Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2009, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,693,227 times
Reputation: 9980

Advertisements

If it were truly like Vietnam we'd have Karzai shot and let the next guy step up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2009, 12:36 PM
 
3,292 posts, read 4,473,578 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnStockton View Post
Obama called this "the necessary war", while not believing an ounce of that. He just used it as a campaign talking point.

Unfortunately by doing so he painted himself in a corner and now that he's president he has to either:

1) go against his own premise that this is a necessary war and retreat, thus looking like a coward

or

2) stay and fight a war you know in your heart feel is wrong but forced yourself to support cause it was a cheap political point you could score on the campaign trail
To be fair if Obama said he was going to pull out of Afghanistan he never would have been elected. People already claim he's weak or whatever (which is bunk, quite frankly) and he's been pretty steadfast about plunking down there for the last couple years.

This is a case where the beef should be with the voting populace and less so with the people in charge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 12:38 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,911,536 times
Reputation: 4459
what i don't understand is why he is having so much trouble making a decision! he had access to the facts as a senator and access to the facts as the president. what is the problem with actually MAKING A DECISION?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 12:56 PM
 
3,857 posts, read 4,214,856 times
Reputation: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
what i don't understand is why he is having so much trouble making a decision! he had access to the facts as a senator and access to the facts as the president. what is the problem with actually MAKING A DECISION?

Circumstances CHANGE. Certainly you know that. Just like someone may decide to take their lunch break at 12 o'clock one day and then they decide to take their lunch break at 2 o'clock the next day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Arizona High Desert
4,792 posts, read 5,900,516 times
Reputation: 3103
What's that song ?
there's a man with a gun over there
telling me I've got to beware...
stop.. hey what's that sound ?
everybody look what's going down


pardon my rusty hippie brain
I recall the words....but I forget the name or the group...
It was a good song...some of the best music came from that era...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 02:13 PM
 
10,719 posts, read 20,294,643 times
Reputation: 10021
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
Obama apologists believe Afghanistan is the righteous and noble war. Well, as long as our leader says it is anyway (or until a Republican is in office, whichever comes first)
Please..don't play the party lines. I'm a Republican and if Bush was in office, we would probably doing the same thing. Obama is simply listening to his Secretary of Defense, who was the same one under Bush and his military council...which again was the same that was under Bush. I'm a Republican and this is the most comical and nonsensical type of arguing that I'm hearing from my own party. Now that a Democrat is President, we are suddenly denouncing the war and acting as if we would do things differently. Well, why didn't we pull out our troops and do things differently from 2000-2008. Don't worry, I'm not singling out Republicans, Democrats do this too. Now that a Democrat is President, Democrats are now justifying war when they ran on an anti-war campagin. Both sides are full of $#$#. I just ask you as a regular citizen to not drink the Kool Aid and fall prey to this partisan "sports team" mentality of when my party does it, it's good and when their party does it, it's bad. Regardless of how you vote, learn to think outside the box and to think for yourself instead of being told how you should think. Both parties are manipulative and you should learn to filter the B.S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 02:19 PM
 
10,719 posts, read 20,294,643 times
Reputation: 10021
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinkieMcGee View Post
To be fair if Obama said he was going to pull out of Afghanistan he never would have been elected. People already claim he's weak or whatever (which is bunk, quite frankly) and he's been pretty steadfast about plunking down there for the last couple years.

This is a case where the beef should be with the voting populace and less so with the people in charge.
I think that is a fair point if you are speaking with regard to Republican and conservative voters. However, he would not have received the Democratic nomination over Hillary if he did not keep reminding Democrats how he was opposed to the war from the very beginning as opposed to Hillary. That struck a chord with voters and he won the Democratic nomination because many Democratic voters truly believed Obama would put an end to the war and withdraw troops. Hillary made it clear that she was more open to continuing the war than Obama and she also made it clear that she wouldn't enter into conversations with opposition leaders. So you could argue, Obama wouldn't have even been in the general election if he didn't run an anti-war campaign. Right now, Obama is doing the very opposite of how he ran. He has not engaged in massive troop withdrawls from Iraq in August like he promised during his campaign among other things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,277,661 times
Reputation: 11416
peggy ann, that was "For What it's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield; it was written for the domestic turmoil of the late 60s/early 70s.

YouTube - Buffalo Springfield - For What Its Worth (good sound quality!)

Military members don't need any help becoming addicts, just like they don't need any help becoming alcoholics. They're going to do it on their own. If drugs are available, they'll do them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 02:37 PM
 
10,719 posts, read 20,294,643 times
Reputation: 10021
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
peggy ann, that was "For What it's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield; it was written for the domestic turmoil of the late 60s/early 70s.

YouTube - Buffalo Springfield - For What Its Worth (good sound quality!)

Military members don't need any help becoming addicts, just like they don't need any help becoming alcoholics. They're going to do it on their own. If drugs are available, they'll do them.
I disagree. The soldiers in Vietnam did it because they were psychologically affected from the war. They were depressed and sufferring from post traumatic stress disorder. Also the morale was low and the soldiers questioned the reason behind the war as opposed to WW II. People turn to some type of relief when depressed and unfortunately drugs is one of these things people find solace in. Many people who have never abused drugs will turn to drugs in these situations. The same situation applies in Afghanistan. Many soldiers question and disagree with the war despite their loyalty. I don't agree these soliders are predisposed to using drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,813,019 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
what i don't understand is why he is having so much trouble making a decision! he had access to the facts as a senator and access to the facts as the president. what is the problem with actually MAKING A DECISION?
Because, when you spend time listening to all sides, evaluating pros and cons, and the result of your decision has potential impact for years, if not decades to come, you better take time.

I hope the era of decisions based on gut feeling ended in 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top