# Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam?



## bao (Oct 24, 2009)

-- U.S. President Barack Obama says the war in Afghanistan isn't going to end up like Vietnam. A majority of Americans don't agree and don't want to get in any deeper, but even they don't like the alternative.

"Younger Americans, who probably learned about the Vietnam war only through textbooks don't necessarily see quite the same parallels," said CNN polling director Keating Holland. "But for older Americans they're really starting to get a little bit of a sense of deja vu."

Our newest CNN Opinion Research poll finds that a majority of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan and think it's turning into another Vietnam, the most divisive and painful defeat in modern American history.


Rather this operation is to capture osama or to help the people of this country i have to wonder if the sacrifice of our soldier's life & thier family's loss of thier brother,sons,fathers are really worth getting osama or helping this country restore it's peace & human rights


----------



## Modbert (Oct 24, 2009)

Did everyone suddenly forget who was running this war for almost eight years?


----------



## bao (Oct 24, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Did everyone suddenly forget who was running this war for almost eight years?



Im not cutting down one president it both of them


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 24, 2009)

Much like the jungles of Viet Nam the hills and caves of Afghanistan will give the enemy a distinct advantage.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 24, 2009)

Make no mistake the same type of terrain will make a war with IRAN very costly both in lives and fortune.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 24, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Did everyone suddenly forget who was running this war for almost eight years?


That has.... What to do with what the CnC does now? Nothing. Nothing stops Obama from prosecuting this war any way he sees fit.

You're a indiscriminate imbiber and regurgitator of WH talking point kool-aid. Try to focus. It's been almost a year since we hired Obama for the job. How many bosses do you think would put up with you bitching and whining about how bad your predecessor was for a year after you took the job, especially when you got hired on your glowing promises to fix everything, and nothing at all has been fixed yet?

Not very damn many. So why do you?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 24, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Did everyone suddenly forget who was running this war for almost eight years? That has.... What to do with what the CnC does now? Nothing. Nothing stops Obama from prosecuting this war any way he sees fit.
> 
> You're a indiscriminate imbiber and regurgitator of WH talking point kool-aid. Try to focus. It's been almost a year since we hired Obama for the job. How many bosses do you think would put up with you bitching and whining about how bad your predecessor was for a year after you took the job, especially when you got hired on your glowing promises to fix everything, and nothing at all has been fixed yet?
> 
> Not very damn many. So why do you?



When Obama has us in Afghanistan for years with no end in sight, then feel free to call it his Vietnam. However, at this point, calling Afghanistan his Vietnam is like calling Vietnam Gerald Ford's war.

That's all I'm saying on the subject. Everything else you focused on was irrelevant to this topic. Plus, your comments about me were dishonest. Obama has not "fixed" Afghanistan because it cannot be fixed. The faster he realizes that, the faster we're out of Afghanistan.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 24, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Did everyone suddenly forget who was running this war for almost eight years? That has.... What to do with what the CnC does now? Nothing. Nothing stops Obama from prosecuting this war any way he sees fit.
> ...


I'm not calling it a Vietnam. Please find the post where I did, and quote it.





> That's all I'm saying on the subject.


It is?





> Everything else you focused on was irrelevant to this topic.


Oh really? But your BOOOOOSH was?





> Plus, your comments about me were dishonest.


Not at all, and you know it, and folks around here are starting to wake up to your little act as well.





> Obama has not "fixed" Afghanistan because it cannot be fixed. The faster he realizes that, the faster we're out of Afghanistan.


You didn't read my post:





> Nothing stops Obama from prosecuting this war any way he sees fit.


And that includes, leaving if he wishes.

You're a indiscriminate imbiber and regurgitator of WH talking point kool-aid. Your first instinct was to say BOOOOOOOSH instead of making a intelligent observation about Afghanistan. This is the hole in your little act, your instinctive, knee-jerk, regurgitation of the WH talking points almost like you're afraid they'll kick you out of the cult if you don't do it each and every time.

You're a fake, a phony, a charlatan.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 24, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> You're a indiscriminate imbiber and regurgitator of WH talking point kool-aid. Your first instinct was to say BOOOOOOOSH instead of making a intelligent observation about Afghanistan. This is the hole in your little act, your instinctive, knee-jerk, regurgitation of the WH talking points almost like you're afraid they'll kick you out of the cult if you don't do it each and every time.
> 
> You're a fake, a phony, a charlatan.



Looks like my last comments weren't the last on this subject:

Not at all. My first reaction was why is it called Obama's Vietnam suddenly? Why not Bush's Vietnam? We could of had easily won this war by now if Bush had gone in with the necessary number of troops and supplies. Neither of which had occurred. There was no plan, no strategy, and a former General is on record as being told to work with what he was given in Afghanistan.

You're right in saying that Obama can run this war anyway he wants. I don't have a little act or anything of the sorts. People like you think you know me but you don't. Continue your arrogance, honestly, it's your choice.

However, one has to look at the past when talking about Afghanistan. Unless you want to make the same mistakes in the future, feel free to ignore what was done under the Bush Administration.

Besides, if I'm following WH talking points then how come I said Afghanistan can't be fixed and the faster Obama realizes that the faster we leave? Last I checked, that's not a WH talking point. Unless of course you live in the land you do, which is certainly not reality.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 24, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Looks like my last comments weren't the last on this subject:


Of course not, because besides being a fake, a phony and a charlatan, you're a fucking liar to boot!


----------



## Modbert (Oct 24, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Of course not, because besides being a fake, a phony and a charlatan, you're a fucking liar to boot!



I'm not a liar. I figured they were my last comments before once again you divulged into personal attacks. I'm not sprouting off WH talking points, you're clearly out of touch with reality.

Besides, so far, the like-minded people who have intelligence are agreeing with me that this is not Obama's Vietnam. Which is what my whole point was.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 24, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Of course not, because besides being a fake, a phony and a charlatan, you're a fucking liar to boot!
> ...


You are. A indiscriminate, pathological one.

Next!


----------



## Modbert (Oct 24, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> You are. A indiscriminate, pathological one.
> 
> Next!



You clearly are out of touch with reality. You see anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% as a Obama cultist who is obviously a Obamabot. I feel sorry for you. The anger and insanity that you exhibit is clearly signs of being disgruntled due to seeing Obama as your Messiah.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 24, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > You are. A indiscriminate, pathological one.
> ...


Not at all. I see someone who reflexively defends Obama no matter what it is, as quickly as possible, with all the same regurgitated WH talking points, and realized after quite a bit of time of seeing it, that he IS an Obamaphile cultist, despite his loud and shrill, butthurt protests to the contrary.

That's reality, smegma head.


----------



## Babyboomer54 (Oct 24, 2009)

I was in Viet Nam....this is nothing like it, yet.  If the white house tries to run the war like Nam was it's nothing but a loosing effort.  Best to pull the plug now if Nobama does not have the stomach for it.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 24, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Not at all. I see someone who reflexively defends Obama no matter what it is, as quickly as possible, with all the same regurgitated WH talking points, and realized after quite a bit of time of seeing it, that he IS an Obamaphile cultist, despite his loud and shrill, butthurt protests to the contrary.
> 
> That's reality, smegma head.



Except I don't stand with Obama on everything, especially since he has taken office.

We disagree on the issue of Afghanistan. Obama and I disagree on other issues including:

Gun Control
Gay Marriage
Nuclear Energy
Mandatory Health Care (I'm against it)
The Bank Bailouts
I'm against Driver's licenses for Illegal Immigrants
US Patriot Act (He just revived it)
I'm against legal immunity for companies that help the Administrations wiretap without warrants.

And plenty of other Bush Administration policies that he said he would not follow but continues to.

So no, I'm not an Obama cultist by far and you're still out of touch with reality.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 24, 2009)

As I said before there are certain similarities. Viet Nam was in a jungle setting and although our tech has greatly improved it can not see through CAVES of which there are PLENTY to hide out in and engage the US WHENEVER they want to. Hills and CAVES are why Afghanistan is a very difficult area to secure. Now if some asshole thinks we should invade IRAN there will be a SERIOUS boondoggle.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 24, 2009)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GAWD don't let us go into Iran.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 24, 2009)

No major power has conquered Afghanistan for long.  The Russians, who were right next door, failed.  The Americans, who are thousands of miles away, will not succeed.
Whichever way he goes, Obama is screwed.  If he pulls out it will send a message of victory to the Taliban and al Qaeda.  If he stays he will find himself in an increasingly unpopular war with bigger casualties.  I notice the press has not been reporting on casualties like they did in Iraq under Bush.  Coincidence?  I don't think so.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 25, 2009)

Afghanistan wouldn't be such a clusterfuck if Bush had actually gone after the perpetrator of 9/11 which was Osama Bin Laden, NOT Saddam Hussein.

Iraq was a war for oil and pride, plain and simple.  Greenspan even said it was.

Nope, it's not Obama's 'Nam, it's Bush Jr. and Cheney's.

But, you already knew that inconvenient fact didn't you guys?  Not my fault fucking 'tards like Midnight Masturbater choose to ignore it.

Hey ya big pink pussy, ever serve?


----------



## namvet (Oct 25, 2009)

fuckin A those are Bush's kids. kill em all !!!!


----------



## Yukon (Oct 25, 2009)

Does it really matter? Americans will be scarificed on the alter of Corporate greed in this war too. You are like sheep being led to the slaughter. Sad and pathetic, mindless sheep.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 25, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Afghanistan wouldn't be such a clusterfuck if Bush had actually gone after the perpetrator of 9/11 which was Osama Bin Laden, NOT Saddam Hussein.
> 
> Iraq was a war for oil and pride, plain and simple.  Greenspan even said it was.
> 
> ...



The war is now Obama's.  He owns it, like he owns every thing else in his presidency.  He needs to either man up or shut up.  Blaming the previous administration shows a definite lack of leadership and political skill.  ANd teh American people are getting sick of it, as we see from his plunging poll numbers.


----------



## namvet (Oct 25, 2009)

[youtube]FCVZlLBchVE[/youtube]


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 25, 2009)

You could leave out the "over Iraq war" and it would be 100%.
Democrats are the most hypocritical and cynical bunch out there.  They supported Bush, until they didn't.  They supported the war, until they didnt.  They took control of Congress promising to do something.  Then they passed 100+ non-binding resolutions when they had the power to end US involvement.
Now they elected someone who promised that Afghanistan was "the good war" the war worth pursuing.  They all lined up behind him.
Now they are having second thoughts and the culprit, of course is BOOOSSHHHHH.

A party less fit to govern would be hard to imagine.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 25, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Did everyone suddenly forget who was running this war for almost eight years?



did you forget who said it "was a war worth fighting" and he promptly sent more troops, and now has "cold feet"?


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 25, 2009)

namvet said:


> [youtube]FCVZlLBchVE[/youtube]






asswipes! that's what they are asswipes@


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 25, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Afghanistan wouldn't be such a clusterfuck if Bush had actually gone after the perpetrator of 9/11 which was Osama Bin Laden, NOT Saddam Hussein.
> 
> Iraq was a war for oil and pride, plain and simple.  Greenspan even said it was.
> 
> ...




Memo to new employee.

Are you always an infantile, juvenile pissant? Could you possibly do any better regurgitating used up old, long-debunked talking points?

And again, I never claimed Afghanistan was "Obama's Vietnam." Clearly you have me confused with others. Lay off the bong for like, five minutes a day.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 26, 2009)

Hey.........laying the blame for the fuck up at the feet of Obama is wrong.  He didn't start it, but he's working on finishing it.

I ask again........did you ever serve MM?


----------



## Huh? (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> No major power has conquered Afghanistan for long.  The Russians, who were right next door, failed.  The Americans, who are thousands of miles away, will not succeed.
> Whichever way he goes, Obama is screwed.  If he pulls out it will send a message of victory to the Taliban and al Qaeda.  If he stays he will find himself in an increasingly unpopular war with bigger casualties.  I notice the press has not been reporting on casualties like they did in Iraq under Bush.  Coincidence?  I don't think so.



I tend to agree with most of your post, except the last part...I see headlines just about every day regarding casualties...here's what I see in the two top slots this morning...

 Two helicopter crashes in Afghanistan kill 14 Americans
 Iraqis angry at security lapse in deadly bombings


----------



## Huh? (Oct 26, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Make no mistake the same type of terrain will make a war with IRAN very costly both in lives and fortune.



That, and the fact they will be able to fuck with the flow of oil...bookmark this post...I'd predict at least $10 per gallon gasoline at the pump along with rationing.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

Huh? said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Make no mistake the same type of terrain will make a war with IRAN very costly both in lives and fortune.
> ...



Iran's only source of hard currency is oil.  So their ability to withold supplies is pretty limited.
And they are dependent on imports for gasoline.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Huh? said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...


You appear to have missed my point...think in terms of fucking up the supply from others...we don't get our oil from them....get back to terrain and look at the geography...I'm referring to relatively flat terrain...granted, I'm taking a bit of liberty with the textbook definition in referring to water as such.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

Huh? said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? said:
> ...



Do you really think the US is not capable of protecting shipping in the Gulf??


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 26, 2009)

Ever been out on the water Rabbi?  Might wanna re-think that last statement..............

And, for the record, if we can't keep people coming over the southern border, what the fuck makes you think that we could take care of the Gulf?

Might wanna look into that a bit more dipshit.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Huh? said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Sure...eventually...I haven't got into the number crunching in quite a while but if we go to war they do have the ability to turn the Straits into a hell of a mess for a while...how long?

Hmmm...ain't dealing with another war ravaged Saddam and his band of thugs...ain't talkin' about a bunch of opium farmers neither.

Crunch the numbers...consider how much of our supply comes through there...granted some may be offset by Canada et al, but at what price...supply/demand.

Now, how many barrels do we have in reserve?  Any idea how many days at that rate of loss it would take for us to use them up...IF...the government would even allow its use considering their primary purpose is to supply the military...Iran, my friend, would be Obama's Nam...


----------



## namvet (Oct 26, 2009)

will Osama give blood for oil???? hmm


----------



## Huh? (Oct 26, 2009)

namvet said:


> will Osama give blood for oil???? hmm



Hopefully not if you are referring to Iran...that would make him a bigger fuck up than junior.


----------



## GHook93 (Oct 26, 2009)

(1) In Vietnam we stayed in South Vietnam, we didn't really venture into (at least in great numbers) North Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos - We did however invade all of Afghanistan and Pakistan is finding them on their border.
(2) There is no big brother distractor in Afghanistan! North Vietnam had Russia and esp China. China is a big reason we never invaded North Vietnam like we needed to in order to win that war.
(3) Vietnam never attacked us, Afghanistan did.
(4) Technologies are different and 100 fold better
(5) Not Russia or China is directly arming the Taliban. Probably not even Iran! Anything they get is off the black market.
(6) In Vietnam we were fighting against a functioning North Vietanese government. With the Taliban we are fighting an insurgency group! 
(7) The NVA and VC were able to exploit the village and get rice and food from them. Afghani farmers only make opium very little food!


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Ever been out on the water Rabbi?  Might wanna re-think that last statement..............
> 
> And, for the record, if we can't keep people coming over the southern border, what the fuck makes you think that we could take care of the Gulf?
> 
> Might wanna look into that a bit more dipshit.



I guess that last grease gun enema got into the brain.
If we could shoot people indiscriminately we'd have no problem policing the border here.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Ever been out on the water Rabbi?  Might wanna re-think that last statement..............
> ...



So is that the plan...we can keep the shipping lanes open by shooting people indiscriminately?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

Whatever works.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 26, 2009)

Do you think that would?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 26, 2009)

Nope.  I don't.  Dead people tend to have relatives who kinda frown upon their indiscriminate killing.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 26, 2009)

This is about the President's inability to make a difficult decision.  He cannot say he wants to win the war, that leaves losing.  Unfortunately, that means losing for the soldiers and the country: USA.
This will not be about the military being tied in knots by congress (or them using military monies for their own wish lists), but a total failure of the commander and chief.  There is no other way to see it; the best trained troops, the best equipment, supply lines for thousands of miles, all perfected and in working order, the commander and chief: MIA, sad but true.
It is ametuer hour in the white house, and the world is watching, our enemies are becoming more daring and our allies are not as trusting, if he doesn't become a leader, SOON, it will hurt our nation and cost all of us.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 26, 2009)

logical4u said:


> This is about the President's inability to make a difficult decision.  He cannot say he wants to win the war, that leaves losing.  Unfortunately, that means losing for the soldiers and the country: USA.
> This will not be about the military being tied in knots by congress (or them using military monies for their own wish lists), but a total failure of the commander and chief.  There is no other way to see it; the best trained troops, the best equipment, supply lines for thousands of miles, all perfected and in working order, the commander and chief: MIA, sad but true.
> It is ametuer hour in the white house, and the world is watching, our enemies are becoming more daring and *our allies are not as trusting*, if he doesn't become a leader, SOON, it will hurt our nation and cost all of us.



Our allies what?

What do you base that on???

NATO: Military Chiefs Agree to Send More Troops to Afghanistan
Saturday, October 17, 2009 

Brown to Send More British Troops to Afghanistan - Afghanistan ...
Oct 18, 2009 ... LONDON  British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged Wednesday to send more troops to Afghanistan but only if NATO and the Afghan government ...
www.foxnews

Gates: NATO Moving Toward Sending More Troops For Afghan War
Oct 23, 2009


----------



## namvet (Oct 26, 2009)

logical4u said:


> This is about the President's inability to make a difficult decision.  He cannot say he wants to win the war, that leaves losing.  Unfortunately, that means losing for the soldiers and the country: USA.
> This will not be about the military being tied in knots by congress (or them using military monies for their own wish lists), but a total failure of the commander and chief.  There is no other way to see it; the best trained troops, the best equipment, supply lines for thousands of miles, all perfected and in working order, the commander and chief: MIA, sad but true.
> It is ametuer hour in the white house, and the world is watching, our enemies are becoming more daring and our allies are not as trusting, if he doesn't become a leader, SOON, it will hurt our nation and cost all of us.



this IS the bottom line. well said


----------



## logical4u (Oct 28, 2009)

Huh? said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > This is about the President's inability to make a difficult decision.  He cannot say he wants to win the war, that leaves losing.  Unfortunately, that means losing for the soldiers and the country: USA.
> ...




This is based on watching news clips of world leaders with Obama, their body language says it all, they want to crawl out of their skin when they are near him.  His body language toward our allies is a lot different than his body language with American "enemies", he seems "comfortable" with them.  Enemy leaders seem to be laughing at Obama/the USA.  
This is also based on watching countries that have left their defenses to the USA since WWII, that are now building up their own defenses.  The countries that are hostile towards the USA are teaming up with old enemies for arms and "military advice".  Venuzuela, like Iran with enough oil to provide electricity, cheaply and relatively, cleanly, is now, also, talking about developing nuclear...."energy"at astronomical costs, explain that one.  
This is based on Arab countries "demanding" the world (that means the USA) make up the difference in monies lost on "greening" the western world for lost revenues from oil sales.  
This is based on our military being told to take bullets while their "commander and chief" "deliberates" his Afganistan stategy for months (all the while his energies are focused on taking over a HUGE chunk of our economy and most of our rights thru government control of citizen's healthcare that he wants done in "record" time).  I see it as a simple decision: do we need to win?  If not, we lose.  Those are the only two options, delaying, the decision will just costs more lives, on both sides and not change the options.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 28, 2009)

You know, it's really not fair to make comparisons between 'Nam and Afghanistan.........

First, our technology is WAY better.  I can guarantee you that things would have been different had we had Predators and Reapers back then.

Additionally, in 'Nam, the whole country was united under one cause........to get out the Americans.  In Iraq, there are the Sunni, the Shia, the Taliban, Al Queda, and they all have a different agenda, depending on what their mullah or imam says.  Some say go one way, some say go the other.  They can't seem to agree on much other than they want to fight Americans.

Additionally, I don't really remember the Vietnamese sending out suicide bombers to kill their own people.

Nope........not a fair comparison.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 28, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Additionally, in 'Nam, the whole country was united under one cause........to get out the Americans.  *In Iraq,* there are the Sunni, the Shia, the Taliban, Al Queda, and they all have a different agenda, depending on what their mullah or imam says.  Some say go one way, some say go the other.  They can't seem to agree on much other than they want to fight Americans.



Mind wandering or just incoherent?

The basic dynamics are the same.  Both countries have long histories of decimating invaders. In both cases the president is pressed to minimize troop involvement, and he then pressures his generals to scale back their requests.  Public getting sick of war in both cases.  No clear winning strategy in both cases.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 28, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Huh? said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Well crap...I just wrote out a long ass reply with a bunch of links and just as I was getting ready to post, the power went out...hate it when that happens...here we go again...

I'm curious about this body language...you got any links to some of these clips of which you speak?

Countries building up their military...you mean like Japan for instance?

JAPANS REVISED THREAT PERCEPTIONS AND MILITARY UPGRADATION PLANS: An Analysis



> Introductory Background:
> 
> The Japanese government *approved on December 10,2004*, the following two documents covering new plans for Japans national security and defence planning:
> 
> ...



They must have thought he was going to be a problem as a community organizer...who else?

Why is it so hard for some to understand that some countries prefer to have their resources to sell rather than suck up the profits...same idea as an alcoholic shouldn't own a bar.

As for Afghanistan...he has sent additional troops and appealed to others and making positive strides on that front (see links above)...I understand that a good bit of time is spent on trying to get it right...too bad it wasn't handled properly many years ago and wouldn't have needed to have been dumped on his plate.

I think you are not providing a very realistic view of the health plan but responding with unsubstantiated talking points...unless you've got something concrete to offer from the bills offered, of course, I'd like to take a closer look at that.

It's hard to find anything current but...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/world/europe/29iht-poll.html?_r=1&ref=world



> About 80 percent of people in France, Germany, Italy and Spain have a positive view of Mr. Obama, a ratio that declines only slightly, to about 70 percent, in the other two countries surveyed, Britain and the United States. The only politician who comes close is Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who gets a positive rating from two-thirds of those in Continental Europe but from only one-third of Britons and Americans.



Ban Ki-moon, other UN leaders praise Obama over Nobel Peace Prize .:. newkerala.com Online News -128228



> United Nations, Oct 10 : UN leaders have warmly praised the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama, with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon saying Mr Obama's commitment to work through the world body 'gives the world's people fresh hope and fresh prospects.' 'This is great news for President Obama, for the people of the United States, and for the United Nations,' he told newspersons yesterday, calling it 'a very wise decision,' and described the President's support for the world body as 'a great source of encouragement.' The UN Secretary General said, 'We are entering an era of renewed multilateralism, a new era where the challenges facing humankind demand global common cause and uncommon global effort.
> 
> President Obama embodies the new spirit of dialogue and engagement
> on the world's biggest problems --climate change, nuclear disarmament and a wide range of peace and security challenges.'' The UN applauds him and the Nobel Committee for its choice, Mr Ban said, noting that he looks forward to deepening the US-UN partnership ''as a key building block to a better and safer world for all.'' Asked about comments from some that the Award was premature, Mr Ban replied, ''I wholeheartedly support it, as I said the Nobel Committee has made a very wise decision.'' He said from day one after his election, Mr Obama had shown extremely strong support for the UN in addressing all global challenges, including climate change, poverty and food security issues.
> ...


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 28, 2009)

It is ALL ABOUT TOPOGRAPHY. Viet Nam had jungles and tunnels. Afghanistan has mountains and CAVES. Not even the BEST satelite and infrared imaging will let you know where and who are in those caves. They have the HOME ADVANTAGE and that can count for a lot.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 28, 2009)

GAWD I just hope we don't start carpet boming IRAN thinking it will ready them for invasion.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 28, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey.........laying the blame for the fuck up at the feet of Obama is wrong.  He didn't start it, but he's working on finishing it.


As soon as you find where I laid any such blame, please feel free to quote it back to us.





> I ask again........did you ever serve MM?


It makes no difference at all who "served" and who didn't. It wouldn't be a part of my online identity regardless. And NOT serving does not disqualify one from opining, any more than it stops the President from being the CinC.

So, it's a tired old used up deflection, nothing more.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 28, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> GAWD I just hope we don't start carpet boming IRAN thinking it will ready them for invasion.


Why are you sweating that?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 28, 2009)

Well hey Bush fought a war on TWO fronts why not outdue him and fight on THREE fronts? With Israels blessing of course.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 28, 2009)

MM I just don't like fighting in certain terrain. It removes any tactical advantage of heavy armor large #s of troops. We need the RIGHT kind of troops in Afghanistan not MORE.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 28, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well hey Bush fought a war on TWO fronts why not outdue him and fight on THREE fronts? With Israels blessing of course.


Booooosh didn't do anything Congress didn't fund and/or authorize.

The only thing I can see us doing, if anything, is bombing Iran's nuclear sites. Invasion's never been on the table from what I've seen.

And I seriously doubt we'll be the ones doing the bombing, it'll likely be Israel.

What happens after that? No one knows.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 28, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> MM I just don't like fighting in certain terrain.


Then don't.





> It removes any tactical advantage of heavy armor large #s of troops. We need the RIGHT kind of troops in Afghanistan not MORE.


I'm thinking there is a big change coming. Obama's ordering up of more predator drones makes me hopeful he'll take a more automated strategy, pull out all but the drone support troops and their security, and let us bomb these subhumans from our comfortable consoles in Denver.

Much cheaper per head, run it like a business.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 28, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> GAWD I just hope we don't start carpet boming IRAN thinking it will ready them for invasion.



Surgical strikes on Iran would be one thing, although a piss poor way to try and solve the situation there and hopefully it will never come to that...but invasion would be totally insane.

If Obama decided to go that route he would be as big a screw up as that last one we had...we never should have gone into Iraq and we should not have put near as many boots on the ground as we did in Afghanistan.

We should have retaliated but with surgical strikes and covert operations specializing in targeted assassination...no way we should have taken the actions that we have to date which basically fits into the category as Powell put it..."you break it, you bought it"...and now we are stuck in the middle of a fucking mess...why our leaders can't seem to learn from the past is beyond me...hell, the crap going on over there has been going on since the time of Christ and to think we are going to go into the region and "fix" it is the most arrogant bone-headed bullshit that I've ever heard...hell, junior didn't even bother to listen to his old man...



> Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. *Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.*


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 28, 2009)

I do love those remote controlled killing machines!


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 29, 2009)

Huh? said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > GAWD I just hope we don't start carpet boming IRAN thinking it will ready them for invasion.
> ...



Dio you have a clue what you are talking about??  Assasinations are outlawed in the US.  So that's out.  Drones?  WHat would that have done?
And you seem to believe we lost in Iraq.  Any evidence?


----------



## Huh? (Oct 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Huh? said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



So don't call it targeted assassination...what do you think snipers do?  Oh yeah, we don't use snipers.

I didn't mention drones but now that you brought that up...I guess if we are going to use young folks in the military we might as well utilize video games...many are good at it.

What have we won in Iraq?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Huh? said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...







No matter how long we stay in Iraq the second we leave the New in power MAJORITY will decimate the new MINORITY. I think Saddam was a sick freakball but he managed that country by being brutal to keep the majority in check. Now when you have the MINORITY out of DICTORIAL control then we will see a lot of bad feelings come to the forefront. I beleive the new ruleing class will make Saddam's "Rape rooms" will look tame by comparison. These sects have been at war for a millenia and we aren't going to change that FACT.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 29, 2009)

And yes political assassinations ARE ILLEGAL. But hey we have broken nearly every OTHER rule of a law abiding nation so why not use the "ends justify the means" argument.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 29, 2009)

The ONLY thing we did was temporarily buy off the insurgents but once those pay checks stop comming and they break out the $10,000,000,000 that we "lost" and the massive # of "lost" weapons. BLOODY BLOODY BLOODY is what Iraq will become.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 29, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> And yes political assassinations ARE ILLEGAL. But hey we have broken nearly every OTHER rule of a law abiding nation so why not use the "ends justify the means" argument.



Political?  Hell, they don't wear uniforms...anybody that we would kill would be a military target...


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 29, 2009)

Huh? said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? said:
> ...



Comparing what snipers do to assassinations tells me that you don't have much of a clue about either.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Huh? said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Oh really...why don't you explain the difference then?



> In 2002, the George W. Bush Administration prepared a list of "terrorist leaders" the CIA is authorized to assassinate, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be kept to an acceptable number. The list includes key al-Qa'ida leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from al-Qa'ida and affiliated groups. This list is called the "high value target list". [18] The US president is not legally required to approve each name added to the list, nor is the CIA required to obtain presidential approval for specific attacks, although the president is kept well informed about operations.



Assassination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In the Global War on Terrorism, American special operations forces and intelligence agencies employed manhunting[27] operations against key opponents and Al Qaeda terrorist leaders.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 29, 2009)

Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it.  That's why.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it.  That's why.


Lame excuse number whatever for not addressing the debate...you have been rather pathetic and obviously clueless in this one.

The wiki quotes were merely supplemental information and did not address the question asked...got any more lame excuses or should I just give up on you?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it.  That's why.



Almost as stupid as a Rat Lie who gets their news from right wing blogs.


----------



## namvet (Oct 29, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it.  That's why.
> ...



just curious. did you really serve????


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 29, 2009)

namvet said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Yep.  First ship was USS CONCORD (AFS-5) in '82, and final tour was Navy supervisor of the MEPS here in Amarillo TX from 1999-2002, where I retired.

3 NAM's, several quals, and been to 26 different countries, 4 war zones and 49 different states.

What about you?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 29, 2009)

Huh? said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it.  That's why.
> ...



You need to give up and go back to eating Cheetos and watching porn.  Leave the adults alone to talk amongst ourselves.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Huh? said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



In other words, you still can't address the questions...no worries...I'll not be wasting much time on you since you have already shown yourself to be clueless and not very good at this.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 29, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> And yes political assassinations ARE ILLEGAL. But hey we have broken nearly every OTHER rule of a law abiding nation so why not use the "ends justify the means" argument.



I'm betting that you're also one of those idiots that thinks torture (which is PROHIBITED under the Geneva Conventions) is a good idea.

Yes?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 29, 2009)

Huh? said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? said:
> ...



I can't address the question to someone of your intelligence and with your knowledge base.  It's because I didn't pick special ed as my major.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Huh? said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You're right........it wasn't your major.

It was your day care.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfFRv_1XdDM]YouTube - Stephen Lynch - Special Ed[/ame]

I dedicate this song to you Rabid Lie.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 30, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > And yes political assassinations ARE ILLEGAL. But hey we have broken nearly every OTHER rule of a law abiding nation so why not use the "ends justify the means" argument.
> ...






Uh NO. I don't I guess you didn't really get the gist of my post.


----------



## GHook93 (Oct 30, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Did everyone suddenly forget who was running this war for almost eight years?



This cartoon says it all!


----------



## Yukon (Oct 31, 2009)

The US military have a reputation, and well-deserved, for murdering unarmed women and children aka Mai Lai in Vietnam.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 31, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The US military have a reputation, and well-deserved, for murdering unarmed women and children aka Mai Lai in Vietnam.



The Catholic church has a reputation, and well deserved, for murdering unarmed men, women and children aka the Inquisition.

They also have a reputation, and well deserved, for molesting little children in their churches and covering up.

But then again, what do you expect from a group of gropey pedophiles who are led by a Nazi named Bent Dick/Rat Singer?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 31, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > The US military have a reputation, and well-deserved, for murdering unarmed women and children aka Mai Lai in Vietnam.
> ...



Ex navy guys have a reputation, well deserved, of taking it up the ass.


----------



## bao (Nov 1, 2009)

I think all our millitary operations are vietnams,koreas,iraqs and so forth we go to all these places we stay longer then we need to and risk more of our soldiers life's. Let's bring all of our soldiers home and worry about defending our own borders & take care of our own citizens first.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Wait a minute Rabid Lie, are you Catholic?

No wonder you sprinkle so many gay references in your posts.  Did you and your fellow altar boys have contests to see who could do the most priests?  

I'm betting you won almost every year...........


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 2, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I see I have to spell it out for you.  No I am not Catholic.
But you don't have to be to know that the squids liked a hard one up the poop chute from time to time.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 2, 2009)

Really?  You know this from first hand experience perhaps?

I'm betting you were the fag over near the shadows, you know, with the cheesy wig and fucked up makeup?

Probably blew Sailors for candy bars and spare change.


----------



## namvet (Nov 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



I served the USN during Nam. or are directing your gun fire at some one else????


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 2, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Really?  You know this from first hand experience perhaps?
> 
> I'm betting you were the fag over near the shadows, you know, with the cheesy wig and fucked up makeup?
> 
> Probably blew Sailors for candy bars and spare change.



So it is true that you never forget your first gay experience.  Thanks for proving it!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 3, 2009)

Actually, it was pictures that your room mate put on the internet.

I guess it was their way of warning Sailors about you Rabid Lie.

Yes NamVet, he is directing fire away from you, it's towards me.  Try to keep up.


----------



## namvet (Nov 3, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, it was pictures that your room mate put on the internet.
> 
> I guess it was their way of warning Sailors about you Rabid Lie.
> 
> Yes NamVet, he is directing fire away from you, it's towards me.  Try to keep up.



ill pass






here's a bigger size sig. if you want it. i use it on a vets board. you may or may not have to re size


----------



## foggedinn (Nov 3, 2009)

Of course not. It's an another american tradedy.


----------



## namvet (Nov 23, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Did everyone suddenly forget who was running this war for almost eight years?




but you forgot who's  running it now dip shit???? still beatin' a dead dog i see. well your a retarded liberal. can you hear the laughter behind you????


----------



## Yukon (Nov 28, 2009)

By claiming to be a vetern of the Vietnam debackle you shame the memory of honourable men who died needlessly.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 29, 2009)

Yeah........like what the fuck is some college puke who is a failure at the priesthood is gonna know more about war and battle than someone who has actually SERVED?

No.  Afghanistan is NOT Viet Nam.  They're on 2 totally different parts of the planet, they are 2 totally different religions, cultures and civilizations.

It's a battle.  Not a repeat.


----------



## Yukon (Dec 11, 2009)

GayBiker,

The only place you ever "served" was in McDonalds.


----------



## namvet (Dec 11, 2009)

smells like Yukon shit in here.


----------



## namvet (Dec 11, 2009)

Yukon said:


> GayBiker,
> 
> The only place you ever "served" was in McDonalds.



and the only service you did was sucking the popes cock.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 11, 2009)

Yukon said:


> GayBiker,
> 
> The only place you ever "served" was in McDonalds.



You mean, the place where I was served.  Remember........you were the dumb fucker in the paper hat, telling everyone how successful you were going to be, molesting little boys under cover of the priesthood.

You changed from a paper hat to a Roman collar, and now, back to the paper hat.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 11, 2009)

If you guys REALLY think OBAMA will be blamed for the loss in Iraq that happened shortly after "mission accomplished" you are dreaming. BUSH made EVERY mistake possible in Iraq and MOST were made over the EXPRESS objections of his MILITARY ADVISORS!!!


----------



## Yukon (Dec 12, 2009)

Cold,

The USA has* LOST* the Afghan war just like they lost in Vietnam. It's over.


----------



## namvet (Dec 12, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Cold,
> 
> The USA has* LOST* the Afghan war just like they lost in Vietnam. It's over.



prove it child molester


----------



## Yukon (Dec 12, 2009)

nam*Dodger*,

I don't need to everyone knows it.


----------



## namvet (Dec 12, 2009)

Yukon said:


> nam*Dodger*,
> 
> I don't need to everyone knows it.



they do ??? prove it you dick suckin faggot


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 20, 2009)

namvet said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > nam*Dodger*,
> ...



You mean you wouldn't trust someone using Yassir Arafat as his avatar?  Shame on your.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Dec 21, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Did everyone suddenly forget who was running this war for almost eight years?



Kennedy was in Vietnam before Johnson made it his war.


----------

