Quantcast

Obama Disappoints

drkenan

anti-dentite
Oct 1, 2006
3,441
1
west asheville
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!
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
The problem is not Obama or America, but Afghanistan.

There is no South and North Korea or Vietnam. Everyone is a scumbag there.
 

drkenan

anti-dentite
Oct 1, 2006
3,441
1
west asheville
After this news, I've officially downloaded Alex Jones' last 2 podcasts to listen to on my flight to San Francisco tomorrow. :eek:
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
To be fair it takes a while to un-sink the Titanic.
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?
 

Dartman

Old Bastard Mike
Feb 26, 2003
3,911
0
Richmond, VA
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?
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.
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,212
17
Blindly running into cactus
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.
agreed. i was rather surprised that he'd man up and take the advice of the commanders on the ground.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
agreed. i was rather surprised that he'd man up and take the advice of the commanders on the ground.
Yes, you were a vocal critic in the lead up to Iraq, I recall...

However, Rumsfeld said the post-war troop commitment would be less than the number of troops required to win the war. He also said "the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."

Rumsfeld's comments came in response to a question about an estimate of post-war troop strength given in a congressional hearing Tuesday by the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shineski. Under questioning by lawmakers, Shineski offered the estimate that an occupying force might involve several hundred thousand U.S. troops.

In testimony Thursday before the House Budget Committee, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Shineski's estimate was "way off the mark," noting that other countries would take part in an occupying force and share the financial burden of helping Iraqis build a new government.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/sprj.irq.war.cost/
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,145
16,539
Riding the baggage carousel.
Speaking of W dropping the ball in Afghanistan to go show up daddy in Iraq......
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.
 

FlyinPolack

Monkey
Jul 16, 2007
371
0
What ever happened to "I'll have our troops out of Iraq six months after I'm in office"?

Are you sheeple all happy counting your spare "change" yet?
 

drkenan

anti-dentite
Oct 1, 2006
3,441
1
west asheville
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?
I think it's responsible to pull out. :D

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.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
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.

Just "beefing up" intelligence and leaving the country to, once again, descend into the dark ages, and allowing/ensuring a state sponsor of terrorist organizations to return to power is going to be good enough?

I think that's a pretty unrealistic assessment. Terrorist organizations are much more likely to become successful when they have a government who fully condones what they're doing, openly allows them to recruit and train, and are being bankrolled by an unimpeded black market for drugs.

Even if we knew what they were up to, with the Taliban back in power, we wouldnt be able to do anything about it until they left their own country. And how good has our intelligence been back in those tribal areas where this stuff goes down anyway? You don't think intelligence is "beefed up" now? You obviously can't just slap a beard and a turbin on a guy and tell him to go find out Bin Laden's next plan.

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.

And what about the deteriorating situation in Pakistan? F*ck it? As long as we beef up intelligence, it won't matter if they capture the Pakistani nukes.

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.
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,212
17
Blindly running into cactus
I think it's responsible to pull out. :D

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.

or, we could just roll over and submit.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
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.
I like how you compare the mud people to ants.

Apt comparison when looking at American foreign policy, actually.
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,212
17
Blindly running into cactus
I like how you compare the mud people to ants.

Apt comparison when looking at American foreign policy, actually.
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.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
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.
Yes, there are so many of THEM.

You'd think targeting the ones that "will stop at nothing blah blah blah" would be easier. We used to sell them missiles, after all...

Instead we'll keep dropping bombs on kids and family gatherings because you're afraid to "lose", whatever the hell that even means.
 

drkenan

anti-dentite
Oct 1, 2006
3,441
1
west asheville
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.
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.

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.
 

drkenan

anti-dentite
Oct 1, 2006
3,441
1
west asheville
or, we could just roll over and submit.
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.

Plus, if you don't agree with me on all issues I will hold this nice little red and black jacket for ransom.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,145
16,539
Riding the baggage carousel.
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.
:stupid:
Exactly. Its not exactly a huge secret that I lean pretty far left, but I think sending more troops and stabilizing that area was the right move. We hung that country out to dry when the Russians finally pulled out and that’s why it turned into such a cesspool breading ground for douche bags. And I'm not talking about Republicans. Read The Looming Tower, Against All Enemies, Where Men Win Glory, or watch at least the last 45 minutes of Charlie Wilson’s War for a brief history lesson of our fvck ups in that part of the world. Just like we hung out the Kurds after the first Iraq war, I'm still waiting for that to come back and bite us in the ass. 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. And I don't know how else you do that than overwhelming numbers of people and/or firepower. [rant]The thing that kills me about mouth breathers like Flyingpolak and even more intelligent Republicans like Manimal is this assertation that somehow the war in Iraq made us safer and that what ever ill might happen in Afghanistan (or the current economic situation) is somehow the fault of Obama. To call that bullsh1t doesn't even begin to do it justice, the word simply does not convey how false that is. If Bush and Emperor Palpatine had not wasted billions of dollars, thousands of American and coalition lives, and the good will of pretty much the entire world on a completely fabricated, bullsh1t, ego-centric war in Iraq, we'd have caught Osama, stabilized Afghanistan years ago, and the Military centered city I live in wouldn't have the crime or the highest suicide rate in the country because guys who’s minds have broken from their 4th tour would never have had to go on a second. Whats been done to the people who serve because of Bush and Iraq, is an even bigger act of terrorism and crime than 9/11 ever was. [/rant]
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
or, we could just roll over and submit.
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.

Face it, we live in a world of cheap AK47s and knowledge on how to build an explosive device can be found on the internet. As long as we're going to have vague criteria ("defeat the evil-doers"), we're never, ever going to leave...
 

Skookum

bikey's is cool
Jul 26, 2002
10,184
0
in a bear cave
This decision didn't disappoint me in the slightest. The fact that there is still an ongoing war there is what is truly disappointing.

It's ironic in that the problem derived from failing to support Afghanistan after our secret sponsored war against the USSR. There is a definite hangover for war, which will no doubt have negative repurcussions the longer we stay engaged, such is war.

Time will tell if this will be the right or wrong move, but the arguments against the "surge" are all fatalistic and resigned, which would be a relative repeat of the mistake of us abandoning that place after making a mess. Only this time the American people would be privy to the decision, and thereby co-signers.

Anyways, i'm not really here to talk politics, i just wanted to drop this cool .gif file off.

 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
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]
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.
 

bohorec

Monkey
Jun 26, 2007
327
0
Question to war mongers, how exactly is Afghanistan linked to 9/11 events? 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.
 

bohorec

Monkey
Jun 26, 2007
327
0
:stupid:
..., but I think sending more troops and stabilizing that area was the right move.
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:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111118432.html

We hung that country out to dry when the Russians finally pulled out and that’s why it turned into such a cesspool breading ground for douche bags.
Well, it's not like douche bags came there after Russians left. What goes around comes around, they say...
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Instead we'll keep dropping bombs on kids and family gatherings because you're afraid to "lose", whatever the hell that even means.
From a Marine commander discussing the "surge" that started this summer in Helmand province:

Lieutenant 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.
The rest of the article is here
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,145
16,539
Riding the baggage carousel.
how exactly is Afghanistan linked to 9/11 events?
I can't decide if your being sarcastic or if your clinically obtuse.

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, 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. :rolleyes: 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.

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...
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.




 
Last edited:

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
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 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.

And do you have some data or proof, suggesting that a 30,000 troop increase is going to bankrupt our country? I highly doubt you do, because it won't. Hyperbolizing your argument makes it less realistic, not more.


I doubt that the Pakistanis can just come out of left field and nuke us all without someone picking up on that.
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" ?

Grand scale attacks take time and resources...
Which is exactly what they'll have plenty of once we vacate Afghanistan. How is this not making sense?


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.
:confused:

Typical US foreign policy would involve us doing EXACTLY what you're suggesting. Leaving a bunch of people we dont care about high and dry and failing to deliver on promises. That, as has been pointed out, is why we have the problems there now.




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.
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.
 
Last edited:

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
The surge in Iraq worked at least in the sense of allowing a withdrawal. Obviously The Generals will want to try it in Afghanistan as they view it as a military success and Obama as a chance to extricate himself . The main problems of a surge here is that there's no guarantee it'll work and indeed suck the coalition deeper into the war, and also who's to say the surge in Iraq wasn't incidental to a natural calming of the situation and that festivities might again kick off following the full withdrawal.
It's sad that the fallback position always seems to be "when in doubt, kill more".