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.
Congress should begin debate on civilian alternatives to a failed military-based approach to bringing peace and security to the region, starting with Congressional hearings Rethink Afghanistan
This is simple for me. It has nothing to do with what you think about the war (referring to Afghanistan). If the guy in charge says he needs X to do Y, give it to him. If you can't/won't, then shut it down. Either do it or don't. Anything else is a waste of time that will cost far more lives and money in the long-run. All the MM Quarterbacking, politics, etc. is b.s. The guy in charge is asking for more troops. He's in charge. He was put there for a reason. Maybe he knows something. Ya think?
Not exactly. He did help cover up the cause of Pat Tillman's death, attributed to friendly fire.
I know most Americans have very, very short memories.
i think one of the problems that obama has is his inability to prioritize. the big focus never seems to be on current events. right now we have americans dying in afghanistan and we have growing issues with pakistan. the health care insurance bill wouldn't even come into play (no matter which plan) until 2013!
the afghanistan / pakistan issue affects soldiers right now. he needs to either give them additional support or call it a win and pull them out of harm's way -one or the other. (although personally i favor the latter). this issue should be a primary focus right now, along with unemployment and the economy.
Oh wise one, if you were president, which would be your priority? Given the circumstances handed to you as they are.
economy?
jobs?
iraq?
afghanistan?
N. korea?
middle east?
It's very easy to sit in your den or study, and make decisions isn't it? When you have no facts before you. easy to judge.
Not exactly. He did help cover up the cause of Pat Tillman's death, attributed to friendly fire.
I know most Americans have very, very short memories.
Okay. Pat Tillman is a hero, but this has nothing to do with war strategy. He's in charge (fact). Maybe they should have addressed your issue with him a long time ago. But...since he's in charge (because someone put him there), they should do what he says. You are thinking with your heart (and that's fine), but many more Americans may be killed for lack of action any way you dice it. Do it or don't.
there is talk that obama is weeks away from making any decision on military operations. is that fair to leave the troops over there without a commitment either way?
Obama is showing himself to be what everyone feared: inexperienced, weak, and an off-the-chart left wing puppet to labor unions and far left interests.
If people are so "concerned" about the soldiers, why do you want them over there at all ? The US is trying to "save face." Obama will probably send some more troops. Experts say this war is not winnable. I believe them before I believe a warmonger who believes that more troops will make everything hunky dory. Even if a million troops went over, where does all this perpetual war money come from ? The US will end up looking more foolish the longer it beats this dead horse.
i think one of the problems that obama has is his inability to prioritize. the big focus never seems to be on current events. right now we have americans dying in afghanistan and we have growing issues with pakistan. the health care insurance bill wouldn't even come into play (no matter which plan) until 2013!
the afghanistan / pakistan issue affects soldiers right now. he needs to either give them additional support or call it a win and pull them out of harm's way -one or the other. (although personally i favor the latter). this issue should be a primary focus right now, along with unemployment and the economy.
It's not that Obama can't prioritize, but rather that he doesn't take a stand, on anything. He is a fence stradler.
He has a record of voting "present" as a Senator.
He can't even come out and say full force that he is for a public option, although various soundbites and videos from the past would prove otherwise.
He can't control Congress.
He slammed the previous administration for having no exit strategy for Iraq and said Afghanistan was the just war, and that was the one we were going to fight, and now he is wiggling around while fine young men and women in harm's way need more boots on the ground.
He has a weak, fence straddling foreign policy.
WHat he is finding out, is that issues such as closing Gitmo, the Afghanistan question, the economy can't be solved by pretty words and platitudes and the cult of his personality. He can't admit, although he is finding out, that his ideology doesn't fit so well in the real world. The surge in Iraq was an obvious success when you look at where they are today and he still can't admit that.
I forecast that Obama will give McCrystal less troops than what he requested and opt for the counter insurgency with drones. So in other words, not one or the other. Giving the Generals on the ground less of what they NEED to win, and just enough to make it look good and not miff the left. ANd he will phase those troops in over a period of time, which will mean more body bags coming home. Off the record, we need more than what McCrystal has even asked. A combination of troops and civilian forces to total 100K per year for 5 years. It's a long term commitment, and my take on it is if you're going to half a$$ it and hope, then do us all a favor and just pull ALL our troops out and get good with the fact that the Taliban and Al-Quiada will remain a prominent threat to our soil, and do all you can to prepare for another 9/11.
Worst of all though, is the affect a weak Commander In Chief has on the troops. I work with these guys every day in my career. I volunteer at the VA and with the Wounded Warrior project, and I have friends who are currently in the war theatre, so to speak. If you only knew.
Oh wise one, if you were president, which would be your priority? Given the circumstances handed to you as they are.
economy?
jobs?
iraq?
afghanistan?
N. korea?
middle east?
It's very easy to sit in your den or study, and make decisions isn't it? When you have no facts before you. easy to judge.
I'd work on my late night tv comedy routine, go tour Denmark, do the Sunday morning tv shows, have a beer with a couple guys, blah, blah, blah, . . . .
there is talk that obama is weeks away from making any decision on military operations. is that fair to leave the troops over there without a commitment either way?
Sure, seven + years with NO winning plan in place and he should have one in months, right?
have you forgotten that obama was in congress and privy to all the same information as all the other congressman before he became president?
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.
