# Romney wants to stay in Afganistan



## sealybobo (Apr 19, 2012)

Do you righties agree with Willard or Obama on this?  I have heard many of you bash Obama for still being in Afganistan.  Remember you called it "Obama's War"?  I do.  So that means you agree with Obama on this one?

According to a Pew poll 59 percent of swing voters now favor a "rapid U.S. troop withdrawal." The survey defined swing voters as those who are either undecided between Romney and President Obama or may still change their minds.

Even among Romney's committed supporters, the numbers were not strong. Forty-eight percent of his voters said they want to end the war as soon as possible, compared to 46 percent who want to remain until the situation is "stabilized."

During the Republican primary season, Mitt Romney strongly criticized President Obama's support for a timetable to end the war.  But those views are putting him at odds with an increasing chunk of the voters he will need to win the White House in November.

Romney At Odds With Key Voters On Afghanistan, Says New Poll


----------



## Interpol (Apr 20, 2012)

Well, you beat me to it. This was going to be the first thread that I started here, so that'll have to wait. 

I was reading today that Mitt just picked up John Bolton's people to help him on foreign policy, which could signal quite a difference in policy between himself and President Obama. 

My own personal feeling is that our military did everything they were asked to do, won every fight they were in, the SEALS got Bin Laden, Al Qaeda was driven back to Pakistan. 

I mean, every single militaristic thing that was asked of them, they did it. 

What's left is stuff like education, schools, infrastructure, energy, food, resources, the drug trade, and a whole host of other issues that aren't really military issues, but civilian issues. 

So bring the troops home, throw them one hell of an amazing parade in New York, subsidize every little thing they need in terms of health care and double down on the jobs program that is already starting to benefit returning veterans. 

I wish the President would move faster in the direction of winding it down, but he's taken a measured approach, which I guess is fair, but one that I just don't think makes any difference whether we start to come home now or 6 months from now or 12 months from now. 

Now, as to Mitt Romney, if it's his intention to go the other way and double down on staying there (John McCain is in no rush to leave, either), I wonder what that will mean for him as a candidate. 

I think it's fair to say that the Ron Paul folks will probably not follow Romney, but a hawkish position would definitely drive the more libertarian wing of that party from going with Romney, and as we have seen, the libertarian wing has proven itself to be a small but gathering force in America that I think is good for this democracy. 

If I were a Romney strategist (that would be fun) I think I'd want to have the candidate project moderation, leaving the door open until President-Elect Romney enters office and can make a clearer determination of what he should do based on the information he's looking. 

I know there are plenty of hawks out there, but I'm not sensing an urgency by too many folks to support more war for anything longer than what Obama's already put out as the deadline.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 21, 2012)

Every military expert has advised that the way we leave Afghanistan is as important as achieving military goals otherwise we will end up with exactly what we had when we first went there.

There is a third way.  Admit that the middle east cannot be fixed.  They have a culture that disposes itself toward violence in the name of islam.  This will never change.  Or at least not in the foreseeable future.    France, Switzerland and Denmark are all taking steps to limit muslim immigration.  We shoud too.  Then be prepared to have to go in every so often and bust up the furniture to beat them back into place.  Then we leave.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 23, 2012)

Fuck that, its time to leave that shit hole, how long does Mitt want us to stay there?


----------



## dblack (Apr 23, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Fuck that, its time to leave that shit hole, how long does Mitt want us to stay there?



Robamney will perpetuate the warfare/welfare state. It's what they do.


----------



## ima (May 10, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> Do you righties agree with Willard or Obama on this?  I have heard many of you bash Obama for still being in Afganistan.  Remember you called it "Obama's War"?  I do.  So that means you agree with Obama on this one?
> 
> According to a Pew poll 59 percent of swing voters now favor a "rapid U.S. troop withdrawal." The survey defined swing voters as those who are either undecided between Romney and President Obama or may still change their minds.
> 
> ...



You'd need to get the whole country on methadone.


----------



## PredFan (May 10, 2012)

I'm not surprised that a Republican wants our military to stay in Afghanistan. I have and will continue to point out that Obama promised many on the left to end the wars and he has done nothing of the sort. Even in Iraq it was ended on the timeline that Bush laid out.

How many wars do we have now? Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa. you poor saps were duped and you apparently still don't know it.


----------



## ima (May 11, 2012)

Republicans want to stay in Afghanistan because Haliburton and their buddies haven't had a chance to go and get all the minerals yet that have been discovered. We'll be there for a really long time, so relax.


----------



## ima (May 21, 2012)

I also like that a pussy like Romney wants other people to stay in Afghanistan to fight his battle. Jesus and John Smith would have been proud.


----------



## peach174 (May 21, 2012)

Obama has committed them to stay there until 2024.
Then wants to cut 1 trillion out of the military over a period of 10 years.
Not a very sound idea.


----------



## ima (May 24, 2012)

If Romney wants to stay in Afghanistan, I say good, when are you leaving?


----------



## Franticfrank (May 29, 2012)

After 10 years, its time to get out of that place - the current situation could go on for 100 years. And the place isn't worth it.


----------



## editec (May 29, 2012)

Who had benefitted from the *$1.29 TRILLION* spend thus far one Iraq and Afghanistan?

Follow the money and there you will find the people who supported these misadventures.



Read more: Estimated War-Related Costs, Iraq and Afghanistan &#8212; Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html#ixzz1wFXEwnml​


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

Franticfrank said:


> After 10 years, its time to get out of that place - the current situation could go on for 100 years. And the place isn't worth it.



It's hardly about "the place", and whether "the place" is worth it. It's about fighting them in THEIR backyard, and NOT ours. Ten years, or not... You don't really believe that makes any difference? I hate to say it, but when you are fighting people that fight in the name of a Religion, and YOU are viewed as an Infidel... The fight is probably going to last our lifetimes, and beyond. The idea that withdrawing our troops is going to make everything better is simply absurd.


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

editec said:


> Who had benefitted from the *$1.29 TRILLION* spend thus far one Iraq and Afghanistan?
> 
> Follow the money and there you will find the people who supported these misadventures.
> 
> ...



Ask yourself who has benefited the next time you are gathered in a public place and nobody is trying to meet their 72 virgins at YOUR expense.


----------



## ima (May 29, 2012)

Franticfrank said:


> After 10 years, its time to get out of that place - the current situation could go on for 100 years. And the place isn't worth it.



I think it's up to Haliburton to make that call, don't you?


----------



## Douger (May 29, 2012)

ima said:


> Republicans want to stay in Afghanistan because Haliburton and their buddies haven't had a chance to go and get all the minerals yet that have been discovered. We'll be there for a really long time, so relax.


You nailed it ! It's just business.


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

Douger said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans want to stay in Afghanistan because Haliburton and their buddies haven't had a chance to go and get all the minerals yet that have been discovered. We'll be there for a really long time, so relax.
> ...



You "both" nailed it.... Proof once again the "Occupy" movement does indeed have wifi access in their tents.


----------



## Sallow (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Franticfrank said:
> 
> 
> > After 10 years, its time to get out of that place - the current situation could go on for 100 years. And the place isn't worth it.
> ...





It was the Reagan/Bush crowd that hatched the crazy idea that religious fanatics were great "warriors" against the "vast soviet empire".

How'd that fucking work out?


----------



## California Girl (May 29, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Fuck that, its time to leave that shit hole, how long does Mitt want us to stay there?



And you have how many years of experience in running a war? Just wondering.... because, as our military leaders (you know - the guys who actually know about this shit) say it's important that we handle the withdrawal wisely rather than running away. Here's an idea for you... how about you defer to the experts on things you know jack shit about?


----------



## California Girl (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Franticfrank said:
> 
> 
> > After 10 years, its time to get out of that place - the current situation could go on for 100 years. And the place isn't worth it.
> ...



That's because many people prefer hysteria to calm, rational thought.


----------



## Sallow (May 29, 2012)

Leave us not forget the "Bravery" of the good Bishop Vampire..Romney. Stealer of Jewish souls.

Mitt Romney, 19, demonstrated in favour of Vietnam War draft | Mail Online


----------



## uscitizen (May 29, 2012)

Romney wants to stay in Afganistan 


If only he would.  And Obama too.


----------



## Valerie (May 29, 2012)

*Romney position on Afghanistan*

The Objectives

Romney believes that our continued presence should be decided by the militarys top brass, cautions that we should not be making similar commitments in the future. He also stressed that the bulk of the responsibility lies with the Afghanis.

_I want those troops to come home based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals  But I also think we have learned that our troops should not go off and try to fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistans independence from the Taliban._
13 June 2011, Republican Presidential Debate in New Hampshire.


Cost

Romney believes our policy in Afghanistan should not be based on the economic costs alone.

_There will be some who argue its too expensive now, weve got to bring the troops home right now, or others will say, politically we need to make one decision or another  You dont make a decision about our involvement in a conflict based on dollars and cents alone or certainly not with regards to politics._
14 June 2011, New York Times


Pakistan

AFP reported that Romney made a private visit to Afghanistan in January 2010, and had a closed door meeting with President Hamid Karzai. Karzais office subsequently released a statement on January 10 that quoted Romney as saying,   the US is well aware of terrorists' presence in Pakistan and its border regions and this is a threat to Pakistan and Afghanistan  The situation in Pakistan is an indicator that terrorists are not only attacking Afghanistan but are causing lots of troubles for Pakistan too.

Romney on Afghanistan


----------



## Valerie (May 29, 2012)

Afghanistan & Pakistan
Whats at Stake

_Enjoying the sanctuary of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, al Qaeda set in motion the conspiracy that killed so many Americans on September 11, 2001. We learned many bitter lessons that day, including that we are not safe from enemies who plot freely against us from the other side of the world. That is why so many of our best and bravest young men and women are risking their lives in Afghanistan. Our mission in Afghanistan is to eliminate al Qaeda from the region and degrade the Taliban and other insurgent groups to the point where they are not existential threats to the Afghan government and do not destabilize Pakistan, with its stock of nuclear weapons. Our objective is to ensure that Afghanistan will never again become a launching pad for terror and to send a message to any other nation that would harbor terrorists with designs on the American homeland._

Obamas Failure

_Much of the mission has been accomplished through the courage and dedication of our troops. The killing of Osama bin Laden was a landmark in the struggle for which President Obama deserves credit. Much more, however, remains to be done. Unfortunately, President Obama has repeatedly frustrated and imperiled the American mission through a series of unwise decisions. After a protracted deliberation process, President Obama in December 2009 announced he would support a surge that would entail introducing an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan. But in the very same speech announcing the surge, he put forward a timetable for withdrawal. The mixed message left our Afghan allies in doubt about our resolve and encouraged the Taliban to believe that they could wait us out. This past June, President Obama disregarded the counsel of his top military commanders, including General David Petraeus, and announced a full withdrawal of those 30,000 surge troops by September 2012. That date falls short of the commanders reported recommendation that the troops remain through the end of 2012 and the Afghan fighting season to solidify our gains. That date also happens to be just weeks before a U.S. presidential election. There is no military rationale for it. It raises questions about whether the timing is politically inspired. Whatever the motivation behind the decision, it means that our military will be compelled to begin moving troops and equipment out of Afghanistan in the middle of the fighting season, taking away forces and resources it needs to combat the enemy._

Mitts Plan

_Mitt Romney will never make national-security decisions based upon electoral politics. Upon taking office, he will review our transition to the Afghan military by holding discussions with our commanders in the field. He will order a full interagency assessment of our military and assistance presence in Afghanistan to determine the level required to secure our gains and to train Afghan forces to the point where they can protect the sovereignty of Afghanistan from the tyranny of the Taliban. Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan under a Romney administration will be based on conditions on the ground as assessed by our military commanders.

*Ensure Buy-In from Afghan and Pakistani Governments*

To defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan, the United States will need the cooperation of both the Afghan and Pakistani governments. It is in the interests of all three nations to see that Afghanistan and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region are rid of the Taliban and other insurgent groups. Mitt Romney will work with both the Afghan government and Pakistan to ensure that those nations are fully contributing to success in Afghanistan. But we will only persuade Afghanistan and Pakistan to be resolute if they are convinced that the United States will itself be resolute. Only an America that appears fully committed to success will eliminate the incentives for them to hedge their bets by aligning with opposing forces.

The United States must be clear in what we require of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai should understand that our commitment must be met with reciprocal efforts to crack down on corruption in his government, respect free and fair elections as required by the Afghan constitution, and coordinate with the United States on fighting the narcotics trade that fuels the insurgency. Pakistan should understand that any connection between insurgent forces and Pakistans security and intelligence forces must be severed. The United States enjoys significant leverage over both of these nations. We should not be shy about using it.
_


----------



## Sallow (May 29, 2012)

Valerie said:


> *Romney position on Afghanistan*
> 
> The Objectives
> 
> ...



Interesting. Romney believes that the Generals are in control of the military.



> Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
> 
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.



Bit different from the Constitution..but what the heck.

You guys trash that document every chance you get.


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

Sallow said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Franticfrank said:
> ...



You Liberal kooks ALWAYS "conveniently" forget your history. You do remember that thing we used to call the Cold War? Trying to make a Reagan connection to our current situation with regards to Afghanistan, is both disingenuous, and moronic. As for how that "f-in" worked out? Just fine THEN. The Soviets withdrew with their tails between their legs...which is exactly what you wingnuts are proposing WE do now. Our peaceful Muslim brothers will view it the same way they did the Soviets then... WEAKNESS. And the next time a bunch of suicide bombers kill people in a Subway, or Airport, it wont be Moscow... It will be Des Moines, or Miami.


----------



## uscitizen (May 29, 2012)

Who has benefitted?
Umm Contractors?  The Military Industrial Complex?
Oil companys?


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Who has benefitted?
> Umm Contractors?  The Military Industrial Complex?
> Oil companys?



When exactly did you sacrifice your own free will, and decide the Kool-Aid was what your life was missing? Do you have any "real" positions to bring to the table, other than those same old, worn out Liberal talking points you pass off as your own?


----------



## Sallow (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...





It's the history pal.

And Reagan/Bush knew how crazy these folks were. CIA had to intervene because the Soviet pilots were offing themselves rather then be taken prisoner to be tortured by the nuts.

Afghanistan, under the commies, were modernizing. Left alone..you'd probably have seen them oust the Russians without the crazy fanatics.

The Soviet Union was on it's way out. The only thing that the Reagan administration did was to hasten that trajectory. Carter's wheat embargo did more to cripple that nation then Afghanistan.


----------



## Sallow (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



Subways? In Des Moines? Or Miami?



The only people under the threat of real live terrorism are people living in NYC, LA, San Francisco, Chicago and Washington DC.

No one wants to bother with Des Moines or Miami.


----------



## ima (May 29, 2012)

The US army can't even take a shit hole like Afghanistan. If this was a sports team with all the big superstars who can't beat the last place team, ever, the coaching staff would be fired. 
Time to get some real tacticians in there.


----------



## High_Gravity (May 29, 2012)

California Girl said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck that, its time to leave that shit hole, how long does Mitt want us to stay there?
> ...



Well excuse the fuck out of me, I have spent 7 years in the Military myself so I think I know a little bit about what is going on over there. We have been in thats shit hole for over 10 years and our men and women are being shot at by the same Afghans we are training and paying for on an almost daily basis now, I am allowed to have an opinion that staying there is not doing a damn thing but getting more or our men and women killed.


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

Sallow said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You get the idea, and no it isn't just NYC, etc.... If you believe that Terrorism is only directed there, you are living in your own little fantasy world. Which seems to be the case.


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

ima said:


> The US army can't even take a shit hole like Afghanistan. If this was a sports team with all the big superstars who can't beat the last place team, ever, the coaching staff would be fired.
> Time to get some real tacticians in there.



If you think our Military is "trying to take Afghanistan" then your lack of intelligence is ASTOUNDING, and to be quite honest... VERY disturbing.


----------



## Valerie (May 29, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > *Romney position on Afghanistan*
> ...







   Interesting that's what YOU got out of all that...


----------



## ima (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > The US army can't even take a shit hole like Afghanistan. If this was a sports team with all the big superstars who can't beat the last place team, ever, the coaching staff would be fired.
> ...



So what are they doing there, trying NOT to take Afghanistan?


----------



## ima (May 29, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Why did you leave the army, was it because they repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

ima said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



We are not trying to "take Afghanistan", we are trying to eradicate Terrorists who are "operating IN Afghanistan". Are IQ's in tailspins around here, or what?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2012)

Regardless who is president, the USA will maintain an armed presence in Afghanistan.


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Regardless who is president, the USA will maintain an armed presence in Afghanistan.



Yes, but an armed presence doesn't mean exactly translate into a "takeover", as some suggest.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless who is president, the USA will maintain an armed presence in Afghanistan.
> ...



I know it, you know it, but some of the right are fraid the bad guys are going to take over America and some on the left think we are going to take over the universe.

Heard on the radio that an airstrike took out an A-Q #2 level commander in Afghanistan.

That's the way to do it: Spec Ops, helicopters, drones, and assassiantions.


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



My view is fairly simple fight them in their backyard, not ours.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2012)

And do that with Spec Ops, helicopters, drones, and assassiantions.  I knew from the beginning that pulling the helicopter and Spec Op units out of Afghanistan in late 2002 was going to lead to a bloody disaster for everybody involved.  We had 486 Americans on the ground when the Northern Alliance drove the bad guys out of Kabul with one American dead in November 2001.


----------



## ima (May 30, 2012)

tjvh said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



Ok, so were NOT trying to establish the Karzai government and help him build an army to control (with our continued help) the country? Oh. Ok. 

Which terrorists are we trying to eradicate? The Taliban aren't terrorists. Al-Qaeda are all gone elsewhere to cause trouble.


----------

