Obama looking for Afganistan Exit Strategy

[SenseCommon]

Take your time Obama. It's not like our soldiers are dying or anything. Give it another two months to really think this through.....

so is it your contention that U.S. soldiers are dying BECAUSE no decision on the additional troops has been made?

It is my contention that Obama's indecisiveness on the situation in Afghanistan, continues to be costly in many ways. Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, and continue to wait on Obama to send them much needed support.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Take your time Obama. It's not like our soldiers are dying or anything. Give it another two months to really think this through.....

so is it your contention that U.S. soldiers are dying BECAUSE no decision on the additional troops has been made?

It is my contention that Obama's indecisiveness on the situation in Afghanistan, continues to be costly in many ways. Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, and continue to wait on Obama to send them much needed support.

So you are suggesting that their officers led these men into positions in which they could not defend themselves without an additional 40,000 troops and that they led them there not knowing whether they would get the extra 40,000 or not?

I don't buy it.

 

[Si modo]

so is it your contention that U.S. soldiers are dying BECAUSE no decision on the additional troops has been made?

It is my contention that Obama's indecisiveness on the situation in Afghanistan, continues to be costly in many ways. Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, and continue to wait on Obama to send them much needed support.

So you are suggesting that their officers led these men into positions in which they could not defend themselves without an additional 40,000 troops and that they led them there not knowing whether they would get the extra 40,000 or not?

I don't buy it.

S/he is not suggesting that in the least. Time is critical for that help for those already there and BHO doesn't give a shit enough to decide whether to give them the help they need or to get them safe. They are doing the best that they can given the incompetence.

 

[SenseCommon]

so is it your contention that U.S. soldiers are dying BECAUSE no decision on the additional troops has been made?

It is my contention that Obama's indecisiveness on the situation in Afghanistan, continues to be costly in many ways. Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, and continue to wait on Obama to send them much needed support.

So you are suggesting that their officers led these men into positions in which they could not defend themselves without an additional 40,000 troops and that they led them there not knowing whether they would get the extra 40,000 or not?

I don't buy it.

You don't buy it? More like you refuse to identify the truth, because it reflects negatively upon your savior.

The truth is, American soldiers are dying everyday in Afghanistan. The truth is, more American soldiers are needed, so that the soldiers we already have there can get the support they truly need. Obama's indecisiveness on the matter is proving very costly. Take off your partisan hat for a moment, and realize that lives our being lost, because they are not being properly supported!

 

[rightwinger]

Take your time Obama. It's not like our soldiers are dying or anything. Give it another two months to really think this through.....

so is it your contention that U.S. soldiers are dying BECAUSE no decision on the additional troops has been made?

It is my contention that Obama's indecisiveness on the situation in Afghanistan, continues to be costly in many ways. Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, and continue to wait on Obama to send them much needed support.

How many of the additional 40,000 soldiers will be killed?

Will they be getting additional support or be expanding their mission?

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is my contention that Obama's indecisiveness on the situation in Afghanistan, continues to be costly in many ways. Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, and continue to wait on Obama to send them much needed support.

So you are suggesting that their officers led these men into positions in which they could not defend themselves without an additional 40,000 troops and that they led them there not knowing whether they would get the extra 40,000 or not?

I don't buy it.

You don't buy it? More like you refuse to identify the truth, because it reflects negatively upon your savior.

The truth is, American soldiers are dying everyday in Afghanistan. The truth is, more American soldiers are needed, so that the soldiers we already have there can get the support they truly need. Obama's indecisiveness on the matter is proving very costly. Take off your partisan hat for a moment, and realize that lives our being lost, because they are not being properly supported!

No - I don't buy it because I don't think McChrystal is stupid enough to send his folks into positions where they cannot protect themselves without reinforcements that he is not certain will arrive.

My hat is not the issue in spite of what you might like to project. You see "my savior" appears to be poised to make a decision that I disagree with. But if you feel the need to paint an extremeist picture of anyone who holds an opinion that is different than your own, knock yourself out.

The troops in Afghanistan are receiving far more support than they have over the previous six years. I just wonder why you are so commited to your rhetoric that you feel the need to twist the facts so much in order to support it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is my contention that Obama's indecisiveness on the situation in Afghanistan, continues to be costly in many ways. Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, and continue to wait on Obama to send them much needed support.

So you are suggesting that their officers led these men into positions in which they could not defend themselves without an additional 40,000 troops and that they led them there not knowing whether they would get the extra 40,000 or not?

I don't buy it.

S/he is not suggesting that in the least. Time is critical for that help for those already there and BHO doesn't give a shit enough to decide whether to give them the help they need or to get them safe. They are doing the best that they can given the incompetence.

I typically prefer to hear what "he/she is suggesting" from the person themself rather than through an interpreter. But in regards to your position - well - the facts clearly don't support it.

Even though I strongly disagree with the decision I believe he is about to make - allowing the mission to creep into areas not included in the original objective - it's clear that his failure to immediately rubber-stamp McChrystal's preferences without weighing other points of view is costing nothing in spite of what the let's-find-something-to-whine-about crowd says.

I appreciate a deliberate effort rather than simply busting in with guns blazing and ask questions LATER approach. I guess that goes along with my policy of extending far more respect to message board posters who weigh the facts and consider alternate points of view rather than thoses who just spout off the same tired old, disproven lines over and over.

 

[Si modo]

So you are suggesting that their officers led these men into positions in which they could not defend themselves without an additional 40,000 troops and that they led them there not knowing whether they would get the extra 40,000 or not?

I don't buy it.

S/he is not suggesting that in the least. Time is critical for that help for those already there and BHO doesn't give a shit enough to decide whether to give them the help they need or to get them safe. They are doing the best that they can given the incompetence.

I typically prefer to hear what "he/she is suggesting" from the person themself rather than through an interpreter. But in regards to your position - well - the facts clearly don't support it.

Even though I strongly disagree with the decision I believe he is about to make - allowing the mission to creep into areas not included in the original objective - it's clear that his failure to immediately rubber-stamp McChrystal's preferences without weighing other points of view is costing nothing in spite of what the let's-find-something-to-whine-about crowd says.

I appreciate a deliberate effort rather than simply busting in with guns blazing and ask questions LATER approach. I guess that goes along with my policy of extending far more respect to message board posters who weigh the facts and consider alternate points of view rather than thoses who just spout off the same tired old, disproven lines over and over.

What do you mean the facts don't support it?

Obama has been briefed on Afghanistan consistently from last November and he has had a year to figure out a strategy, as he now says he needs to do. I find no apology suitable for that sort of negligence. I find no apology suitable for his ignoring the time-critical pleas of those in harms way for help.

 

[nodoginnafight]

S/he is not suggesting that in the least. Time is critical for that help for those already there and BHO doesn't give a shit enough to decide whether to give them the help they need or to get them safe. They are doing the best that they can given the incompetence.

I typically prefer to hear what "he/she is suggesting" from the person themself rather than through an interpreter. But in regards to your position - well - the facts clearly don't support it.

Even though I strongly disagree with the decision I believe he is about to make - allowing the mission to creep into areas not included in the original objective - it's clear that his failure to immediately rubber-stamp McChrystal's preferences without weighing other points of view is costing nothing in spite of what the let's-find-something-to-whine-about crowd says.

I appreciate a deliberate effort rather than simply busting in with guns blazing and ask questions LATER approach. I guess that goes along with my policy of extending far more respect to message board posters who weigh the facts and consider alternate points of view rather than thoses who just spout off the same tired old, disproven lines over and over.

What do you mean the facts don't support it?

Obama has been briefed on Afghanistan consistently from last November and he has had a year to figure out a strategy, as he now says he needs to do. I find no apology suitable for that sort of negligence. I find no apology suitable for his ignoring the time-critical pleas of those in harms way for help.

"he has had a year to figure out strategy" And during his time in office he has committed at least 20,000 more U.S. troops, negotiated 30,000 troops from Pakistan, and has also negotiated a higher level of support and participation from other allies including Russia.

The suggestion that he has twittled his thumbs on Afghanistan for 10 months is clearly not supported by the facts.

The suggestion that McChrystal's request is a "time-critical plea from those in harms way for help" is clearly not supported by the facts (certainly nothing you've submitted supports that claim) and reeks of a purely emotional appeal for a rubber stamp.

If you have anything of substance to offer to support these claims, I'm more than willing to listen and consider. But if all you do is repeat the same claims that are not only unsupported but are also clearly in conflict with the evidence, then you can't really expect that to persuade anyone.

 

[Si modo]

I typically prefer to hear what "he/she is suggesting" from the person themself rather than through an interpreter. But in regards to your position - well - the facts clearly don't support it.

Even though I strongly disagree with the decision I believe he is about to make - allowing the mission to creep into areas not included in the original objective - it's clear that his failure to immediately rubber-stamp McChrystal's preferences without weighing other points of view is costing nothing in spite of what the let's-find-something-to-whine-about crowd says.

I appreciate a deliberate effort rather than simply busting in with guns blazing and ask questions LATER approach. I guess that goes along with my policy of extending far more respect to message board posters who weigh the facts and consider alternate points of view rather than thoses who just spout off the same tired old, disproven lines over and over.

What do you mean the facts don't support it?

Obama has been briefed on Afghanistan consistently from last November and he has had a year to figure out a strategy, as he now says he needs to do. I find no apology suitable for that sort of negligence. I find no apology suitable for his ignoring the time-critical pleas of those in harms way for help.

"he has had a year to figure out strategy" And during his time in office he has committed at least 20,000 more U.S. troops, negotiated 30,000 troops from Pakistan, and has also negotiated a higher level of support and participation from other allies including Russia.

The suggestion that he has twittled his thumbs on Afghanistan for 10 months is clearly not supported by the facts. ....

OBAMA now says the reason he cannot give those in harms way the time critical help they need is because he hasn't a strategy. He has had not ten months, but over a year to figure one out. He has been consistently briefed since he won the election - that is a year.

.... The suggestion that McChrystal's request is a "time-critical plea from those in harms way for help" is clearly not supported by the facts .(certainly nothing you've submitted supports that claim) and reeks of a purely emotional appeal for a rubber stamp. ....

That is clearly bullshit. I cannot count how many times I have posted a link to McChrystal's recommendations where he clearly states on several occasions that time is critical. I'll post it again, only for it not to be read again most likely.

.... If you have anything of substance to offer to support these claims, I'm more than willing to listen and consider. ....

I doubt it at this point. But maybe you will actually read the information presented to you rather than post bullshit denial of facts.

 

[nodoginnafight]

OBAMA now says the reason he cannot give those in harms way the time critical help they need is because he hasn't a strategy.

Link to quote

Pure BS

The fact that he may want to revise or review strategy is clearly not saying there never was one. Just one more example of you twisting sooooo hard to promote a discredited theory. Why?

As to your time-critical point. Clearly another BS stretch.
McChystal wants to expand the insertion of U.S. troops into Taliban controlled territory much like the Iraq surge. I'm sure he'd like to begin those new insertions as soon as possible.
But to suggest that failing to extend the mission in this way immediately is "ignoring the pleas of those in harms way for support" like there is some outpost being overrun and the commander is diddling over the decision to send reinforcements is just pure overblown, overstated, fear-mongering, emotional appeal bull$hit. And I've always given you credit for being someone who is intelligent enough to spot that kind of bull$hit when it smacks you in the face.

 

[California Girl]

I have it on good authority that the new strategy for Afghanistan will be this:


1. Run away
2. Hide
3. Apologize

In that order.

 

[saveliberty]

There was a day when the king rode out with the troops into battle. Perhaps modern leaders would be more committed to the war and understand the implications better if we returned to that concept.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have it on good authority that the new strategy for Afghanistan will be this:


1. Run away
2. Hide
3. Apologize

In that order.

You're forgetting
4. Blame Bush.

 

[Si modo]

OBAMA now says the reason he cannot give those in harms way the time critical help they need is because he hasn't a strategy.

Link to quote

Pure BS

The fact that he may want to revise or review strategy is clearly not saying there never was one. Just one more example of you twisting sooooo hard to promote a discredited theory. Why?

As to your time-critical point. Clearly another BS stretch.
McChystal wants to expand the insertion of U.S. troops into Taliban controlled territory much like the Iraq surge. I'm sure he'd like to begin those new insertions as soon as possible.
But to suggest that failing to extend the mission in this way immediately is "ignoring the pleas of those in harms way for support" like there is some outpost being overrun and the commander is diddling over the decision to send reinforcements is just pure overblown, overstated, fear-mongering, emotional appeal bull$hit. And I've always given you credit for being someone who is intelligent enough to spot that kind of bull$hit when it smacks you in the face.

You again and obviously did not read the link to McChrystal's recommendations, or you are now deliberately lying about it.

 

[CMike]

news.outlookindia.com | World Can't afford a Taliban Win in Afghanistan: Obama

The liberal golden calf Obama

"The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked."

"We have a shared responsibility to act -- not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends on it. What's at stake at this time is not just our own security; it's the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security."

 

[Maple]

I have it on good authority that the new strategy for Afghanistan will be this:


1. Run away
2. Hide
3. Apologize

In that order.

I just wish that Obama would run away, hide and apologize to the American people for being such a screw up on Afghanistan, the economy, the bailouts, the no stimulus stimulus bill the Omnibus bill, the health care take over, the cap and trade plan etc. He has only been President for 10 months, but it would take me all day long to post the things that he needs to apologize to the American people for, but I think that this is sufficient.

 

[Maple]

news.outlookindia.com | World Can't afford a Taliban Win in Afghanistan: Obama

The liberal golden calf Obama

"The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked."

"We have a shared responsibility to act -- not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends on it. What's at stake at this time is not just our own security; it's the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security."

Too bad that Obama rarely means what he says. Another example of " the empty vessel."

 

[nodoginnafight]

OBAMA now says the reason he cannot give those in harms way the time critical help they need is because he hasn't a strategy.

Link to quote

Pure BS

The fact that he may want to revise or review strategy is clearly not saying there never was one. Just one more example of you twisting sooooo hard to promote a discredited theory. Why?

As to your time-critical point. Clearly another BS stretch.
McChystal wants to expand the insertion of U.S. troops into Taliban controlled territory much like the Iraq surge. I'm sure he'd like to begin those new insertions as soon as possible.
But to suggest that failing to extend the mission in this way immediately is "ignoring the pleas of those in harms way for support" like there is some outpost being overrun and the commander is diddling over the decision to send reinforcements is just pure overblown, overstated, fear-mongering, emotional appeal bull$hit. And I've always given you credit for being someone who is intelligent enough to spot that kind of bull$hit when it smacks you in the face.

You again and obviously did not read the link to McChrystal's recommendations, or you are now deliberately lying about it.

Oh I read it, but your characterization of what it contains leads me to believe that you have not. On the Time-critical element that you describe like a unit being over run and suffering heavily casulaties while waiting for help from a dithering commander - McChrstal describes it very differently:
" ... but I believe the short-term fight will be decisive. Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) ..."
Paints a very different picture than you did - did you do that deliberately or was it a case of just not understanding what you read?

Did you understand that the overwhelming emphasis was a recommendation to change the strategy and approach? Do you understand that McChrystal was ASKING the president to review strategy? Are you aware that the main emphasis of your link is asking for a review of strategy and NOT a "plea for help from those in harm's way" as you describe?

"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

 

[Si modo]

Link to quote

Pure BS

The fact that he may want to revise or review strategy is clearly not saying there never was one. Just one more example of you twisting sooooo hard to promote a discredited theory. Why?

As to your time-critical point. Clearly another BS stretch.
McChystal wants to expand the insertion of U.S. troops into Taliban controlled territory much like the Iraq surge. I'm sure he'd like to begin those new insertions as soon as possible.
But to suggest that failing to extend the mission in this way immediately is "ignoring the pleas of those in harms way for support" like there is some outpost being overrun and the commander is diddling over the decision to send reinforcements is just pure overblown, overstated, fear-mongering, emotional appeal bull$hit. And I've always given you credit for being someone who is intelligent enough to spot that kind of bull$hit when it smacks you in the face.

You again and obviously did not read the link to McChrystal's recommendations, or you are now deliberately lying about it.

Oh I read it, but your characterization of what it contains leads me to believe that you have not. On the Time-critical element that you describe like a unit being over run and suffering heavily casulaties while waiting for help from a dithering commander - McChrstal describes it very differently:
" ... but I believe the short-term fight will be decisive. Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) ..."
Paints a very different picture than you did - did you do that deliberately or was it a case of just not understanding what you read?

Did you understand that the overwhelming emphasis was a recommendation to change the strategy and approach? Do you understand that McChrystal was ASKING the president to review strategy? Are you aware that the main emphasis of your link is a review of strategy and NOT a "plea for help from those in harm's way" as you describe?

"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

Your apologies certainly are inconsistent with your claim of non-partisanship.

A military commander has asked for resources (help) for those on the ground (in harms way) and has said several times that time is critical. Yeah, that's what I call a plea for timely help for those in harms way.