Obama sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. Hooray for CHANGE!

[i,surfjac]

If the President who took us into Afghanistan had gotten it right the first time, we wouldn't be there now.
Let's review:
9/11 - 'nuff said!
Go after the guys responsible and the government harboring them.
Fail to ask the American people to make sacrifices in order to pay for the conflict. Borrow tons of money from China, squander a budget surplus and we're told to go shopping
Fail to use, enlist or otherwise engage the rest of the world in that effort.
Squander intelligence resources and allow for the escape of the man we're after whose capture or death would've ended this campaign. (Hmm, makes you wonder doesn't it?)
Take your bats and balls and go somewhere else to fight a war we didn't have to fight all the while borrowing more money from China while the body count sores and devastating injuries are incurred by the brave, loyal troops. Not to mention the damage done to the people of Iraq we went there to "liberate" (just don't get me started on that).
Allow the entities we're at war with in Afghanistan to gain strength and organization.

Did I leave anything out?
Any wonder why maybe we need a different approach?
As to the comment about people who supported Obama signing up, we'll see what the enlistment rate and retention rate is soon enough. Remember, the previous administration pretty much ruined the economy for now (another issue the new President must deal with) and that is going to be a factor in those rates. I think its sad but true.

Anyone with a knowledge of the game of RISK or Stratego might've waged that war better than the Bush Administration.
Never-served politicians/bureaucrats started/managed these wars, not warriors. The warriors followed orders which is what they do and they are to be applauded for that.

 

[srfdrnk66]

So, the anti-Obama crowd is mad because they thought his "change" meant he was going to "raise the white flag of surrender" and "cut and run" but Obama's "change" really meant refocusing efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah and excited about on Sept 12th, 2001, but now Afghanistan is considered a big waste of time and money?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/computer.gif" alt="" />

So how many more American boys is will have to die for nothing, die in some sh!thole country, die for the latest sh!thead president and the latest sh!thead cabal that surrounds him?

It's going to be so great that get to die for Obama's conceit and idiocy...
But it would have been really bad if they died for warmonger McCain's idiocy.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" />

efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah

What was the exact scientific method you used to determine "everyone" ??? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

 

[knice]

So, the anti-Obama crowd is mad because they thought his "change" meant he was going to "raise the white flag of surrender" and "cut and run" but Obama's "change" really meant refocusing efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah and excited about on Sept 12th, 2001, but now Afghanistan is considered a big waste of time and money?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/computer.gif" alt="" />

So how many more American boys is will have to die for nothing, die in some sh!thole country, die for the latest sh!thead president and the latest sh!thead cabal that surrounds him?

It's going to be so great that get to die for Obama's conceit and idiocy...
But it would have been really bad if they died for warmonger McCain's idiocy.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" />

efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah

What was the exact scientific method you used to determine "everyone" ??? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Probably the same one that you used to use a plural noun before the verb is.
What, did you miss the first day of school?

 

[srfdrnk66]

So, the anti-Obama crowd is mad because they thought his "change" meant he was going to "raise the white flag of surrender" and "cut and run" but Obama's "change" really meant refocusing efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah and excited about on Sept 12th, 2001, but now Afghanistan is considered a big waste of time and money?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/computer.gif" alt="" />

So how many more American boys is will have to die for nothing, die in some sh!thole country, die for the latest sh!thead president and the latest sh!thead cabal that surrounds him?

It's going to be so great that get to die for Obama's conceit and idiocy...
But it would have been really bad if they died for warmonger McCain's idiocy.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" />

efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah

What was the exact scientific method you used to determine "everyone" ??? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Probably the same one that you used to use a plural noun before the verb is.
What, did you miss the first day of school?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> Oh boy! The thin skinned Knice lady caught me on that one! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />That must have been SO satifying!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />You are brainy brainy ego bruise man!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />i aM biG #$!!@*&amp;?!! dUncE!



<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

 

[knice]

So, the anti-Obama crowd is mad because they thought his "change" meant he was going to "raise the white flag of surrender" and "cut and run" but Obama's "change" really meant refocusing efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah and excited about on Sept 12th, 2001, but now Afghanistan is considered a big waste of time and money?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/computer.gif" alt="" />

So how many more American boys is will have to die for nothing, die in some sh!thole country, die for the latest sh!thead president and the latest sh!thead cabal that surrounds him?

It's going to be so great that get to die for Obama's conceit and idiocy...
But it would have been really bad if they died for warmonger McCain's idiocy.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" />

efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah

What was the exact scientific method you used to determine "everyone" ??? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Probably the same one that you used to use a plural noun before the verb is.
What, did you miss the first day of school?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> Oh boy! The thin skinned Knice lady caught me on that one! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />That must have been SO satifying!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />You are brainy brainy ego bruise man!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />i aM biG #$!!@*&amp;?!! dUncE!



<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

That's it, embrace your inabilities after bearing them on the internets for all to see. You're undeveloped
Don't show us your t!ts... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/loser.gif" alt="" />

 

[Norm']

Is today opposite day. Everything you just said made no sense. Are you confusing Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Subway]

Well then, Awe, get those damn Normans on the ballot already! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/monkey.gif" alt="" />

The ballot ain't the answer, the 2 party system has a lock-down on that motherfooker.

All i can say is people need to wake up and get pissed.

+1

 

[GWS]

So, the anti-Obama crowd is mad because they thought his "change" meant he was going to "raise the white flag of surrender" and "cut and run" but Obama's "change" really meant refocusing efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah and excited about on Sept 12th, 2001, but now Afghanistan is considered a big waste of time and money?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/computer.gif" alt="" />

So how many more American boys is will have to die for nothing, die in some sh!thole country, die for the latest sh!thead president and the latest sh!thead cabal that surrounds him?

It's going to be so great that get to die for Obama's conceit and idiocy...
But it would have been really bad if they died for warmonger McCain's idiocy.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" />

efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah

What was the exact scientific method you used to determine "everyone" ??? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Probably the same one that you used to use a plural noun before the verb is.
What, did you miss the first day of school?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> Oh boy! The thin skinned Knice lady caught me on that one! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />That must have been SO satifying!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />You are brainy brainy ego bruise man!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />i aM biG #$!!@*&amp;?!! dUncE!



<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

That's it, embrace your inabilities after bearing them on the internets for all to see. You're undeveloped
Don't show us your t!ts... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/loser.gif" alt="" />

Bearing?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

 

[Kento]

So, the anti-Obama crowd is mad because they thought his "change" meant he was going to "raise the white flag of surrender" and "cut and run" but Obama's "change" really meant refocusing efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah and excited about on Sept 12th, 2001, but now Afghanistan is considered a big waste of time and money?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/computer.gif" alt="" />

So how many more American boys is will have to die for nothing, die in some sh!thole country, die for the latest sh!thead president and the latest sh!thead cabal that surrounds him?

It's going to be so great that get to die for Obama's conceit and idiocy...
But it would have been really bad if they died for warmonger McCain's idiocy.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" />

efforts on Afghanistan which everyone was rah rah

What was the exact scientific method you used to determine "everyone" ??? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Probably the same one that you used to use a plural noun before the verb is.
What, did you miss the first day of school?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> Oh boy! The thin skinned Knice lady caught me on that one! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />That must have been SO satifying!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />You are brainy brainy ego bruise man!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />i aM biG #$!!@*&amp;?!! dUncE!



<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

That's it, embrace your inabilities after bearing them on the internets for all to see. You're undeveloped
Don't show us your t!ts... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/loser.gif" alt="" />

Bearing?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

Vitus. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/monkey.gif" alt="" />

 

[jamesgang]

Hey HT, how did that war in Iraq go over for the Brits? And just out of curiosity, did you demand the same definition of victory and exit strategy in Iraq when President Bush invaded?

President Obama needs a more clearly defined exit strategy before his renewed commitment to Afghanistan, a strategy that includes Pakistan. I hope he has learned from his predecessor's mistakes. At this point, the Taliban are controlling towns less than three hours from Islamabad, and Pakistan is a nuclear armed nation. Think about it.

Me? I just want someone, anyone, to get Bin Laden. I dont' want Islamist extremists to have access to nuclear weapons. I'd like to see an administration that uses military force and strategic alliances to achieve those objectives. I want a plan.

 

[OG Lurker]

Bin Laden is dead. He was on his death bed years ago.

 

[toreador]

Hey HT, how did that war in Iraq go over for the Brits? And just out of curiosity, did you demand the same definition of victory and exit strategy in Iraq when President Bush invaded?

President Obama needs a more clearly defined exit strategy before his renewed commitment to Afghanistan, a strategy that includes Pakistan. I hope he has learned from his predecessor's mistakes. At this point, the Taliban are controlling towns less than three hours from Islamabad, and Pakistan is a nuclear armed nation. Think about it.

Me? I just want someone, anyone, to get Bin Laden. I dont' want Islamist extremists to have access to nuclear weapons. I'd like to see an administration that uses military force and strategic alliances to achieve those objectives. I want a plan.

the iraq war, despite the initial poor post war strategy which was corrected with the troop surge and general petraeus' anti-insurgency strategy, is looking like it has a great chance for long-term success, with the results being a liberated population operating under a popularly elected and functioning democratic republic government which allows for increasing prosperity for the citizenry, as well as establishing a hugely important cornerstone that changes the entire mideast regional power balance that is much more favorable to US security and trading interests.

there is nothing like this possible within afghanistan, where the taliban, unlike saddam's baath party apartheid rule, enjoys widespread popular support in a nation without the sort of institutions and infrastructure that provided the structural framework for a functioning government.

additionally, there are hundreds of thousands of square miles where pakistan and afghanistan meld, and the distinction between the nations is completely artificial and only exists on 4-color political maps. the more we try to move into these regions, the more dangerous pakistan becomes in response.

we cannot win in afghanistan. there is no win available.

we may have bin laden pinned down right now, but i'm skeptical about the reports and about our ability to get him even if we think we know he's in one of three locations.

if we can't get him within a few months, its time to back off and pull-out until he feels safe while we develop assets and he gets sloppy, and we get him with special ops or a drone without taking all the casualties in the meantime.

we can protect islamabad until we get out the small portion of the afghanistan population that will be in jeopardy when we pull out and it falls right back into taliban control.

 

[tyrez]

The Taliban had a choice. Turn over Bin Laden (like the Sudanese wanted to do but couldn't because Clinton wouldn't take Bin Laden)...

Just because you (and/or Sean Hannity) keep saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

Why do you hate the 9/11 Commission Report so much?

 

[LAisntsobad]

As always, the righht wingers of the 'erBB trying to point out how Obama is screwing up. Although personally I say we get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan today, Obama is not contradicting anything at all. He claimed Afghanistan throughout his campaign.

So again, can you neofails tell me what the problem is here?

 

[toreador]

As always, the righht wingers of the 'erBB trying to point out how Obama is screwing up. Although personally I say we get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan today, Obama is not contradicting anything at all. He claimed Afghanistan throughout his campaign.

So again, can you neofails tell me what the problem is here?

you can't be this dense. of course he's not contradicting his position during the campaign, its just that the democrat position of withdrawing support for the iraq war, while constantly beating the drums of war for our involvement in afghanistan, is a total contradiction and disconect in itself.

adding to the contradiction is the position of many democrats that the war on terror is some orwellian "endless war" as the bumper stickers i see all day on the 405 claim about the iraq war, which it isn't, but which the war in afghanistan is, or will be, especially if its a part of the larger war on terror strategy, which has tepid (at best) lip-service support among democrats.

the cost-benefit analysis just doesn't add up in afghanistan, especially if you can't concede that the iraq war may pay long-term benefits in terms of regional alignment and US security.

afghanistan has no impact on US security, and our involvement there threatens regional alignment and islamic attitudes towards the US infinitely more than our involvement in iraq does (and i'm not saying there are not potential negative impacts from our involvement in iraq).

the vast majority of the iraqi population did not support any of the insurgent factions, especially all the foreign fighters, and the baathists were a minority oppressive gov't, so the anti-insurgency troop surge was able to target the insurgents while gaining popular support for the action, even if the population prefered to have the US out as soon as possible.

in afghanistan, the population and the islamic extremists and their militias and the active terrorists are all intermingled within the tribal regions, and there are all sorts of regional tribal politics in play that we cannot even begin to untangle.

the US is just going to get caught up in it all and will end up being seen as foreign invaders targeting muslim civilians, which in a sense, would be necessary to actually 'win', but that is not tenable politically.

on top of that, are we really going to push pakistan into extremist hands? the militias and the terrorists just keep retreating across the border every winter, and come back stronger every summer, while stoking the islamist extremists and islamist moderates in pakistan against the US. are we going to follow the terrorists with real troop levels into pakistan?

to win in afghanistan means we would have to engage in a traditional ground war, actually take and hold real estate, destroy all their poppy fields, and punish the population, many of whom are still living as much in the 6th century as the 21st.

why? this ain't hitler's germany.

there is no war machine to defeat and dismantle, there is no rebuilding to be done, there is no real security or regional alignment payoff. as soon as we've 'won', it goes right back to where we started - a country of islamic poppy farmers supplying the west with its heroin and forming loosely connected tribal governments armed with AK-47s.

we could have easily prevented 9/11, and we don't need 50,000 troops to kill bin laden or prop up a puppet in a corrupt city masquerading as a president of a country hell-bent on killing him the second they get the chance.

 

[casa_mugrienta]

As always, the righht wingers of the 'erBB trying to point out how Obama is screwing up. Although personally I say we get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan today, Obama is not contradicting anything at all. He claimed Afghanistan throughout his campaign.

So again, can you neofails tell me what the problem is here?

you can't be this dense. of course he's not contradicting his position during the campaign, its just that the democrat position of withdrawing support for the iraq war, while constantly beating the drums of war for our involvement in afghanistan, is a total contradiction and disconect in itself.

adding to the contradiction is the position of many democrats that the war on terror is some orwellian "endless war" as the bumper stickers i see all day on the 405 claim about the iraq war, which it isn't, but which the war in afghanistan is, or will be, especially if its a part of the larger war on terror strategy, which has tepid (at best) lip-service support among democrats.

the cost-benefit analysis just doesn't add up in afghanistan, especially if you can't concede that the iraq war may pay long-term benefits in terms of regional alignment and US security.

afghanistan has no impact on US security, and our involvement there threatens regional alignment and islamic attitudes towards the US infinitely more than our involvement in iraq does (and i'm not saying there are not potential negative impacts from our involvement in iraq).

the vast majority of the iraqi population did not support any of the insurgent factions, especially all the foreign fighters, and the baathists were a minority oppressive gov't, so the anti-insurgency troop surge was able to target the insurgents while gaining popular support for the action, even if the population prefered to have the US out as soon as possible.

in afghanistan, the population and the islamic extremists and their militias and the active terrorists are all intermingled within the tribal regions, and there are all sorts of regional tribal politics in play that we cannot even begin to untangle.

the US is just going to get caught up in it all and will end up being seen as foreign invaders targeting muslim civilians, which in a sense, would be necessary to actually 'win', but that is not tenable politically.

on top of that, are we really going to push pakistan into extremist hands? the militias and the terrorists just keep retreating across the border every winter, and come back stronger every summer, while stoking the islamist extremists and islamist moderates in pakistan against the US. are we going to follow the terrorists with real troop levels into pakistan?

to win in afghanistan means we would have to engage in a traditional ground war, actually take and hold real estate, destroy all their poppy fields, and punish the population, many of whom are still living as much in the 6th century as the 21st.

why? this ain't hitler's germany.

there is no war machine to defeat and dismantle, there is no rebuilding to be done, there is no real security or regional alignment payoff. as soon as we've 'won', it goes right back to where we started - a country of islamic poppy farmers supplying the west with its heroin and forming loosely connected tribal governments armed with AK-47s.

we could have easily prevented 9/11, and we don't need 50,000 troops to kill bin laden or prop up a puppet in a corrupt city masquerading as a president of a country hell-bent on killing him the second they get the chance.

Finally, a voice of clarity.

HT is only saying what everyone else knows, but they are so deep in their hatred for Bush and love for Obama they will never admit it.

My how the tables have turned. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

 

[Fuller]

afghanistan has no impact on US security,

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />

I think the basic facts are: In Iraq we started a war based on what Dick Cheney thought he saw under his bed. In Afghanistan we walked away from the people who took out the Twin Towers.

President Obama sees the need to correct this situation and is using a mix of force and diplomacy. The fact that we cannot have a clear military "victory" in Afghanistan has been stated by Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke many times. I don't think we'll have a "Mission Accomplished" photo op any time soon.

As David Axelrod said the other day, "We're wearing short sleeves because we have to roll up our sleeves and clean up the mess that we inherited."

 

[dukdiv]

As David Axelrod said the other day, "We're wearing short sleeves because we have to roll up our sleeves and clean up the mess that we inherited."

Strange choice of words.
I wasn't aware that the Presidency could be inherited.

Seems some here on the erForum weren't so much antiwar as just antiBush.