Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam?

[Huh?]

Ever been out on the water Rabbi? Might wanna re-think that last statement..............

And, for the record, if we can't keep people coming over the southern border, what the fuck makes you think that we could take care of the Gulf?

Might wanna look into that a bit more dipshit.

I guess that last grease gun enema got into the brain.
If we could shoot people indiscriminately we'd have no problem policing the border here.

So is that the plan...we can keep the shipping lanes open by shooting people indiscriminately?

 

[The Rabbi]

Whatever works.

 

[Huh?]

Do you think that would?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Nope. I don't. Dead people tend to have relatives who kinda frown upon their indiscriminate killing.

 

[logical4u]

This is about the President's inability to make a difficult decision. He cannot say he wants to win the war, that leaves losing. Unfortunately, that means losing for the soldiers and the country: USA.
This will not be about the military being tied in knots by congress (or them using military monies for their own wish lists), but a total failure of the commander and chief. There is no other way to see it; the best trained troops, the best equipment, supply lines for thousands of miles, all perfected and in working order, the commander and chief: MIA, sad but true.
It is ametuer hour in the white house, and the world is watching, our enemies are becoming more daring and our allies are not as trusting, if he doesn't become a leader, SOON, it will hurt our nation and cost all of us.

 

[Huh?]

This is about the President's inability to make a difficult decision. He cannot say he wants to win the war, that leaves losing. Unfortunately, that means losing for the soldiers and the country: USA.
This will not be about the military being tied in knots by congress (or them using military monies for their own wish lists), but a total failure of the commander and chief. There is no other way to see it; the best trained troops, the best equipment, supply lines for thousands of miles, all perfected and in working order, the commander and chief: MIA, sad but true.
It is ametuer hour in the white house, and the world is watching, our enemies are becoming more daring and our allies are not as trusting, if he doesn't become a leader, SOON, it will hurt our nation and cost all of us.

Our allies what?

What do you base that on???

NATO: Military Chiefs Agree to Send More Troops to Afghanistan
Saturday, October 17, 2009

Brown to Send More British Troops to Afghanistan - Afghanistan ...
Oct 18, 2009 ... LONDON — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged Wednesday to send more troops to Afghanistan but only if NATO and the Afghan government ...
www.foxnews

Gates: NATO Moving Toward Sending More Troops For Afghan War
Oct 23, 2009

 

[namvet]

This is about the President's inability to make a difficult decision. He cannot say he wants to win the war, that leaves losing. Unfortunately, that means losing for the soldiers and the country: USA.
This will not be about the military being tied in knots by congress (or them using military monies for their own wish lists), but a total failure of the commander and chief. There is no other way to see it; the best trained troops, the best equipment, supply lines for thousands of miles, all perfected and in working order, the commander and chief: MIA, sad but true.
It is ametuer hour in the white house, and the world is watching, our enemies are becoming more daring and our allies are not as trusting, if he doesn't become a leader, SOON, it will hurt our nation and cost all of us.

this IS the bottom line. well said

 

[logical4u]

This is about the President's inability to make a difficult decision. He cannot say he wants to win the war, that leaves losing. Unfortunately, that means losing for the soldiers and the country: USA.
This will not be about the military being tied in knots by congress (or them using military monies for their own wish lists), but a total failure of the commander and chief. There is no other way to see it; the best trained troops, the best equipment, supply lines for thousands of miles, all perfected and in working order, the commander and chief: MIA, sad but true.
It is ametuer hour in the white house, and the world is watching, our enemies are becoming more daring and our allies are not as trusting, if he doesn't become a leader, SOON, it will hurt our nation and cost all of us.

Our allies what?

What do you base that on???


NATO: Military Chiefs Agree to Send More Troops to Afghanistan
Saturday, October 17, 2009

Brown to Send More British Troops to Afghanistan - Afghanistan ...
Oct 18, 2009 ... LONDON — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged Wednesday to send more troops to Afghanistan but only if NATO and the Afghan government ...
www.foxnews

Gates: NATO Moving Toward Sending More Troops For Afghan War
Oct 23, 2009

This is based on watching news clips of world leaders with Obama, their body language says it all, they want to crawl out of their skin when they are near him. His body language toward our allies is a lot different than his body language with American "enemies", he seems "comfortable" with them. Enemy leaders seem to be laughing at Obama/the USA.
This is also based on watching countries that have left their defenses to the USA since WWII, that are now building up their own defenses. The countries that are hostile towards the USA are teaming up with old enemies for arms and "military advice". Venuzuela, like Iran with enough oil to provide electricity, cheaply and relatively, cleanly, is now, also, talking about developing nuclear...."energy"at astronomical costs, explain that one.
This is based on Arab countries "demanding" the world (that means the USA) make up the difference in monies lost on "greening" the western world for lost revenues from oil sales.
This is based on our military being told to take bullets while their "commander and chief" "deliberates" his Afganistan stategy for months (all the while his energies are focused on taking over a HUGE chunk of our economy and most of our rights thru government control of citizen's healthcare that he wants done in "record" time). I see it as a simple decision: do we need to win? If not, we lose. Those are the only two options, delaying, the decision will just costs more lives, on both sides and not change the options.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, it's really not fair to make comparisons between 'Nam and Afghanistan.........

First, our technology is WAY better. I can guarantee you that things would have been different had we had Predators and Reapers back then.

Additionally, in 'Nam, the whole country was united under one cause........to get out the Americans. In Iraq, there are the Sunni, the Shia, the Taliban, Al Queda, and they all have a different agenda, depending on what their mullah or imam says. Some say go one way, some say go the other. They can't seem to agree on much other than they want to fight Americans.

Additionally, I don't really remember the Vietnamese sending out suicide bombers to kill their own people.

Nope........not a fair comparison.

 

[The Rabbi]

Additionally, in 'Nam, the whole country was united under one cause........to get out the Americans. In Iraq, there are the Sunni, the Shia, the Taliban, Al Queda, and they all have a different agenda, depending on what their mullah or imam says. Some say go one way, some say go the other. They can't seem to agree on much other than they want to fight Americans.

Mind wandering or just incoherent?

The basic dynamics are the same. Both countries have long histories of decimating invaders. In both cases the president is pressed to minimize troop involvement, and he then pressures his generals to scale back their requests. Public getting sick of war in both cases. No clear winning strategy in both cases.

 

[Huh?]

This is about the President's inability to make a difficult decision. He cannot say he wants to win the war, that leaves losing. Unfortunately, that means losing for the soldiers and the country: USA.
This will not be about the military being tied in knots by congress (or them using military monies for their own wish lists), but a total failure of the commander and chief. There is no other way to see it; the best trained troops, the best equipment, supply lines for thousands of miles, all perfected and in working order, the commander and chief: MIA, sad but true.
It is ametuer hour in the white house, and the world is watching, our enemies are becoming more daring and our allies are not as trusting, if he doesn't become a leader, SOON, it will hurt our nation and cost all of us.

Our allies what?

What do you base that on???


NATO: Military Chiefs Agree to Send More Troops to Afghanistan
Saturday, October 17, 2009

Brown to Send More British Troops to Afghanistan - Afghanistan ...
Oct 18, 2009 ... LONDON — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged Wednesday to send more troops to Afghanistan but only if NATO and the Afghan government ...
www.foxnews

Gates: NATO Moving Toward Sending More Troops For Afghan War
Oct 23, 2009

This is based on watching news clips of world leaders with Obama, their body language says it all, they want to crawl out of their skin when they are near him. His body language toward our allies is a lot different than his body language with American "enemies", he seems "comfortable" with them. Enemy leaders seem to be laughing at Obama/the USA.
This is also based on watching countries that have left their defenses to the USA since WWII, that are now building up their own defenses. The countries that are hostile towards the USA are teaming up with old enemies for arms and "military advice". Venuzuela, like Iran with enough oil to provide electricity, cheaply and relatively, cleanly, is now, also, talking about developing nuclear...."energy"at astronomical costs, explain that one.
This is based on Arab countries "demanding" the world (that means the USA) make up the difference in monies lost on "greening" the western world for lost revenues from oil sales.
This is based on our military being told to take bullets while their "commander and chief" "deliberates" his Afganistan stategy for months (all the while his energies are focused on taking over a HUGE chunk of our economy and most of our rights thru government control of citizen's healthcare that he wants done in "record" time). I see it as a simple decision: do we need to win? If not, we lose. Those are the only two options, delaying, the decision will just costs more lives, on both sides and not change the options.

Well crap...I just wrote out a long ass reply with a bunch of links and just as I was getting ready to post, the power went out...hate it when that happens...here we go again...

I'm curious about this body language...you got any links to some of these clips of which you speak?

Countries building up their military...you mean like Japan for instance?

JAPAN’S REVISED THREAT PERCEPTIONS AND MILITARY UPGRADATION PLANS: An Analysis

Introductory Background:

The Japanese government approved on December 10,2004, the following two documents covering new plans for Japan’s national security and defence planning:

* National Defense Planning Outline: It is a 10 year blue print, which provides guidelines and directions for up-gradation of Japan’s military capabilities.
* Military Defense Build up Plan (2005-2009): Lays down specific targets to be achieved over the next 5 years in terms of reorganization and acquisition of weapon systems and equipment.

They must have thought he was going to be a problem as a community organizer...who else?

Why is it so hard for some to understand that some countries prefer to have their resources to sell rather than suck up the profits...same idea as an alcoholic shouldn't own a bar.

As for Afghanistan...he has sent additional troops and appealed to others and making positive strides on that front (see links above)...I understand that a good bit of time is spent on trying to get it right...too bad it wasn't handled properly many years ago and wouldn't have needed to have been dumped on his plate.

I think you are not providing a very realistic view of the health plan but responding with unsubstantiated talking points...unless you've got something concrete to offer from the bills offered, of course, I'd like to take a closer look at that.

It's hard to find anything current but...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/world/europe/29iht-poll.html?_r=1&ref=world

About 80 percent of people in France, Germany, Italy and Spain have a positive view of Mr. Obama, a ratio that declines only slightly, to about 70 percent, in the other two countries surveyed, Britain and the United States. The only politician who comes close is Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who gets a positive rating from two-thirds of those in Continental Europe but from only one-third of Britons and Americans.

Ban Ki-moon, other UN leaders praise Obama over Nobel Peace Prize .:. newkerala.com Online News -128228

United Nations, Oct 10 : UN leaders have warmly praised the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama, with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon saying Mr Obama's commitment to work through the world body 'gives the world's people fresh hope and fresh prospects.' 'This is great news for President Obama, for the people of the United States, and for the United Nations,' he told newspersons yesterday, calling it 'a very wise decision,' and described the President's support for the world body as 'a great source of encouragement.' The UN Secretary General said, 'We are entering an era of renewed multilateralism, a new era where the challenges facing humankind demand global common cause and uncommon global effort.

President Obama embodies the new spirit of dialogue and engagement
on the world's biggest problems --climate change, nuclear disarmament and a wide range of peace and security challenges.'' The UN applauds him and the Nobel Committee for its choice, Mr Ban said, noting that he looks forward to deepening the US-UN partnership ''as a key building block to a better and safer world for all.'' Asked about comments from some that the Award was premature, Mr Ban replied, ''I wholeheartedly support it, as I said the Nobel Committee has made a very wise decision.'' He said from day one after his election, Mr Obama had shown extremely strong support for the UN in addressing all global challenges, including climate change, poverty and food security issues.

''That has given me a great source of encouragement,'' the Security General said, adding that, ''His own participation in the Climate Change Summit meeting at UN Headquarters last month, as well as the General Assembly’s General Debate, has also given great hope, in a renewed multilateralism.'' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said he could not think of anyone more deserving of the honour. Mr Obama’s work on nuclear disarmament was cited by the Nobel Committee.

''In less than an year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself,'' the head of the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog agency added.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

It is ALL ABOUT TOPOGRAPHY. Viet Nam had jungles and tunnels. Afghanistan has mountains and CAVES. Not even the BEST satelite and infrared imaging will let you know where and who are in those caves. They have the HOME ADVANTAGE and that can count for a lot.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

GAWD I just hope we don't start carpet boming IRAN thinking it will ready them for invasion.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Hey.........laying the blame for the fuck up at the feet of Obama is wrong. He didn't start it, but he's working on finishing it.

As soon as you find where I laid any such blame, please feel free to quote it back to us.

I ask again........did you ever serve MM?

It makes no difference at all who "served" and who didn't. It wouldn't be a part of my online identity regardless. And NOT serving does not disqualify one from opining, any more than it stops the President from being the CinC.

So, it's a tired old used up deflection, nothing more.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

GAWD I just hope we don't start carpet boming IRAN thinking it will ready them for invasion.

Why are you sweating that?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well hey Bush fought a war on TWO fronts why not outdue him and fight on THREE fronts? With Israels blessing of course.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

MM I just don't like fighting in certain terrain. It removes any tactical advantage of heavy armor large #s of troops. We need the RIGHT kind of troops in Afghanistan not MORE.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Well hey Bush fought a war on TWO fronts why not outdue him and fight on THREE fronts? With Israels blessing of course.

Booooosh didn't do anything Congress didn't fund and/or authorize.

The only thing I can see us doing, if anything, is bombing Iran's nuclear sites. Invasion's never been on the table from what I've seen.

And I seriously doubt we'll be the ones doing the bombing, it'll likely be Israel.

What happens after that? No one knows.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

MM I just don't like fighting in certain terrain.

Then don't.

It removes any tactical advantage of heavy armor large #s of troops. We need the RIGHT kind of troops in Afghanistan not MORE.

I'm thinking there is a big change coming. Obama's ordering up of more predator drones makes me hopeful he'll take a more automated strategy, pull out all but the drone support troops and their security, and let us bomb these subhumans from our comfortable consoles in Denver.

Much cheaper per head, run it like a business.

 

[Huh?]

GAWD I just hope we don't start carpet boming IRAN thinking it will ready them for invasion.

Surgical strikes on Iran would be one thing, although a piss poor way to try and solve the situation there and hopefully it will never come to that...but invasion would be totally insane.

If Obama decided to go that route he would be as big a screw up as that last one we had...we never should have gone into Iraq and we should not have put near as many boots on the ground as we did in Afghanistan.

We should have retaliated but with surgical strikes and covert operations specializing in targeted assassination...no way we should have taken the actions that we have to date which basically fits into the category as Powell put it..."you break it, you bought it"...and now we are stuck in the middle of a fucking mess...why our leaders can't seem to learn from the past is beyond me...hell, the crap going on over there has been going on since the time of Christ and to think we are going to go into the region and "fix" it is the most arrogant bone-headed bullshit that I've ever heard...hell, junior didn't even bother to listen to his old man...

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): 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.