a leader can step up and take responsibility for their administration?

Troop Levels in Afghanistan Since 2001 - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com