Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    George_1950's Avatar
    George_1950 Posts: 3,099, Reputation: 236
    Ultra Member
     
    #21

    Dec 2, 2009, 08:59 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    ...

    Obama said it all when he said the only country he is interested in developing is his own. A recognition of two things; America is in dire need of addressing its own internal problems, and Afghanistan is a backward society that resources should not be wasted on.
    Meaning no disrespect to you, nothing personal, but you must be living under a rock. If it weren't for the human costs of managing a war, I would much rather have President Dither's attention focused on Afghanistan than the 'internal problems' that Obama might want to face. He is only making those problems worse.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #22

    Dec 2, 2009, 09:56 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    Meaning no disrespect to you, nothing personal, but you must be living under a rock. If it weren't for the human costs of managing a war, I would much rather have President Dither's attention focused on Afghanistan than the 'internal problems' that Obama might want to face. He is only making those problems worse.
    No rocks here and I didn't crawl out to respond. You may not have observed but I have distinct impression all the rocks are on the other side of the pond. Your President has rightly discerned that there are many things requiring his attention and funding at home and that American money should not be wasted shoring up a regime of doubtful intent. This is a welcome change in foreign policy for the American government. He obviously couldn't say this and as a Nobel Peace Prize winner he could hardly set a course for an unending war. He is thus more discerning than his predecessor, one could even say more intelligent.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #23

    Dec 3, 2009, 11:45 AM

    Last month the propmaster snubbed the very troops he was visiting at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base. They had "parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hanger" for his visit and aides insisted they remove it and replace with an F-15 - even though two of the squadrons he praised during his visit both fly the F-22.

    "White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.
    All politics, all the time...
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #24

    Dec 3, 2009, 11:53 AM

    He hate the Raptor. Makes sense... it represents air superiority for the next 50 years.
    inthebox's Avatar
    inthebox Posts: 787, Reputation: 179
    Senior Member
     
    #25

    Dec 3, 2009, 11:58 AM

    I could see these Jihadists strategizing; lets get away from Afghanistan [ to the other "stans" ] until July 2011. While the Americans are committing time, money, lives, resources there [ and their economy is going to crapistan ] ; we will continue our jihad elsewhere.

    Great job POTUS for showing America's hand, I would want you to come to a poker game with me and my buddies. ;)


    G&P
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 38,517, Reputation: 5430
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #26

    Dec 3, 2009, 01:15 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by inthebox View Post
    While the Americans are committing time, money, lives, resources there
    That's what McChrystal wants and needs.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #27

    Dec 3, 2009, 03:02 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by inthebox View Post
    I could see these Jihadists strategizing; lets get away from Afghanistan [ to the other "stans" ] until July 2011. While the Americans are committing time, money, lives, resources there [ and their economy is going to crapistan ] ; we will continue our jihad elsewhere.

    Great job POTUS for showing America's hand, I would want you to come to a poker game with me and my buddies. ;)


    G&P
    They have already signaled they will help the Uyghers in China so no big news there that the Taliban will be left to fight it out. You have to take a long term view here, the Taliban (Pustun) have been there for centuries, and they aren't going anywhere, if they see the invader will leave, they may stop fighting and the war can end, who cares whether it ends on a wimper. The Taliban only ever took over because people like Kahzai were in charge anyway. Obama may be the one President who doesn't want to proclaim victory If the war ends in Afghanistan it might also end in Pakistan.

    It may not be a bad thing that a timetable has been set, after all if you can't train the Afghan army in eight years will you do any better in ten?
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #28

    Dec 3, 2009, 03:26 PM
    Clete you make it sound like the Pashtun are monolithic and 100 % behind the Taliban. This is just not true . The Taliban rule by fear. The population will however sit on the fence and cut the best deal with who they think is the winner. Karzai is also an ethnic Pashtun and yet he is losing support because he is perceived as weak.

    It may not be a bad thing that a timetable has been set, after all if you can't train the Afghan army in eight years will you do any better in ten?
    There was no serious attempt until now.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #29

    Dec 3, 2009, 11:02 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Clete you make it sound like the Pashtun are monolithic and 100 % behind the Taliban. This is just not true . The Taliban rule by fear. The population will however sit on the fence and cut the best deal with who they think is the winner. Karzai is also an ethnic Pashtun and yet he is losing support because he is perceived as weak.

    There was no serious attempt til now.
    Come on, Tom, eight years and no serious attempt, don't you guys ever fire incompetent bastards? Or are you so naiave as to believe in chestnuts. Yes, Kahzai is a Pustun and an opportunist who only fought the Taliban when he thought he could win. Obviously the population sit on the fence, would you do otherwise if you were among them? And They will stay on the fence no matter what the US do, because they have to live there once the US is gone. And get this the US will start to leave in eighteen months, added incentive to sit on the fence. There are no winners, history tells us that. As Imran Khan (Pakistan parliamentarian and one time nominee for President), said, these are a barbaric people. They don't understand modern methods and tactics, they are excellent guerilla fighters
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #30

    Dec 4, 2009, 03:16 AM
    They will stay on the fence no matter what the US do, because they have to live there once the US is gone. And get this the US will start to leave in eighteen months, added incentive to sit on the fence.
    Exactly.. the reason the surge worked in Iraq was because no artificial timeline was announced . The troops took towns and villages and remained to help the locals secure the are for themselves.The locals didn't need to sit on the fence .They knew they were secure in backing freedom from tyranny .
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #31

    Dec 4, 2009, 05:50 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Exactly ..the reason the surge worked in Iraq was because no artifical timeline was announced . The troops took towns and villages and remained to help the locals secure the are for themselves.The locals didn't need to sit on the fence .They knew they were secure in backing freedom from tyranny .
    And in Afghanistan the only way they know they are safe is if they sit on the fence. The day belongs to the americans the night to the Taliban, who do you think they have an alliegence too?
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #32

    Dec 4, 2009, 06:24 AM

    Don't know yet the surge hasn't begun. I just say the President put a big obstacle to the mission by stating a date certain for withdrawal. He did no favors to the troops he's sending .
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #33

    Dec 4, 2009, 06:33 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    don't know yet the surge hasn't begun. I just say the President put a big obstacle to the mission by stating a date certain for withdrawal. He did no favors to the troops he's sending .
    I think Obama had an each way bet, No winners here just placings
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #34

    Dec 4, 2009, 06:41 AM

    Yes . When I see him I see a horse's @$$ also. It sends a terrible message to the troops knowing the CIC is not committed to the action he is asking them to take.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #35

    Dec 7, 2009, 07:50 AM
    The administration was for defeating the Taliban before they were against it...

    In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a slide: "Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population."

    "Is that really what you think your mission is?" one of those in the Situation Room asked.

    On the face of it, it was impossible -- the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a significant part of the population. "We don't need to do that," Gates said, according to a participant. "That's an open-ended, forever commitment."

    But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, and it was enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan -- the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.

    "I wouldn't say there was quite a 'whoa' moment," a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. "It was just sort of a recognition that, 'Duh, that's what, in effect, the commander understands he's been told to do.' Everybody said, 'He's right.' "

    "It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent" of the NSC document, said Jones, who had signed the orders himself. "I'm not sure that in his position I wouldn't have done the same thing, as a military commander." But what McChrystal created in his assessment "was obviously something much bigger and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended."

    Whatever the administration might have said in March, officials explained to McChrystal, it now wanted something less absolute: to reverse the Taliban's momentum, deter it and try to persuade a significant number of its members to switch sides. "We certainly want them not to be able to overthrow the government," Jones said.

    On Oct. 9, after awaking to the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama listened to McChrystal's presentation. The "mission" slide included the same words: "Defeat the Taliban." But a red box had been added beside it saying that the mission was being redefined, Jones said. Another participant recalled that the word "degrade" had been proposed to replace "defeat."
    No wonder he never mentioned victory in his Afghanistan speech, he's only planning for a half-a$$ed effort.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #36

    Dec 7, 2009, 08:02 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    The administration was for defeating the Taliban before they were against it.

    No wonder he never mentioned victory in his Afghanistan speech, he's only planning for a half-a$$ed effort.
    Hello again, Steve:

    Couple things;

    Rumsfeld was a supporter of the Taliban before he was against them, too. Your point?

    Uhhh, there ain't no victory in Afghanistan. If there was, doncha think vice with all his brave talk and 5 deferments, or the dufus, (a wartime president who failed to understand the meaning of a "mission accomplished" banner), could have, in 8 years time, WON? Doncha?

    excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #37

    Dec 7, 2009, 08:11 AM

    Isn't it amazing that they gave the General a clear directive and then were confused when he set a strategy based on it ? In fact ;they had no clue that was in fact the policy that had come out of the March directive. Either that ;or they forgot it.

    Who are these clueless people running our foreign policy ?

    Over the weekend Evita and Gates were all over the news talk shows claiming the President couldn't have been more clear at the same time they had a difficult time explaining the policy.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #38

    Dec 7, 2009, 08:21 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Couple things;

    Rumsfeld was a supporter of the Taliban before he was against them, too. Your point?
    What's yours? Mine is relevant to the current situation.

    Tom made the point quite clear in his last post, I think you got it too.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #39

    Dec 7, 2009, 08:43 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    What's yours? Mine is relevant to the current situation.
    Hello again, Steve:

    If you're looking for me to support the peace prize winning war president, I don't.

    MY stratergy would have been to win in the first place. But the dufus got distracted, and he dithered for a LOT OF YEARS.. Could he have won?? Absolutely! I don't know if you get a second chance to win a war. Oh, I know militarily, you could win a war that you screwed up for 8 LONG years, and WASTED a lot of American boys... But, POLITICALLY, there's no second chance...

    That means only one thing.

    excon
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #40

    Dec 7, 2009, 09:01 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    But, POLITICALLY, there's no second chance...
    Then why is he even trying? Easy, it's all about Obama. His support was a means to an end and his "surge" is no different... election.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

The President's Cairo Speech [ 13 Answers ]

I have read it twice. Still can't find anything new and different in it. The White House - Press Office - Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6-04-09 I guess it is not as important what was said as who said it??

A President's Test [ 4 Answers ]

The LAPD, The FBI, and the CIA are all trying to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals. The President decides to give them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest and each of them has to catch it. The CIA goes in. They place animal informants throughout the forest. They...

Afghanistan [ 26 Answers ]

Let's say we were to go ahead with the Democrats idea of moving 150,000 troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan . Then we lose Pakistan's cooperation in the effort . Afghanistan is land locked with Pakistan and Iran owning the direct routes from the nearest ocean . Currently 75 percent of all...


View more questions Search