# I'm not supporting Obama's actions in afghanastan



## ihopehefails (Feb 13, 2010)

Call it political but I don't see any reason to support his attack on a non important entity in that country.   All we have been told so far is that it is a taliban stronghold which could mean a lot of things.   Is it crucial for an overall plan of success?   I think if we don't get a better reason for this action than just "its a taliban stronghold" then I wonder what motives were behind it.


----------



## Rudy (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Call it political but I don't see any reason to support his attack on a non important entity in that country.   All we have been told so far is that it is a taliban stronghold which could mean a lot of things.   Is it crucial for an overall plan of success?   I think if we don't get a better reason for this action than just "its a taliban stronghold" then I wonder what motives were behind it.



Are you serious??  "Its a Taliban stronghold" is not enough?  What else do you want?  Untapped oil?  WMD's?


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 13, 2010)

Rudy said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Call it political but I don't see any reason to support his attack on a non important entity in that country.   All we have been told so far is that it is a taliban stronghold which could mean a lot of things.   Is it crucial for an overall plan of success?   I think if we don't get a better reason for this action than just "its a taliban stronghold" then I wonder what motives were behind it.
> ...



I'm sure there are a lot of those scattered throughout afghanastan but why attack this one.   What strategic advantage does it have that demands we attack it.   Is it a part of an overall plan somewhere or did Obama just think it up this weekend when he saw his pole numbers go down?


----------



## xotoxi (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Call it political but I don't see any reason to support his attack on a non important entity in that country.


 
Okay. I'll call it political.


----------



## Rudy (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



Wow... do you even follow what is going on in Afghanistan?  Or are you one of those shits who disagrees with any and everything that comes from the White House? 

You say "I'm sure" as if it is an assumption.  Do you even know "FOR sure"?? Or do you just go on your gut instinct?

If he decided to NOT conduct the surge in Afghanistan would you be bitching then?  I bet you would.  

You really do fit the mold of the typical teabagger... I hope you guys stay around, I love the entertainment value of it all.  Thanks


----------



## MIPS (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Call it political but I don't see any reason to support his attack on a non important entity in that country.   All we have been told so far is that it is a taliban stronghold which could mean a lot of things.   Is it crucial for an overall plan of success?   I think if we don't get a better reason for this action than just "its a taliban stronghold" then I wonder what motives were behind it.



How about the military commanders on the ground, are you supporting their actions in Afghanistan?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Call it political but I don't see any reason to support his attack on a non important entity in that country.   All we have been told so far is that it is a taliban stronghold which could mean a lot of things.   Is it crucial for an overall plan of success?   I think if we don't get a better reason for this action than just "its a taliban stronghold" then I wonder what motives were behind it.



Exactly which cave have you been living in the last 10 years?

Let me  guess.....The FoxNews cave


----------



## Article 15 (Feb 13, 2010)

Rudy said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Rudy said:
> ...



You had to ask that?

Really?


----------



## Rudy (Feb 13, 2010)

it was more of a rhetorical question.  His/her name answers it for me.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Feb 13, 2010)

Really? With a name like ihopehefails you don't support his actions? Holy cow. Color me surprised Batman.


----------



## Mr Natural (Feb 13, 2010)

How about the troops, are you supporting the troops?

Because you know you can't support the troops without supporting the mission.

And anything short of supporting the mission is treason.


----------



## groupthink (Feb 13, 2010)

nobody is touching upon the most important reason to continue fighting in afghanistan...

we are fighting for.......freedom.

we must kill them all and let god sort them out...  it is what jesus would do...and george washington would really get behined it..


----------



## Rudy (Feb 13, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


> How about the troops, are you supporting the troops?
> 
> Because you know you can't support the troops without supporting the mission.
> 
> And anything short of supporting the mission is treason.



Hardly anyone "supports" the troops anyway.  The majority of American's support for our troops does not go beyond a yellow ribbon bumper sticker or a politically convenient talking point.


----------



## Rudy (Feb 13, 2010)

groupthink said:


> nobody is touching upon the most important reason to continue fighting in afghanistan...
> 
> we are fighting for.......freedom.
> 
> we must kill them all and let god sort them out...  it is what jesus would do...and george washington would really get behined it..



You have to throw a Jerry Falwell in there somewhere to complete the circle.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Call it political but I don't see any reason to support his attack on a non important entity in that country.   All we have been told so far is that it is a taliban stronghold which could mean a lot of things.   Is it crucial for an overall plan of success?   I think if we don't get a better reason for this action than just "its a taliban stronghold" then I wonder what motives were behind it.



As if you have the slightest understanding of operational and tactical requirements.  However, we do understand your motives behind this post.


----------



## groupthink (Feb 13, 2010)

i remember the ANTI-war movement... during the bush years...

glad to see now the anti-war movment has changed its position..  i heard even code pink is calling on more bombing..and to begin the bombing of pakistan...  for freedom.

yes we can...  steal your money and expand the wars.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 13, 2010)

groupthink said:


> i remember the ANTI-war movement... during the bush years...
> 
> glad to see now the anti-war movment has changed its position..  i heard even code pink is calling on more bombing..and to begin the bombing of pakistan...  for freedom.
> 
> yes we can...  steal your money and expand the wars.



I know.   Isn't it funny.


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 13, 2010)

obama is brilliant taking on the terrorists in the mountains of afganistan.....he will succeed where the english the russians and every other country that tried to take afganistan failed....


----------



## groupthink (Feb 13, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> obama is brilliant taking on the terrorists in the mountains of afganistan.....he will succeed where the english the russians and every other country that tried to take afganistan failed....



our freedom is hidden somewhere in those mountains... and barry is going to find it for us.


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 13, 2010)

groupthink said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > obama is brilliant taking on the terrorists in the mountains of afganistan.....he will succeed where the english the russians and every other country that tried to take afganistan failed....
> ...



our freedom went mia decades ago.....we just refuse to accept it....


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 13, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


> How about the troops, are you supporting the troops?
> 
> Because you know you can't support the troops without supporting the mission.
> 
> And anything short of supporting the mission is treason.



That depends on what you mean by 'support the troops'.   Do you mean spit on them and call them baby killers and turn my hatred of the war against them?   Do you mean not supporting the purpose that they are being used?   I don't plan on spitting on them and threatening to burn down recruitment centers like code PMS pink wants to but my support for the troops action is conditional on what they are being used for.   Maybe I think firebombing a stronghold where they whackoff to porn is pointless and a waste of lives or perhaps Osama is planning his next attack from their so its worth it.   What is the purpose of this?   That is what I am asking?


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 13, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> obama is brilliant taking on the terrorists in the mountains of afganistan.....he will succeed where the english the russians and every other country that tried to take afganistan failed....



Despite the fact that it has been repeated many times that the goal in Iraq or Afghanastan was never about conquest the left keep defining failure as the inability to conquer.   How many times have we heard that Bush's failure was that he could not pacify the muslims in Iraq or retain complete control of afghanastan from the left?   Its as if in their own minds the military is used as an instrument of conquest and foreign intervention (Kosovo).   

Sucks we can't conquer them...



> he will succeed where the english the russians and every other country that tried to take afganistan failed....


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 13, 2010)

MIPS said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Call it political but I don't see any reason to support his attack on a non important entity in that country.   All we have been told so far is that it is a taliban stronghold which could mean a lot of things.   Is it crucial for an overall plan of success?   I think if we don't get a better reason for this action than just "its a taliban stronghold" then I wonder what motives were behind it.
> ...



I haven't been given a reason to support them other than its a taliban stronghold.


----------



## groupthink (Feb 13, 2010)

&#8220;If my sons did not want wars&#8230;there would be none&#8221;. 
Gutle Schnaper&#8230;Wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2010)

ihef writes, "Despite the fact that it has been repeated many times that the goal in Iraq or Afghanastan was never about conquest . . . ".  You better tell the whacko reactionary wing just what it was about then.  I remember the neo-cons wanting to create a stable ally in the Middle East to secure our oil supply, although they hid that behind the WMD argument.

It was obvious Bush had not won the war before the election, and now eighteen months later, our troops are coming home victorious later this summer.  That is not happening on the neo-con watch.


----------



## Rudy (Feb 13, 2010)

groupthink said:


> i remember the ANTI-war movement... during the bush years...
> 
> glad to see now the anti-war movment has changed its position..  i heard even code pink is calling on more bombing..and to begin the bombing of pakistan...  for freedom.
> 
> yes we can...  steal your money and expand the wars.



The -anti-war movement was for Iraq.  

Code Pink is irrelevant in politics. The fact that you even bring them up means you are grasping at straws.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 13, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> ihef writes, "Despite the fact that it has been repeated many times that the goal in Iraq or Afghanastan was never about conquest . . . ".  You better tell the whacko reactionary wing just what it was about then.  I remember the neo-cons wanting to create a stable ally in the Middle East to secure our oil supply, although they hid that behind the WMD argument.
> 
> It was obvious Bush had not won the war before the election, and now eighteen months later, our troops are coming home victorious later this summer.  That is not happening on the neo-con watch.



How many deaths were there before and after the surge?


----------



## groupthink (Feb 13, 2010)

Rudy said:


> groupthink said:
> 
> 
> > i remember the ANTI-war movement... during the bush years...
> ...



ohhhh   ok...  so the dems that were against the iraq war...were pro afghan war?  wow..i didnt know that.


gooooo war!!      so there never was an anti-war movment?  see..here in california....    its pretty common to see obama stickers on cars...  with "war is not the answer" or..."no more wars" 

thats pretty anti-warish isnt it?

im confused.


----------



## Colin (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> MIPS said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



The troops I know who are serving out there wouldn't want YOUR support, or others like you. They would recognise you for what you are.


----------



## groupthink (Feb 13, 2010)

i do not support the troops... i feel sorry for them.

one of obamas advisors said it best..


*"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."*
henry kissinger.....


----------



## Rudy (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ihef writes, "Despite the fact that it has been repeated many times that the goal in Iraq or Afghanastan was never about conquest . . . ".  You better tell the whacko reactionary wing just what it was about then.  I remember the neo-cons wanting to create a stable ally in the Middle East to secure our oil supply, although they hid that behind the WMD argument.
> ...



I'm pretty sure the fact that we started paying the terrorists to fight with us rather than against us has a lot to do with your equation.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 13, 2010)

Colin said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > MIPS said:
> ...



Someone who wants to ask what is the point of being here if you are not going to kill Osama Bin Laden?   What is the point of risking my life for a stronghold that may or may not have any strategic interest?   These are pretty good questions to ask.


----------



## Rudy (Feb 13, 2010)

groupthink said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> > groupthink said:
> ...



I'm sorry to burst your bubble.. but hippies out in California do not represent the views of the politicians representing me in Washington DC.  

Just like I know there are very few politicians on Capitol Hill who are like the every day teabagger.  Quit making something out of nothing.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 13, 2010)

Rudy said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Lets assume that is true.  What has Obama done that is so different from Bush's policy that you can say has caused a sudden turnaround?   As far as I know nothing has changed.   He is doing the same policy as before so how can you declare victory if Bush was fucking it up?


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 13, 2010)

Rudy said:


> groupthink said:
> 
> 
> > Rudy said:
> ...



You sure didn't mind all the rhetoric that helped get Obama in office and you sure didn't mind Bill Ayers being an associate of Obama at one time.


----------



## Colin (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



What the fuck would you know about risking your life! About as much as you seem to know about the situation in Afghanistan. Diddly squat!


----------



## groupthink (Feb 13, 2010)

Rudy said:


> groupthink said:
> 
> 
> > Rudy said:
> ...



so there was no anti-war movment?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Feb 13, 2010)

groupthink said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> > groupthink said:
> ...



No. It was a conspiracy.


----------



## groupthink (Feb 13, 2010)

Colin said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Colin said:
> ...



1) leave family and wife and child behined
2) get on a plane and leave peacefull homeland
3) land 7 thousand miles away live,eat,breath and shit in DU infested afghanistan..
4) kill dirty brown people
5) step on landmine
6) leave family....wife...and child alone.

for freedom!!!!!!    yeehaw!!!!    superbowl!!! beer!!!


----------



## Rudy (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



Wow.... you're dumber than a bunch of retards playing chess in the dark.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Feb 13, 2010)

Beer? Where?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



If you want to take that position, ihef, then you will have to grant the GOP in the Bush years are as responsible for the Great Recession as the Dems.

The same logic applies to both situations.


----------



## groupthink (Feb 13, 2010)

Rudy said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Colin said:
> ...



not to mention the poppy fields that need protecting.






Updated - American troops patrolling poppy fields in Afghanistan on Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## blu (Feb 13, 2010)

:l


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Rudy said:
> ...



That would mean in the mind of all the Bush blamers that I am correct.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

Rudy said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Colin said:
> ...



You still can't tell me what is the point?   With all the name calling about how retarded i am I would think you would be able to answer that question.


----------



## Colin (Feb 14, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



Go do a bit of reading. Make some attempt at trying to know why there is a surge and what the strategy is and why we have to stay for the time being. On the other hand, remain in blissful ignorance of what goes on in the outside world. At least that will enable you to continue your loony left agenda.


----------



## goldcatt (Feb 14, 2010)

Colin said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Rudy said:
> ...



Hey now, that's an insult to the lefties! That one's too stupid to know his left from his right anyway. He's a prime candidate for the new Batshit Crazy Party. No ideological requirements, no litmus tests, all you have to be is a raving loon.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



Your logic then grants that Obama is winning a war that Bush could not and that the Great Recession is the fault of the Dems and Repubs.  This is called "critical thinking skills", ihef.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What policy was implemented that was so different than Bush's that made it successful?   I keep hearing that Obama is winning but what did he do that was so different than Bush that 'turned the tide'?

Also, what policy caused the great recession.   I'm asking so we can get out of the blame game and just focus on a policy.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 15, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



I asked for a reason why we are attacking.   Why?   Someone should be able to answer that question.   No answer implies no knowledge of why we are attacking.  Obama just said "we are invading" and the peace loving left cheered at the death, carnage, and destruction that is about to take place.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 15, 2010)

Colin said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Rudy said:
> ...



I'm suppose to read and discover evidence for your talking point?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



No, you are not a high schooler so don't answer a question with a question.  We are talking about logic here.  Answer my questions then ask your questions.  Point is on you, friend.


----------



## Rudy (Feb 15, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Colin said:
> ...



What's wrong ihef?  Did Obama not say "terrorism," "9/11," "grave danger," "WMD's," etc, etc.. enough?


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Why do I have to answer in a manor that you want?   Don't I have the right to express myself freely?


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 15, 2010)

Rudy said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



At least Bush gave a reason.   Obama has not which makes me wonder why.  I suspect there are some nafarious political reasons for launching this attack.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 16, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



I thought we were holding a discussion, not making points.  The logic of the statement is still the same:  Obama is winning the war that Bush was losing, and the Republicans are responsible, along with the Democrats, for the state of the economy.  We have to agree that logic is correct or flawed before we can find exceptions to it.


----------



## Godboy (Feb 17, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Call it political but I don't see any reason to support his attack on a non important entity in that country.   All we have been told so far is that it is a taliban stronghold which could mean a lot of things.   Is it crucial for an overall plan of success?   I think if we don't get a better reason for this action than just "its a taliban stronghold" then I wonder what motives were behind it.



Thank you for pointing out to us that you are stupid. Do you REALLY think they would be there if there wasnt a good reason to be? You know how easy it would be for Obama to appease his liberal voting base by simply pulling out, yet hes still there. Why do you think that is?

Logic isnt your specialty i take it.


----------



## Godboy (Feb 17, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Hear those sirins? Its the "dumbfuck police". You better get out of here before they catch you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 19, 2010)

Godboy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



Somebody just got caught by the spellin' police.


----------



## Shoey (Jul 5, 2010)

President Obama didn't bring peace to the world, he embraces calamity and U.S. imperialism by meddling into the affairs of multiple sovereign nations. The Afghanistan conflict, "a war of necessity" Obama once defined proceeds on despite the fact that protests in America are minimal and support for the war subsides. The inclination of promoting peace while at the same time authorizing predator drone missile strikes  in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen targeting and killing innocent bystanders,  that syllogism is fundamentally erroneous.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 5, 2010)

Shoey, you do not understand logic, do you?

Try again.


----------



## Shoey (Jul 5, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Shoey, you do not understand logic, do you?
> 
> Try again.





Shoey said:


> President Obama didn't bring peace to the world, he embraces calamity and U.S. imperialism by meddling into the affairs of multiple sovereign nations. The Afghanistan conflict, "a war of necessity" Obama once defined proceeds on despite the fact that protests in America are minimal and support for the war subsides. The inclination of promoting peace while at the same time authorizing predator drone missile strikes  in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen targeting and killing innocent bystanders,  that syllogism is fundamentally erroneous.



I encourage you to please address my talking points. After all, this is a debate forum. Are you not aware that Congress never declared war against Pakistan or Yemen? You do realize President Obama violated the oath of office,  the U.S. Constitution and could potentially face impeachments hearings for war crimes against humanity!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 5, 2010)

Where did you get that idea?  Not from the right winger reactionaries, I am sure.

You are going to have make a reasonable solid argument that matches facts.  Your slant does not.


----------



## Immanuel (Jul 5, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Call it political but I don't see any reason to support his attack on a non important entity in that country.   All we have been told so far is that it is a taliban stronghold which could mean a lot of things.   Is it crucial for an overall plan of success?   I think if we don't get a better reason for this action than just "its a taliban stronghold" then I wonder what motives were behind it.



Knowing your feelings about our current President, do you think any of us are surprised by this announcement?

Immie


----------

