WTF are they thinking sending in more troops? He must be drinking from the same Kool Aid as GW. This could be the nail in his coffin. There are some pissed liberals around tonight!
What's that? Change?!?He finally kept a campaign promise!
****ing stupid jackass war criminal.
And hope!What's that? Change?!?
The only dentist that will see you is Jang & Associates?After this news, I've officially downloaded Alex Jones' last 2 podcasts to listen to on my flight to San Francisco tomorrow.
oh jeez...that's a scary sight. i'm envisioning the weeping for the trees video from a-villeThere are some pissed liberals around tonight!
Not only that, but, who exactly thinks it's responsible to either (1) keep troop levels where they are, and let the situation continue to deteriorate, while our guys keep dying or (2) pull out completely, and allow the Taliban to re-establish control and give Bin Laden/Al Queda safe haven, from which to continue to plan and execute attacks?To be fair it takes a while to un-sink the Titanic.
I don't think either option is the way to go. Dubya should've finished this years ago instead of dicking (Cheney) around in Iraq.Not only that, but, who exactly thinks it's responsible to either (1) keep troop levels where they are, and let the situation continue to deteriorate, while our guys keep dying or (2) pull out completely, and allow the Taliban to re-establish control and give Bin Laden/Al Queda safe haven, from which to continue to plan and execute attacks?
agreed. i was rather surprised that he'd man up and take the advice of the commanders on the ground.I don't think either option is the way to go. Dubya should've finished this years ago instead of dicking (Cheney) around in Iraq.
I don't know if he'll succeed but at least Obama is trying to properly refocus the effort and has a plan forward for a end to this.
Yes, you were a vocal critic in the lead up to Iraq, I recall...agreed. i was rather surprised that he'd man up and take the advice of the commanders on the ground.
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the United States has not had good intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorist Osama bin Laden in years.
Gates made the comment in an interview to be aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
Asked whether he could confirm recent reports that bin Laden had been seen recently in Afghanistan, Gates said "no." Media reports late this week mentioned accounts of unconfirmed bin Laden sightings in recent weeks.
Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida, is believed to be hiding on the Pakistan side of the border with Afghanistan.
I think it's responsible to pull out.Not only that, but, who exactly thinks it's responsible to either (1) keep troop levels where they are, and let the situation continue to deteriorate, while our guys keep dying or (2) pull out completely, and allow the Taliban to re-establish control and give Bin Laden/Al Queda safe haven, from which to continue to plan and execute attacks?
Nah...seriously - we have so many domestic issues at the moment, why not leave Afghanistan and just beef up the intelligence over there? Terrorist attacks on US soil (which is what every one of these wars is based over) takes a sh!t ton of planning and it's pretty unlikely that we won't know about it.
yes, we have many domestic issues that need a resolution but pulling out in the hopes that we head off the next terror attack with local intel is a bit naive. look at it this way: if you're trying to keep ants out of your kitchen is it more effective to kill the few you can see, only to find more on your counter when you come back in the morning -or- follow their trail back to the mound and destroy them all? it may take longer and you might get a few ant bites on your ankles while you're destroying the mound but at least you'll know that the source has been destroyed.I think it's responsible to pull out.
Nah...seriously - we have so many domestic issues at the moment, why not leave Afghanistan and just beef up the intelligence over there? Terrorist attacks on US soil (which is what every one of these wars is based over) takes a sh!t ton of planning and it's pretty unlikely that we won't know about it.
I like how you compare the mud people to ants.yes, we have many domestic issues that need a resolution but pulling out in the hopes that we head off the next terror attack with local intel is a bit naive. look at it this way: if you're trying to keep ants out of your kitchen is it more effective to kill the few you can see, only to find more on your counter when you come back in the morning -or- follow their trail back to the mound and destroy them all? it may take longer and you might get a few ant bites on your ankles while you're destroying the mound but at least you'll know that the source has been destroyed.
or, we could just roll over and submit.
thank you, i figured you'd say something like that. if by "mud people" you mean, those who will stop at nothing until they kill more of us 'mericans' then yes...you are correct in my metaphor.I like how you compare the mud people to ants.
Apt comparison when looking at American foreign policy, actually.
Yes, there are so many of THEM.thank you, i figured you'd say something like that. if by "mud people" you mean, those who will stop at nothing until they kill more of us 'mericans' then yes...you are correct in my metaphor.
I'm not saying that stopping future attacks is not important. Bankrupting our country in order to pay for a war that MIGHT help ward off an attack when we have so many domestic issues to take care of is ludicrous. I doubt that the Pakistanis can just come out of left field and nuke us all without someone picking up on that. Grand scale attacks take time and resources and we should be able to ward them off based intelligence, not by continuing to occupy another country. Our foreign policy is half of this entire problem and until that changes, I can't imagine that throwing more troops in the region is going to be the end all cure all.How about if we start looking at this stuff rationally?
I agree that on a grand scale, terrorism isn't exactly our biggest problem, but on the other hand, it's one of the president's duties to protect the American people from, you know, being murdered by the thousands. Sure, future attacks are probably inevitable, but the scale and frequency of such things can drastically be reduced by removing these organizations' infrastructure. These people don't want to just be left alone. There is nothing we can give to them that will result in a truce.
Pulling out of Afghanistan in order to focus on our [many] domestic issues is not "submitting." Taking a step back and examining our foreign policy is a logical thing to do and if we keep on policing the world, we're never going to fix the root of the problem.or, we could just roll over and submit.
Not to mention it was our previous abandonment of Afghanistan once before that created the hostility toward our country in the first place. Im sure they'll love us even more if we do that again.
God, I wish I lived in your world where the choice was "win" or "submit". We've been "winning" for the past 8 years. Just like the Russians "won" for the 9 years that they were stuck in the quagmire in the 1980s. We also "won" for 10 years in Vietnam. We're not fighting a traditional war, we're fighting an insurgency and it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to put them down militarily. Just ask the British (Irish), Spain (Basques), Russia (Islamists), etc. The Germans tried for years to put down the resistance during WWII using FAR more harsh methods than we would ever use, and still weren't able to do it.or, we could just roll over and submit.
The army in Afghanistan can't, and the army and the intelligence services in Pakistan do control the country. The Pakistanis use Afghanistan as a safety valve.Until the army in Afghanistan and Pakistan can control there own countries were pretty much stuck there if we want to keep the extremists out of not only those countries, but ours.[/rant]
jesus makes everything black and white....no shades of gray.God, I wish I lived in your world where the choice was "win" or "submit"..
You can't seriously talk about stabilization of Afganistan, not with current leadership there and suspicious role of certain US agencies in drug trafficking. I'm sure you all catch the Eikenberry's opinion about current situation there:
..., but I think sending more troops and stabilizing that area was the right move.
Well, it's not like douche bags came there after Russians left. What goes around comes around, they say...We hung that country out to dry when the Russians finally pulled out and thats why it turned into such a cesspool breading ground for douche bags.
From a Marine commander discussing the "surge" that started this summer in Helmand province:Instead we'll keep dropping bombs on kids and family gatherings because you're afraid to "lose", whatever the hell that even means.
The rest of the article is hereLieutenant Colonel Christian Cabaniss leads the 2/8 battalion. He sent Golf Company into battle with orders to use restraint.
This is a big change since the spring. All U.S. forces in Afghanistan are now being told to protect civilians even if the enemy gets away. Over the last eight years, Afghans have been outraged by civilian deaths and it's a big reason the U.S. is not winning.
"Killing a 1000 Taliban is great but if I kill two civilians in the process, it's a loss," Lt. Col. Cabaniss said.
Asked how many enemies have been killed so far, Cabaniss said, "I have no idea and it's really irrelevant."
"Body counts not something that you track?" Pelley asked.
"It doesn't tell me that I'm being successful. It doesn't tell me that at all. The number of tips that I receive from the local population about IED's in the area, Taliban in the area, that is a measure of effectiveness," Cabaniss explained.
"You talk about restraint. What do you mean by that?" Pelley asked.
"As I told the Marines before we deployed, it's about a three second decision, especially with his personal weapon. The first second is 'Can I?' The next two are 'Should I?' 'What is going to be the effect of my action? Is it going to move the Afghan closer to the government or further away?'" he explained.
After two months, Golf Company reported zero civilians killed - a success - but at the cost of its seven Marines.
I can't decide if your being sarcastic or if your clinically obtuse.how exactly is Afghanistan linked to 9/11 events?
Yes, the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and yes that is a country under some draconian rule. That sure as sh1t doesn't mean we should invade them, although that was some of the logic for the Iraq debacle. Richard Reid (remember the shoe bomber?) was from England, John Walker Lindh was from the U.S. Clearly these are both terrorist countries. These people are nut jobs but the damage the can deal out is fairly limited unless they have a safe place to congregate and be trained like say, Afghanistan.Shouldn't you guys search for terrorists in Saudi Arabia, one of the most retarded countries in the world? Leaders in that country are the same as talibs only more corrupted
Yes you can. Lets face it, Afghanistan has been fvcked for governments since the beginning of time, but until the Russians pulled out and we abandoned them support wise it was always a stable enough place to at least keep the major crazies under wraps. Something it would start to seem like this country is having a hard time doing.You can't seriously talk about stabilization of Afghanistan, not with current leadership there and suspicious role of certain US agencies in drug trafficking. I'm sure you all catch the Eikenberry's opinion about current situation there:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111118432.html
Well, it's not like douche bags came there after Russians left. What goes around comes around, they say...
He going full tongue!!!Just to point out, the Bushes were pretty tight w/ the Saudi Arabians.
Now, Kiss him deep, with tongue.
I like how establishing a legitimate Afgani government and military "MIGHT help ward off an attack"... as if it's this completely nebulous concept. But if you let the Taliban re-establish control, and give safe haven to Al Queda (which more or less amounts to letting Bin Laden off the hook) as long as we "beef up intelligence" (meaning?) we'll be just fine. Truly convincing.I'm not saying that stopping future attacks is not important. Bankrupting our country in order to pay for a war that MIGHT help ward off an attack when we have so many domestic issues to take care of is ludicrous.
First off, no one said the Pakistanis were going to just nuke us. I was referring to the general security concerns surrounding Pakistan's nukes at the moment, and how those can only continue to degrade by vacating the region as-is. You think it's okay if some fringe group gets ahold of a nuclear weapon so long as somebody "picks up on it" ?I doubt that the Pakistanis can just come out of left field and nuke us all without someone picking up on that.
Which is exactly what they'll have plenty of once we vacate Afghanistan. How is this not making sense?Grand scale attacks take time and resources...
Our foreign policy is half of this entire problem and until that changes, I can't imagine that throwing more troops in the region is going to be the end all cure all.
Im not worried about Obama's personal politics so much, only that rational decisions are made... that's why I voted for him. What you're suggesting is the least rational choice possible.Why does the Obama administration insist on following the footsteps of GW? He's lost a huge chunk of his base now and unless he does something drastic, this could very well be the beginning of his end. I guess I really was a "sheeple" or whatever that douche called me a few posts back.