Democrats, Republicans & Independents Unite and Stop the Politicians from Trying to Make Fools Out of Us Again! (Iraq, Taliban)

[Danno3314]

Please people stop for a couple of minutes and lets all be friends on the same side (one side....our side) and honestly look at how we're all allowing ourselves to be manipulated by the politicians WE elect. They're in Washington to represent US (all of us) and do what's best for US, not them or the party (team) they belong to. They've got all of us all constantly distracted and arguing about petty details so that we all take sides over these petty details and represent them when we vote so, that they can continue in their careers and enjoy the power their positions allow them to have.

They constantly take polls so they can say the things we want to hear them say about issues we feel are popular. They're not doing their jobs any more...all their doing is working at keeping their job...and we're all falling for it too.

What's got me fired up is the decision to send more troops to Afghan and the accompanying committee report. Don't start trying to figure where I'm going with this and how you're going to defend your side and attack the other...we're not doing that for a few minutes...OK.

We're all aware that in the last election that the right is suppose to be the war mongers and the left was anti-war...especially with Obama, he reminded us often that he was one of the few that voted against invading Iraq all along...a war that had/has dragged on longer than we all want. There were two wars (along with a bunch of other problems that were starting to pop up) that Bush had us involved in but, then the surge really took hold and the casualties for our soldiers and their citizens are a fraction of what they had been....I think it dropped 90% in Iraq (I might be wrong but, the point is we're not hearing about big losses everyday....from either war).

Shortly after taking office, Obama had to send troops to Afghan but, he said that where the war was any way....finding Bin Laden and we didn't have casualties like there was in Iraq. It's seven months in office and McCrystal says we needed another 40,000 more troops (and Petraeus agrees). We can all imagine that was not something Obama wanted to be hearing. He's been tap dancing around this decision for 4 months. First it was that he wasn't going to rush over such a big decision and that were a lot of meeting that needed to take place. Then Kerry was over there and it was hold off until because the government has got corruption problem. Then he had three plans but, the all involved sending troops so, he said he wanted to see all new options.

So now he's finally going to have to do what didn't really want to have to do....send the troops over. Bingo! All of a sudden we've got multiple stories getting pumped to us in the media about Bush not finishing the job in 2001.....Rumsfield not sending enough troops in initially and we could have caught Bin Laden at Tora Bora if had sent more troops then....a Senate report by an all democratic committee that's critical of Bush not being able to catch Bin Laden in 2001.

Look at what this is....it's a bag of goodies for all of us to start munching on and fighting about like fools to distract from the decision that needed to be made. Think about what would have happened they didn't give toys to occupy us. On his side, he risks disappointing his anti-war supporters but, even more so he would have been leaving them with nothing to fight off his critics with, especially when it took all this time to decide what was inevitable. I don't think it's a bad decision...it's what the commanders needed....if Bush was in office, he would be doing it as well (probably wouldn't have taken as long to decide though). It's just that he had himself securely backed into a corner because, his campaign was not about having to do this. I can't help but, think politics played a role in lengthening this delay.

Don't allow them to get us to play their game for them with this bag of goodies. They're trying to make this sound like it's a factor in making this decision.....it's not. We don't know for sure if Bin Laden would have been easily caught....it's only now that they're 100% sure he was there and ready to get caught, if we only had the troops to do it with. This hasn't been that important up until (if it's even accurate) because, overall Afghan was very successful. We drove out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban without really any casualties for us. Catching Bin Laden would have been the icing on the cake but, we didn't catch....we're not even sure he's alive. In Afghan's history (1,000 of years), no occupier has ever had success their (like Russia learned).

They're trying to get us to fight over Bin Laden not being caught as the reason for being forced into making a decision that's not a popular one with their supporters. How much influence has Bin Laden been able to provide by not being caught....he hardly ever makes any announcements...he's a symbolic more than anything (if he really is at all) so, what's that got to do with him being caught. If he had been captured, I would think it would be much more for recruiting...he'd be more (at least in the media)....he's be a martyr....would have ha a trial...maybe executed or he'd be held at Super Max maybe.

These are petty details when you really look at what they're trying turn this into. None of this baloney factors into the decision to send more troops. It's all speculation that not catching Bin Laden allowed insurgence in Afghan. I can see how he helped it other than symbolically and catching him would change and possibly have made it worse.

DON'T LET THEM MAKES FOOLS OF OURSELVES AND MAKE THIS STUPID ARGUING AMONGST OURSELVES THE BASIS FOR HOW WE CHOOSE WHO WE'LL VOTE FOR.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER....THEY BOTH DO IT TO US.

DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!

DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!