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.
I have never thought that one is unwinnable, however I did not think the Vietnam one was unwinnable until the Democrat congress critters got started putting restrictions on what could be done and managed to lose it for the troops. I think the same thing will happen this time unless the Dems lose the House in November. I doubt that Congress could do that with just 6 months left of the control of Congress they have now. However, who knows what Nasty Nancy could get done to defeat them.
Very well said. BTW, I like the title of this thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
It is now the demoted General Petraeus who makes those comments, don't you think? Have you ever thought of the fact that Obama demoted Petraeus just because he could and because he hoped he could win this thing for him. He looks at Petraeus as a hero now but think how he talked about him in 2007.
Obama was most uncomplimentary of Petraeus. In fact, remember the "Betray Us" ad that Move On designed? When Congress voted to condemn that ad, Senator Obama abstained from voting. Now, he's got glowing words for Petraeus, because he needs him. I feel sorry for the General. The President asks you to take on a mission. You cannot refuse, so you take it on, knowing that your hands will undoubtedly be tied, and resources and men limited, in doing what has to be done. "New rules of engagement" will still be in place. Sheeesh. The General really is between a rock and a hard place.
Do you mean to suggest that he still thinks of Petraeus just as he did in 2007? Come on, he was against the General then and now supports him. After he carried out the Surge so successfully Obama and Biden learned that he was a winner so now they jump to the Bush man. Either he does feel that way or he is just as big a liar as many have called him.
Um no, I meant what I asked: How on earth would you or the Red State guy know how he feels?
(In real life.)
To me it's distressing that there are only these two choices in the whole Army. Did you consider that?!
Very well said. BTW, I like the title of this thread!
Obama was most uncomplimentary of Petraeus. In fact, remember the "Betray Us" ad that Move On designed? When Congress voted to condemn that ad, Senator Obama abstained from voting. Now, he's got glowing words for Petraeus, because he needs him. I feel sorry for the General. The President asks you to take on a mission. You cannot refuse, so you take it on, knowing that your hands will undoubtedly be tied, and resources and men limited, in doing what has to be done. "New rules of engagement" will still be in place. Sheeesh. The General really is between a rock and a hard place.
Petraeus could have turned the appointment down or he could talk the way that will cause the Senate to turn him down. I hate the part about him having to do a job that is relatively leaderless now for about 2 weeks while the Senate diddles around.
Um no, I meant what I asked: How on earth would you or the Red State guy know how he feels?
(In real life.)
To me it's distressing that there are only these two choices in the whole Army. Did you consider that?!
I imagine there are more generals who could do the trick but then Obama wants to look like he made a smart choice so people will stop comparing him to Abe Lincoln. He wants to take the top man from the start instead of waiting for many more to screw up.
Only an Obamabot would try to defend his decision when it is so obvious what he is trying to do. Well maybe he has buried one and now thinks the best way to avoid Petraeus in 2012 is to get his butt whipped and he does know that Congress can get that accomplished for him.
Roy, do yourself a favor and try to hide your glee a little. There are thousands of young men and women in the armed forces who deserve better than you trying to make this into a Bush vs. Obama thing. Frankly, whatever will get them home faster and safer is what I will support. Personally - and this is just me - I would have dropped a bomb on Afghanistan on the morning of 9/12/2001.
Even though Afghanistan had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC, you would enjoy causing pain to other families?
Why not the House of Saud where the terrorists came from and were funded by?
maybe he should use his brain before he said things like 'were gonna pull the troops out and bring em home' then goes and sends another 12k or so to the sandbox.
Do you believe you might be confusing Iraq with Afghanistan.
You might want to look at Obama's campaign statements because you're wrong.
I'm against the war, I'm against all wars.
But why make stuff up? How do you think that reflects on you and your credibility?
Even though Afghanistan had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC, you would enjoy causing pain to other families?
Why not the House of Saud where the terrorists came from and were funded by?
What is really won at the end of a gun barrel?
Chielgirl, with respect, from almost the outset, we were told that Bin Laden was hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan. It was also clear that the government of Afghanistan were not going to be of any help to us in locating him. To be honest, I was glad I was NOT Bush on that day, because I would have been VERY reactionary. And very happy to have released the planes that would have blown that area off the face of the map. Sorry - but one thing you will always get from me - either on a board like this or in a face-to-face is honesty.
However, no one, with perhaps the exception of Saddam Hussein, was more surprised than me when I heard we were going into Iraq. As furious as I was at the time, I was very much saying "What in the WORLD are we going there for? Bin Laden is not in Iraq. Isn't that who we hold responsible for this?". I did NOT support the US going into Iraq.
It is interesting that Obama's arch enemy during the Bush years is now his hero. Makes you wonder about the stability of this President. Is he a "changer" or a mentally disillusioned "dreamer?"
Maybe this is what he meant when he talked about Change!
I imagine there are more generals who could do the trick but then Obama wants to look like he made a smart choice so people will stop comparing him to Abe Lincoln. He wants to take the top man from the start instead of waiting for many more to screw up.
Only an Obamabot would try to defend his decision when it is so obvious what he is trying to do. Well maybe he has buried one and now thinks the best way to avoid Petraeus in 2012 is to get his butt whipped and he does know that Congress can get that accomplished for him.
This is all just your fantasy. How do you expect me to answer it?
So if we could win this war then Bush gets all the credit!
I am all for that.
Obama said the surge would never work and it did, he said Petraeus could not lead us to victory and now all of a sudden he says he can.
Obama is just plain stupid and confused.
Thanks to Bush we just might be able to win this and get our troops home.
Obama has two months to have our troops out of Iraq as he promised. Lets see if he was just lying to us. Afterall we need to be able to trust what he says right?
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.
BTW, I like the title of this thread!
