I thought Afghanistan was the "good war"???

[Intense]

So more than doubling the number of U.S. troops there from about 30,000 to about 68,000 in nine months is not "much attention" in your opinion? Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but just what would it take for you to be satisfied with the amount of "attention" - a nuclear strike? And just how much time does Obama spend on Afghanistan each day?

Not trying to be a smart ass (maybe it just comes naturally - sorry) But I'm just really trying to figure out what evidence you weighed to arrive at the conclusion that Afghanistan "doesn't get much attention" from Obama.

I think there is ample evidence available to question things about this POTUS - but I haven't seen any evidence to support THAT complaint.

Obama is in the dog house on Afghanistan. He should say nothing rather than undermine the success of the Mission. Everything He says has consequence. The two things He can do as CIC, is first, get the best minds to honestly evaluate circumstances 24/7/365, and Second, listen to that advice. It is His place to make the tough decisions in a timely manner. It is not a show, it does not need to involve the public at every level, but it needs to be done. The third thing again is to keep his mouth shut until he is Sure of what to say.

There are many who are trying to put Obama in the doghouse over Afghanistan because it's a tough nut to crack and ANYTHING he says or does will draw criticism. He just got the request for more troops - kneejerk and timely are two different things.

Agreed. He's seeing the flip side of the coin. Much easier to criticize than lead. In that way he now has more in common with Bush and Clinton, than either of us. Knee jerk criticism now effects him the same way it did the others. Need to develop a thick skin quick, to sustain.

 

[PI2]

How did a "goat herder's child" get into your "OP" completely undetected???!!! Who set up that Claymore??!!

Now you wonder why I question the validity of your claims???!!! With statements like that!!!???

Right, Big Bad MOFO gonna slap that clacker on a kid. Not SOP to set claymores on a trip you are showing your ignorance squidward.

 

[PI2]

There is nothing left to accomplish in Afghanistan the original mission was compromised long ago.
What is the Mission now?
Why are we there?

If these questions can not be answered then we are betraying our Troops.

 

[Intense]

There is nothing left to accomplish in Afghanistan the original mission was compromised long ago.
What is the Mission now?
Why are we there?

If these questions can not be answered then we are betraying our Troops.

If anything compromised the mission, it was those bullshit cease fires, that aided escape and resupply. Let's include the International Community, so we can show cooperation. Which side are you fighting on today Ahmed? ... Oh I don't know, ... whats on the menu? I hate meatloaf.

See you at Prayer. Check out those new rocket launchers.

 

[PI2]

There is nothing left to accomplish in Afghanistan the original mission was compromised long ago.
What is the Mission now?
Why are we there?

If these questions can not be answered then we are betraying our Troops.

If anything compromised the mission, it was those bullshit cease fires, that aided escape and resupply. Let's include the International Community, so we can show cooperation. Which side are you fighting on today Ahmed? ... Oh I don't know, ... whats on the menu? I hate meatloaf.

See you at Prayer. Check out those new rocket launchers.

No disagreement there.

 

[Intense]

When I look at the UN Universal Declaration of Rights, at least they give lip service to human rights. The Iraqi Constitution does no such thing. Considering what we went through there, I find that very disappointing.




PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.


http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Anyone who voted for Obama thinking he was going to end the war in Afghanistan is a moron.

But how about the one in Iraq?

There is only one war... Iraq and Afghanistan are simply two fronts in that war.

What few want to admit; or perhaps 'fail to realize' is that the Ideological Left are proponents of the enemy of the US; thus are the enemy of the US. They live here... as Americans; but they represent the pure antithesis of America.

Afghanistan was to them; what Iraq was... those who declared that 'Afghanistan is a righteous war', were rationalizing such as a means to avoid being recognized as promoting the interests of those who attacked us; our enemy.

The BOY King is no different... he was lying, just as the rest lied... and now is merely going about doing the absolute minimum which can be expected of him, so as to undermine to the extent that is possible, the US mission against his Muslim and ideological brothers.

 

[Intense]

Anyone who voted for Obama thinking he was going to end the war in Afghanistan is a moron.

But how about the one in Iraq?

There is only one war... Iraq and Afghanistan are simply two fronts in that war.

What few want to admit; or perhaps 'fail to realize' is that the Ideological Left are proponents of the enemy of the US; thus are the enemy of the US. They live here... as Americans; but they represent the pure antithesis of America.

Afghanistan was to them; what Iraq was... those who declared that 'Afghanistan is a righteous war', were rationalizing such as a means to avoid being recognized as promoting the interests of those who attacked us; our enemy.

The BOY King is no different... he was lying, just as the rest lied... and now is merely going about doing the absolute minimum which can be expected of him, so as to undermine to the extent that is possible, the US mission against his Muslim and ideological brothers.

"The Jihad that some say Isn't" will be Followed by " The Emperor Has No Clothes". Please turn off your cell phones during the show.

 

[Huh?]

Anyone who voted for Obama thinking he was going to end the war in Afghanistan is a moron.

But how about the one in Iraq?

There is only one war... Iraq and Afghanistan are simply two fronts in that war.

What few want to admit; or perhaps 'fail to realize' is that the Ideological Left are proponents of the enemy of the US; thus are the enemy of the US. They live here... as Americans; but they represent the pure antithesis of America.

Afghanistan was to them; what Iraq was... those who declared that 'Afghanistan is a righteous war', were rationalizing such as a means to avoid being recognized as promoting the interests of those who attacked us; our enemy.

The BOY King is no different... he was lying, just as the rest lied... and now is merely going about doing the absolute minimum which can be expected of him, so as to undermine to the extent that is possible, the US mission against his Muslim and ideological brothers.

Considering that we managed to replace a government in Iraq that, as pathetic as it was actually, was a stabilizing buffer in the region with one that more closely is allied with our bigger enemy in the region...granted, it took a couple of wars over about a decade and a half to do it...looks like we've failed miserably.

 

[Si modo]

But how about the one in Iraq?

There is only one war... Iraq and Afghanistan are simply two fronts in that war.

What few want to admit; or perhaps 'fail to realize' is that the Ideological Left are proponents of the enemy of the US; thus are the enemy of the US. They live here... as Americans; but they represent the pure antithesis of America.

Afghanistan was to them; what Iraq was... those who declared that 'Afghanistan is a righteous war', were rationalizing such as a means to avoid being recognized as promoting the interests of those who attacked us; our enemy.

The BOY King is no different... he was lying, just as the rest lied... and now is merely going about doing the absolute minimum which can be expected of him, so as to undermine to the extent that is possible, the US mission against his Muslim and ideological brothers.

Considering that we managed to replace a government in Iraq that, as pathetic as it was actually, was a stabilizing buffer in the region with one that more closely is allied with our bigger enemy in the region...granted, it took a couple of wars over about a decade and a half to do it...looks like we've failed miserably.

Yeah, that's right. The Middle East was stable all the while Hussein was in power. Although a popular talking point, thinking persons know better.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is nothing left to accomplish in Afghanistan the original mission was compromised long ago.
What is the Mission now?
Why are we there?

If these questions can not be answered then we are betraying our Troops.

Actually, the original mission in Afghanistan was accomplished... just as the orignal mission in Iraq was accomplished; which was to destroy the governments of the respective nations; in the wake of that successful execution; the mission became to establish free elections so as to establish new governments; in the wake of those successes... the mission became to sustain those freely elected governments; defending them from their natural enemies, until such time that they are able to sustain themselves...

And that is where we were until the Muslims managed to get one of their own elected as the US CinC and began to undermine the US mission.

There is nothing surprising about these turn of events... the resurgence of the theological Islamists in Afghanistan was a certainty, once they were shut down in Iraq.

Now all that's happened is that the application of the system which was successful in Iraq, is being prevented by the Muslim which sits in the office of the US Presidency.

I stated two years ago, at the outset of the Hussein's popularity; that were he to be elected, the US Left would quickly surrender their "Afghanistan is the just war" farce and that US forces in Afghanistan would be hit with absurd Rules of Engagement and the mission which they are tasked with, would be diffused and their means to effectively destroy our enemy would be undermined.

Which is all that COULD happen; thus it shouldn't come as a surprise that it is all that HAS HAPPENED.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I didn't brag. I gave you my opinion based on my personal experience, and you then asked me to clarify.

You haven't done shit, have you?

What branch, unit, MOS, etc.?

11A, 3rd BDE 25th ID, July 2002-July 2005

We might have overlapped if you were at Shkin/Paktika Province in the Spring of '04. I was at Shkin for the first month or two of my deployment before moving up to Orgun-E. I think an element from 2nd Bat was there as well.

Were you at Harriman?
I was out of 'stan in mid march '03. We diverted to N. Iraq days before "shock and awe".
But it's quite possible that elements of 2nd bat were in your area at the time you stated.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

But how about the one in Iraq?

There is only one war... Iraq and Afghanistan are simply two fronts in that war.

What few want to admit; or perhaps 'fail to realize' is that the Ideological Left are proponents of the enemy of the US; thus are the enemy of the US. They live here... as Americans; but they represent the pure antithesis of America.

Afghanistan was to them; what Iraq was... those who declared that 'Afghanistan is a righteous war', were rationalizing such as a means to avoid being recognized as promoting the interests of those who attacked us; our enemy.

The BOY King is no different... he was lying, just as the rest lied... and now is merely going about doing the absolute minimum which can be expected of him, so as to undermine to the extent that is possible, the US mission against his Muslim and ideological brothers.

Considering that we managed to replace a government in Iraq that, as pathetic as it was actually, was a stabilizing buffer in the region with one that more closely is allied with our bigger enemy in the region...granted, it took a couple of wars over about a decade and a half to do it...looks like we've failed miserably.

Uh... No... We haven't failed anywhere.

That our efforts to provide for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, some means to exist as a free people, may be rejected... is not a failure of ours; nor can a valid argument for such be made.

We did not go there to guarantee anything to anyone; except that the regimes which were in power at the onset would be destroyed... and on that guarantee we have performed 100%.

The choice is theirs to make; clearly there is disagreement within their culture... with some adhering to the opportunity and some rejecting it; as there are in our culture.

What must inevitably come of it, is that the war will turn inward in the US... where we, the Americans, will destroy you, the anti-Americans... the humanist Left in your entirety and then busy ourselves destroying your anti-American allies around the world.

Think in terms of shadows of glass...

Once you idiots start the war... it will not end until there is no desire on the part of anyone to so much as utter a Leftist notion; and leftism will be extinct; and that will simply be: that.

 

[Huh?]

There is only one war... Iraq and Afghanistan are simply two fronts in that war.

What few want to admit; or perhaps 'fail to realize' is that the Ideological Left are proponents of the enemy of the US; thus are the enemy of the US. They live here... as Americans; but they represent the pure antithesis of America.

Afghanistan was to them; what Iraq was... those who declared that 'Afghanistan is a righteous war', were rationalizing such as a means to avoid being recognized as promoting the interests of those who attacked us; our enemy.

The BOY King is no different... he was lying, just as the rest lied... and now is merely going about doing the absolute minimum which can be expected of him, so as to undermine to the extent that is possible, the US mission against his Muslim and ideological brothers.

Considering that we managed to replace a government in Iraq that, as pathetic as it was actually, was a stabilizing buffer in the region with one that more closely is allied with our bigger enemy in the region...granted, it took a couple of wars over about a decade and a half to do it...looks like we've failed miserably.

Yeah, that's right. The Middle East has been stable all the while Hussein was in power. Although a popular talking point, thinking persons know better.

I didn't say the Middle East had been stable...I said Saddam was a stabilizing buffer which goes to why as poppy Bush wrote..."While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

There is a reason that the "guideline" was set as it was and had we not agreed we would not have been allowed to base on Saudi soil to launch the first attack.

As to "thinking persons know better"...what fool in their right mind think we are going to go in and stabilize a region that has been in a state of flux since before the time of Christ?

Look at what we have now...a couple of governments that are no more friendly to us than what we had, in fact, quite the opposite...unless you happen to appreciate Muslim rule of law in Iraq and a major increase in opium production in Afghanistan.

 

[Huh?]

There is only one war... Iraq and Afghanistan are simply two fronts in that war.

What few want to admit; or perhaps 'fail to realize' is that the Ideological Left are proponents of the enemy of the US; thus are the enemy of the US. They live here... as Americans; but they represent the pure antithesis of America.

Afghanistan was to them; what Iraq was... those who declared that 'Afghanistan is a righteous war', were rationalizing such as a means to avoid being recognized as promoting the interests of those who attacked us; our enemy.

The BOY King is no different... he was lying, just as the rest lied... and now is merely going about doing the absolute minimum which can be expected of him, so as to undermine to the extent that is possible, the US mission against his Muslim and ideological brothers.

Considering that we managed to replace a government in Iraq that, as pathetic as it was actually, was a stabilizing buffer in the region with one that more closely is allied with our bigger enemy in the region...granted, it took a couple of wars over about a decade and a half to do it...looks like we've failed miserably.

Uh... No... We haven't failed anywhere.

That our efforts to provide for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, some means to exist as a free people, may be rejected... is not a failure of ours; nor can a valid argument for such be made.

We did not go there to guarantee anything to anyone; except that the regimes which were in power at the onset would be destroyed... and on that guarantee we have performed 100%.

The choice is theirs to make; clearly there is disagreement within their culture... with some adhering to the opportunity and some rejecting it; as there are in our culture.

What must inevitably come of it, is that the war will turn inward in the US... where we, the Americans, will destroy you, the anti-Americans... the humanist Left in your entirety and then busy ourselves destroying your anti-American allies around the world.

Think in terms of shadows of glass...

Once you idiots start the war... it will not end until there is no desire on the part of anyone to so much as utter a Leftist notion; and leftism will be extinct; and that will simply be: that.

Oh bullshit...go in search of more windmills.

 

[Intense]

Considering that we managed to replace a government in Iraq that, as pathetic as it was actually, was a stabilizing buffer in the region with one that more closely is allied with our bigger enemy in the region...granted, it took a couple of wars over about a decade and a half to do it...looks like we've failed miserably.

Yeah, that's right. The Middle East has been stable all the while Hussein was in power. Although a popular talking point, thinking persons know better.

I didn't say the Middle East had been stable...I said Saddam was a stabilizing buffer which goes to why as poppy Bush wrote..."While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

There is a reason that the "guideline" was set as it was and had we not agreed we would not have been allowed to base on Saudi soil to launch the first attack.

As to "thinking persons know better"...what fool in their right mind think we are going to go in and stabilize a region that has been in a state of flux since before the time of Christ?

Look at what we have now...a couple of governments that are no more friendly to us than what we had, in fact, quite the opposite...unless you happen to appreciate Muslim rule of law in Iraq and a major increase in opium production in Afghanistan.

You're off to a good start, but maybe on the wrong track. The best stabilizing Force in the Middle East was The Shah of Iran. We should have supported Him. We will be paying for Carter's Blunder for years to come.

 

[Contumacious]

The best stabilizing Force in the Middle East was The Shah of Iran. We should have supported Him. We will be paying for Carter's Blunder for years to come.

HUH?

The shah was a US puppet and murderous dictator. The US deposed the duly elected Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq and installed the scumbag as a prime minister. for shame.

 

[Intense]

The Shah was Stabilizing and did allot of positive. He was Murderous? Compared to Who? Mao? Lenin? Pol Pot? Kim Jong Il? Saddam Hussein? Arafat? He Modernized Iran. He was a stabilizing force. Technology, Education, welcome to the Modern World.

 

[Si modo]

Yeah, that's right. The Middle East has been stable all the while Hussein was in power. Although a popular talking point, thinking persons know better.

I didn't say the Middle East had been stable...I said Saddam was a stabilizing buffer which goes to why as poppy Bush wrote..."While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

There is a reason that the "guideline" was set as it was and had we not agreed we would not have been allowed to base on Saudi soil to launch the first attack.

As to "thinking persons know better"...what fool in their right mind think we are going to go in and stabilize a region that has been in a state of flux since before the time of Christ?

Look at what we have now...a couple of governments that are no more friendly to us than what we had, in fact, quite the opposite...unless you happen to appreciate Muslim rule of law in Iraq and a major increase in opium production in Afghanistan.

You're off to a good start, but maybe on the wrong track. The best stabilizing Force in the Middle East was The Shah of Iran. We should have supported Him. We will be paying for Carter's Blunder for years to come.

For some, history seems to start at the point in time the most convenient to their current talking point. You've just challenged the temporal comfort zone of many.

 

[Douger]

Anyone who voted for Obama thinking he was going to end the war in Afghanistan is a moron.

But how about the one in Iraq?

How about the one with China we....er...you have been losing for 15 years.?
It doesn't take glassy eyed, undereducated, brainwashed, adolescents with heavy equipment, to wage war.
China knew they couldn't overpower the Mpyre militarily so they took all your manufacturing and customers and loaned you money so you idiots could live like rock stars while buying all their junk to clutter your borrowed houses with.
Check Mate.
Now the Middle Beast dumps the dollar for oil and you now have Yugoslavia with empty McMansions.
Also known as the former Amurkastan.

OOOOo now you're mad ! Run over to Walmart and get you a nice flag to wave. The Chinese ones are cheaper and you get a 5% discount if you use VISA.

Idiocracy.