Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People would have thought that Authorities would have detained or arrested members of the Bin Laden family for questioning about his where-abouts. Another ball dropped by the previous administration.
I agree that the previous administration totally screwed up the situation in the Middle East and I was opposed to the Iraq war from the get-go. But I wasn't opposed to it because Bush pushed for it--I was opposed to it because it foolish and unnecessary. Now, I'm not going to support the war in Afghanistan just because Obama thinks we should send more troops there. Based on my understanding of the history and geography of the area, it's not a winnable war. Also, from what I understand, most of Al-Queda has left and gone to Pakistan. There's no reason to be there and there's no reason for a single American soldier to lose his or her life over there.
Because, you are wrong. But, I note you are stubborn in your opinion and thoughts, which are wrong headed. Where did you receive your brainwashing? so we can all stay away from it.
You keep harping, soldiers die. I already told you soldiers will die during the decision making process. and yet, you don't understand that.
Obama dithers? I think it's more like some people in this forum that dither, don't you?
Our dithering does not have mortal consequences. Obama's does.
I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize -- in an attempt to pre-empt, so to speak, the anticipated onslaught of lemming-liberal rage -- that I:
1. am not a fan of Dick Cheney
2. did not inspire or contribute to Mr. Cheney's remarks of last night
3. have more hair than Mr. Cheney
4. unlike Mr. Cheney, am a combat veteran of the Vietnam war
In a time warp are ya? Ten months is now the equivalent of eight years? After eight years with the only progress being the establishment of a corrupt, election stealing government it makes sense to consider all options before proceeding.
The twice fooled were those who elected George "I don't believe in using the military for nation building" Bush twice, well actually more like once and a half
To a rightist in their warp time frame, 1 week of a centrist like Obama equals 5 yrs of far -right rule, 10 if Pres. is mixed race or black.
this thread should be brought up every single day until obama makes a decision on afghanistan. after all, it was obama, not bush, who chose to escalate the action in afghanistan.
he needs to either provide the soldiers with additional support for their safety or call it a win and get the heck out! (still voting for calling it a win and getting the heck out....)
Come on people cut Obama some slack. He can't fight 2 wars at once, he needs to finish up his war with FOX. Although that is looking more like Viet Nam.
No, the strategy is to hold and keep a presence in the Afghanistan community so that locals know that we will not go away and vanish. By having a continual presence we can implement long-lasting humanitarian projects.
There was a time when the U.S. gave blankets to Afghans. When they went away, the Taliban came and ordered those Afghans to burn all of the blankets.
The Taliban want to say "We will be around while the U.S. will begone," and your post wants to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. No.
The Taliban in Afghanistan do a terrible job of governing their territories. Many locals would prefer to have other politicians... that is if they were not so corrupt.
While the US has to rely on the Karzai administration, it can influence that administration to punish warlords who become too venal or too greedy. No more of this kidnapping young children or cutting down orchard trees.
You said: "To protect the troops we already have there? " - No, to make sure the troops do not become overstressed, In Iraq the U.S. learned that having more troops actually makes things more peaceful since there is not as much pressure on any one individual soldier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
1.To do what? Kill the Taliban? Like there's a finite number and no recruitment?
2. To build a stable government in Afghanistan? Composed of whom?
3. To protect the troops we already have there? Why not protect them all, and bring them home?
4. Or to provide cover for a President who hasn't a clue...
So far, no one has seriously questioned number 4. But plenty of posters hate me for raising the point...
Weird.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
