Breaking: MSNBC : Prez Obama REJECTS ALL MILITARY OPTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

[Meister]

and now we will leave......then you will have a taliban nation state.....with a heroine drug trade to fund it.....should be fun....

just like the old days.........

Hey....your stealing my line.

 

[CurveLight]

Notice Obama changed AFTER his boy lost the election in Afghanistan.

So Obama lost election on 2 Continents

You mean you really think we should have American troops dying and getting maimed in a country run by someone as corrupt as Karzai?

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the entire problem. I hope that all this time being spent weighing the options means that they are seriously looking for an EXIT strategy, not how to WIN. Win what? Al-Qaeda has moved on.

Karzai is nothing anyway....just the Mayor of Kabul....

Karzai is a key reason why things are so fucked up.

 

[dilloduck]

You mean you really think we should have American troops dying and getting maimed in a country run by someone as corrupt as Karzai?

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the entire problem. I hope that all this time being spent weighing the options means that they are seriously looking for an EXIT strategy, not how to WIN. Win what? Al-Qaeda has moved on.

Karzai is nothing anyway....just the Mayor of Kabul....

Karzai is a key reason why things are so fucked up.

oh shit-----Karzai---Bush----fuck this shit
Own something OBAMA !!!!

 

[CMike]

The problem is that if the Afghani don't successfully do so, the Taliban will take over, and Al Qaida will have their stronghold back.

It's not about them. It's about us and protecting our country.

If they don't clean up their own mess, they deserve the hell that awaits them.

How about we clean up our own mess here at home first?

It's not about them. The problem is that the Al Qaida terrorists had safe haven there because the Taliban gave it to them.

Unfortunately, it's not about their mess. It's about the terrorists there attacking the US inside the US, and going back there to hide.

That is the problem.

 

[JimH52]

Until Obama is satisfied that the Afghanistan government is legitimate and can eventually take over for our troops, he is not going to commit more American lives to a corrupt government. My gosh, don't you people remember Vietnam, when thousands of your soldiers died for an illegitimate government? Obama is not going to make that mistake again.

 

[dilloduck]

Until Obama is satisfied that the Afghanistan government is legitimate and can eventually take over for our troops, he is not going to commit more American lives to a corrupt government. My gosh, don't you people remember Vietnam, when thousands of your soldiers died for an illegitimate government? Obama is not going to make that mistake again.

great--so he just leaves the ones there to get picked off ?

 

[CurveLight]

Asking you to define what would constitute victory in Afghanistan is a strawman?

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

Funny, I used to believe that too. HOWEVER, in recent months it has become perfectly clear that the Afghans have no intention of democratizing itself in the fashion of the United States, regarding the drug trade or women. It is a lawless territory. The US would have to remain there indefinitely just to protect those few Afghan residents who actually DO want to pull themselves into the 21st Century. It's a lost cause, period.

I think the ONLY valid reason to possibly continue to have a strong presence there is its geographic proximity to Iran and its veiled threats to our security, but then if that becomes the goal, we are no better than any other occupier of another sovereignty solely for political superiority in a region.

What? The US is largely responsible for the explosion of drugs coming out of Afghanistan. As fucked up as the Taliban are they reduced drug production by 90% using many of the same methods we use such as taking private property and incarceration. After we invaded our military was strategically used to accomplish four main goals:

Allow the drug production to flourish.

Secure the areas necessary for the pipelines.

Provide pockets of retreat for the Taliban so there would be a constant "insurgency" to justify our occupation.

Install military bases that are logistically advantageous for airstrikes on Iran while anticipating a possible backlash from Russia.


Do people really believe we went there to "liberate" anyone? We've been best friends with the world's most brutal Islamic Theocracy for decades.

 

[dilloduck]

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

Funny, I used to believe that too. HOWEVER, in recent months it has become perfectly clear that the Afghans have no intention of democratizing itself in the fashion of the United States, regarding the drug trade or women. It is a lawless territory. The US would have to remain there indefinitely just to protect those few Afghan residents who actually DO want to pull themselves into the 21st Century. It's a lost cause, period.

I think the ONLY valid reason to possibly continue to have a strong presence there is its geographic proximity to Iran and its veiled threats to our security, but then if that becomes the goal, we are no better than any other occupier of another sovereignty solely for political superiority in a region.

What? The US is largely responsible for the explosion of drugs coming out of Afghanistan. As fucked up as the Taliban are they reduced drug production by 90% using many of the same methods we use such as taking private property and incarceration. After we invaded our military was strategically used to accomplish four main goals:

Allow the drug production to flourish.

Secure the areas necessary for the pipelines.

Provide pockets of retreat for the Taliban so there would be a constant "insurgency" to justify our occupation.

Install military bases that are logistically advantageous for airstrikes on Iran while anticipating a possible backlash from Russia.


Do people really believe we went there to "liberate" anyone? We've been best friends with the world's most brutal Islamic Theocracy for decades.

Then why is Obama keeping us there?

 

[CurveLight]

The problem is that if the Afghani don't successfully do so, the Taliban will take over, and Al Qaida will have their stronghold back.

It's not about them. It's about us and protecting our country.

If they don't clean up their own mess, they deserve the hell that awaits them.

How about we clean up our own mess here at home first?

It's not about them. The problem is that the Al Qaida terrorists had safe haven there because the Taliban gave it to them.

Unfortunately, it's not about their mess. It's about the terrorists there attacking the US inside the US, and going back there to hide.

That is the problem.

This same garbage? 15 of 19 of the alleged 9E hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. The Nation that funds terrorism the most is.....Saudi Arabia. The Taliban asked the Bush admin for evidence bin laden was responsible and the Bush admin offered them no evidence. Ain't it weird how the Taliban asked us to abide by our own Constitution and we said fuck off?

 

[CMike]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29898698//

"“If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged,” Obama said, “that country will again be a base for terrorists.” -- Pres. Douche Bag

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem is that if the Afghani don't successfully do so, the Taliban will take over, and Al Qaida will have their stronghold back.

It's not about them. It's about us and protecting our country.

Are we going to invade and occupy every country where there's any chance Al Qaeda could have a safe haven?

 

[Harry Dresden]

and now we will leave......then you will have a taliban nation state.....with a heroine drug trade to fund it.....should be fun....

just like the old days.........

Hey....your stealing my line.

nope....i just beat ya to it....

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The problem is that if the Afghani don't successfully do so, the Taliban will take over, and Al Qaida will have their stronghold back.

It's not about them. It's about us and protecting our country.

If they don't clean up their own mess, they deserve the hell that awaits them.

How about we clean up our own mess here at home first?

It's not about them. The problem is that the Al Qaida terrorists had safe haven there because the Taliban gave it to them.

Unfortunately, it's not about their mess. It's about the terrorists there attacking the US inside the US, and going back there to hide.

That is the problem.

I know full well what the problem is Mike.

1. We have open immigration (for all intent and purposes) into our Republic during a time of war.

2. Our own borders are being overrun by illegal aliens, as well as anyone else that would like to sneak in, and disappear into the sea of government waste and apathy.

3. Our government is waging a war in a politically correct manner, on a genderless, ageless, and faceless ideology. And contrary to constant government hack rhetoric, it is spread across the world and not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.

A) You cannot fight a war in a politically correct manner and achieve victory.

B) You cannot achieve victory, when there is no specific entity that is going to surrender to your government and way of life.

C) You cannot achieve victory, when the government is borrowing money it doesn't have, in order to pay for the perpetual war on said genderless, ageless, and faceless enemy that is still finding its way into our Republic, as well as recruiting soldiers from our own soil.

What you are advocating is nothing short of perpetual war on foreign soil Mike. A Republic cannot abide perpetual war. It will implode on itself.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

The problem is that if the Afghani don't successfully do so, the Taliban will take over, and Al Qaida will have their stronghold back.

It's not about them. It's about us and protecting our country.

Are we going to invade and occupy every country where there's any chance Al Qaeda could have a safe haven?

No carb, Or we would have invaded and occupied Pakistan by now. Truth is, we are not in Afganastan to fight the joke on terra. We are there for strategic reasons concerning the region, and of course the battle for resources which includes the opium trade which nobody want's to believe. It's in some peoples interest to have them transformed into a semi-Democracy in order to have them as a future Ally. ~BH

 

[CurveLight]

Funny, I used to believe that too. HOWEVER, in recent months it has become perfectly clear that the Afghans have no intention of democratizing itself in the fashion of the United States, regarding the drug trade or women. It is a lawless territory. The US would have to remain there indefinitely just to protect those few Afghan residents who actually DO want to pull themselves into the 21st Century. It's a lost cause, period.

I think the ONLY valid reason to possibly continue to have a strong presence there is its geographic proximity to Iran and its veiled threats to our security, but then if that becomes the goal, we are no better than any other occupier of another sovereignty solely for political superiority in a region.

What? The US is largely responsible for the explosion of drugs coming out of Afghanistan. As fucked up as the Taliban are they reduced drug production by 90% using many of the same methods we use such as taking private property and incarceration. After we invaded our military was strategically used to accomplish four main goals:

Allow the drug production to flourish.

Secure the areas necessary for the pipelines.

Provide pockets of retreat for the Taliban so there would be a constant "insurgency" to justify our occupation.

Install military bases that are logistically advantageous for airstrikes on Iran while anticipating a possible backlash from Russia.


Do people really believe we went there to "liberate" anyone? We've been best friends with the world's most brutal Islamic Theocracy for decades.

Then why is Obama keeping us there?

Because he knows...(well maybe he doesn't personally know but there are some in the loop who do)...if we pull out the vacuum backlash would completely obliterate our economy. A major backlash would be retaliation against our allies such as Saudi and the UAE. They own so much of America that if they were forced to switch their petrodollar to the Euro they would first have to withdraw all its american ownership. We use our military to protect those allies in exchange for them keeping a majority of OPEC in USD instead of the Euro and they reinvest a chunk of that change in US markets keeping our economy alive. Halliburton move its headquarters to the UAE a couple of years ago and it wasn't for the benefit of avoiding the US laws it's been breaking for several years. (that was a nice perk though.)

 

[BolshevikHunter]

If they don't clean up their own mess, they deserve the hell that awaits them.

How about we clean up our own mess here at home first?

It's not about them. The problem is that the Al Qaida terrorists had safe haven there because the Taliban gave it to them.

Unfortunately, it's not about their mess. It's about the terrorists there attacking the US inside the US, and going back there to hide.

That is the problem.

I know full well what the problem is Mike.

1. We have open immigration (for all intent and purposes) into our Republic during a time of war.

2. Our own borders are being overrun by illegal aliens, as well as anyone else that would like to sneak in, and disappear into the sea of government waste and apathy.

3. Our government is waging a war in a politically correct manner, on a genderless, ageless, and faceless ideology. And contrary to constant government hack rhetoric, it is spread across the world and not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.

A) You cannot fight a war in a politically correct manner and achieve victory.

B) You cannot achieve victory, when there is no specific entity that is going to surrender to your government and way of life.

C) You cannot achieve victory, when the government is borrowing money it doesn't have, in order to pay for the perpetual war on said genderless, ageless, and faceless enemy that is still finding its way into our Republic, as well as recruiting soldiers from our own soil.

What you are advocating is nothing short of perpetual war on foreign soil Mike. A Republic cannot abide perpetual war. It will implode on itself.

Exactly brother. ~BH

 

[GHook93]

Can this fuckwad make a decision? Come on now! Either pull out of Afghanistan or send the fucking troops request! This indecision is unacceptable.

No wonder even the left is calling him the non-decision president cough cough SNL cough cough!

 

[dilloduck]

What? The US is largely responsible for the explosion of drugs coming out of Afghanistan. As fucked up as the Taliban are they reduced drug production by 90% using many of the same methods we use such as taking private property and incarceration. After we invaded our military was strategically used to accomplish four main goals:

Allow the drug production to flourish.

Secure the areas necessary for the pipelines.

Provide pockets of retreat for the Taliban so there would be a constant "insurgency" to justify our occupation.

Install military bases that are logistically advantageous for airstrikes on Iran while anticipating a possible backlash from Russia.


Do people really believe we went there to "liberate" anyone? We've been best friends with the world's most brutal Islamic Theocracy for decades.

Then why is Obama keeping us there?

Because he knows...(well maybe he doesn't personally know but there are some in the loop who do)...if we pull out the vacuum backlash would completely obliterate our economy. A major backlash would be retaliation against our allies such as Saudi and the UAE. They own so much of America that if they were forced to switch their petrodollar to the Euro they would first have to withdraw all its american ownership. We use our military to protect those allies in exchange for them keeping a majority of OPEC in USD instead of the Euro and they reinvest a chunk of that change in US markets keeping our economy alive. Halliburton move its headquarters to the UAE a couple of years ago and it wasn't for the benefit of avoiding the US laws it's been breaking for several years. (that was a nice perk though.)

Well hell----at least we're there for a good reason then------how come this reason didn't work for Bush?

 

[WillowTree]

Then why is Obama keeping us there?

Because he knows...(well maybe he doesn't personally know but there are some in the loop who do)...if we pull out the vacuum backlash would completely obliterate our economy. A major backlash would be retaliation against our allies such as Saudi and the UAE. They own so much of America that if they were forced to switch their petrodollar to the Euro they would first have to withdraw all its american ownership. We use our military to protect those allies in exchange for them keeping a majority of OPEC in USD instead of the Euro and they reinvest a chunk of that change in US markets keeping our economy alive. Halliburton move its headquarters to the UAE a couple of years ago and it wasn't for the benefit of avoiding the US laws it's been breaking for several years. (that was a nice perk though.)

Well hell----at least we're there for a good reason then------how come this reason didn't work for Bush?

dip****

 

[CMike]

If they don't clean up their own mess, they deserve the hell that awaits them.

How about we clean up our own mess here at home first?

It's not about them. The problem is that the Al Qaida terrorists had safe haven there because the Taliban gave it to them.

Unfortunately, it's not about their mess. It's about the terrorists there attacking the US inside the US, and going back there to hide.

That is the problem.

I know full well what the problem is Mike.

1. We have open immigration (for all intent and purposes) into our Republic during a time of war.

2. Our own borders are being overrun by illegal aliens, as well as anyone else that would like to sneak in, and disappear into the sea of government waste and apathy.

3. Our government is waging a war in a politically correct manner, on a genderless, ageless, and faceless ideology. And contrary to constant government hack rhetoric, it is spread across the world and not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.

A) You cannot fight a war in a politically correct manner and achieve victory.

B) You cannot achieve victory, when there is no specific entity that is going to surrender to your government and way of life.

C) You cannot achieve victory, when the government is borrowing money it doesn't have, in order to pay for the perpetual war on said genderless, ageless, and faceless enemy that is still finding its way into our Republic, as well as recruiting soldiers from our own soil.

What you are advocating is nothing short of perpetual war on foreign soil Mike. A Republic cannot abide perpetual war. It will implode on itself.

Just for arguements sake, let's say you are right.

What do you propose? Allowing a state to give safe haven to terrorist organziations that attack american civilians and then go and hide in their state? You want america to take no military action against that state government and the terrorists who attack america hiding in those states?

Is that what you really want?

What message are you then giving to terrorists that wish to attack the US and the states that help them to do so by giving them safe haven?