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

[potter 58]

hey mike, then justify iraq or justify Ronnie the braindead funding Osama in the first palce

 

[Coyote]

No it didn't. The violence started abating when we started PAYING 70,000+ Sunnis not to shoot at us. The surge just gave the insurgents more targets to shoot at.

Afghanistan is also a completely different situation - geographically, culturally and politically. A tactic like what was used in Iraq would likely not work in Afghanistan.

You are definitely right about the first. Additionally, history is against maintaining large masses of troops in Afghanistan. The large footprint give the other side the opportunity to hit lightly protected vehicles operating in support of the mission in great numbers. It is somewhat telling that they aren't more effective at it. But, that's how the Soviets and the British were both pushed out.

The quandary we find ourselves in is that, unlike Vietnam, we don't have the option of just leaving. The Vietnamese were never going to come back to the US to pick up the fight. We know the Islamo-fascists will. So, the options are to do something or do something else, not do nothing.

I would disagree. For one thing - at the time of Vietnam, we weren't fighting the Vietnamese per se - we were fighting the spread of an ideology - Communism. That's not too different then what we think we are fighting now - religious extremism popularly called "Islam-fascism". We were fighting in Vietnam because we thought communism WOULD come to the U.S.

The other thing is there is considerable difference of opinion as to whether or not Afghanistan would again provide a safe haven to them. Changing the mission to go after Al-Queda as opposed to nation building has it's points. Afghanistan has none of the institutions conducive to establishing a democracy and only idiots believe that a "free election" is the same as a democracy. As a country it's very tribal and I've heard convincing arguments that it might be better to change the mission to work instead of with a central government, with tribal governments.

 

[rdean]

Wow, I guess all those Republican deep thinkers really got me today. I pointed out that Afghanistan is two or three times as big as Vietnam and had twice the population.

Size wise, I remember Afghanistan to be like a quarter million square mile and South Vietnam something like 70,000 square miles with all of Vietnam twice that. But I don't think we occupied ALL of Vietnam, did we?

And that we had a half million troops in Vietnam and a hundred thousand in Afghanistan.

Well, I wasn't quoting anyone except my memory so I didn't attach any links.

So, since I'm relying on memory, let's see if those "deep thinkers" can prove me wrong.

I did say, "Vietnam", but those Republican "deep thinkers" and "quick with the facts" have to know that we didn't occupy ALL of Vietnam. At least that's how I remember it. I thought we only occupied "SOUTH VIETNAM". I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

If memory serves, the population of "South Vietnam" was something like 15, 16 or at most 17 million".

I believe I heard on the news that the population of Afghanistan is somewhat MORE than 30 MILLION.

Oops. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

I believe I said that we had half a million troops occupying half the population of Afghanistan in Vietnam while a hundred thousand are in Afghanistan. Well, I think I was probably wrong there too. I think that with the 40,000 troop INCREASE the right is whining for, that would bring the troop count up to 100 thousand in Afghanistan.

So, the point was, we couldn't win in Vietnam with 5 times the troops and half the population.

Is that clear to those conservatard "deep thinkers"?

Someone even said, "If the government in Afghanistan falls....".

Well, I got news for the conservatards. There IS NO government in Afghanistan. We are fighting to protect a "strawman". Something that doesn't exist. Of course, constervatards are good with that. They have had so much practice trying to make "gays" evil and "religion" real.

Always looking forward to their "facts" and "figures". Cuz they are so good at "figuring out" their "facts.

Usually, I rush off to find facts and figures, but I don't think I have to this time. I'm pretty sure I'm "close" to the facts. If not, I'm sure they will prove me wrong - or not.

 

[dilloduck]

Wow, I guess all those Republican deep thinkers really got me today. I pointed out that Afghanistan is two or three times as big as Vietnam and had twice the population.

Size wise, I remember Afghanistan to be like a quarter million square mile and South Vietnam something like 70,000 square miles with all of Vietnam twice that. But I don't think we occupied ALL of Vietnam, did we?

And that we had a half million troops in Vietnam and a hundred thousand in Afghanistan.

Well, I wasn't quoting anyone except my memory so I didn't attach any links.

So, since I'm relying on memory, let's see if those "deep thinkers" can prove me wrong.

I did say, "Vietnam", but those Republican "deep thinkers" and "quick with the facts" have to know that we didn't occupy ALL of Vietnam. At least that's how I remember it. I thought we only occupied "SOUTH VIETNAM". I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

If memory serves, the population of "South Vietnam" was something like 15, 16 or at most 17 million".

I believe I heard on the news that the population of Afghanistan is somewhat MORE than 30 MILLION.

Oops. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

I believe I said that we had half a million troops occupying half the population of Afghanistan in Vietnam while a hundred thousand are in Afghanistan. Well, I think I was probably wrong there too. I think that with the 40,000 troop INCREASE the right is whining for, that would bring the troop count up to 100 thousand in Afghanistan.

So, the point was, we couldn't win in Vietnam with 5 times the troops and half the population.

Is that clear to those conservatard "deep thinkers"?

Someone even said, "If the government in Afghanistan falls....".

Well, I got news for the conservatards. There IS NO government in Afghanistan. We are fighting to protect a "strawman". Something that doesn't exist. Of course, constervatards are good with that. They have had so much practice trying to make "gays" evil and "religion" real.

Always looking forward to their "facts" and "figures". Cuz they are so good at "figuring out" their "facts.

Usually, I rush off to find facts and figures, but I don't think I have to this time. I'm pretty sure I'm "close" to the facts. If not, I'm sure they will prove me wrong - or not.

Why is Obama making us stay there?

 

[potter 58]

hey dildo, 10 months is hardly enough time to undo 8 years of fuck ups

 

[dilloduck]

hey dildo, 10 months is hardly enough time to undo 8 years of fuck ups

All time starts with NOW-----enough excuses. Obama needs to shit or get off the pot. What the hell does he need to stall longer for?

 

[potter 58]

where the fuck were you for the last 7 years a$$wipe, bush made some moves just before he left office that weren't real helpful

 

[dilloduck]

where the fuck were you for the last 7 years a$$wipe, bush made some moves just before he left office that weren't real helpful

wow---ya think Obama could make some moves as he enters office that might reverse that ??

 

[rdean]

Wow, I guess all those Republican deep thinkers really got me today. I pointed out that Afghanistan is two or three times as big as Vietnam and had twice the population.

Size wise, I remember Afghanistan to be like a quarter million square mile and South Vietnam something like 70,000 square miles with all of Vietnam twice that. But I don't think we occupied ALL of Vietnam, did we?

And that we had a half million troops in Vietnam and a hundred thousand in Afghanistan.

Well, I wasn't quoting anyone except my memory so I didn't attach any links.

So, since I'm relying on memory, let's see if those "deep thinkers" can prove me wrong.

I did say, "Vietnam", but those Republican "deep thinkers" and "quick with the facts" have to know that we didn't occupy ALL of Vietnam. At least that's how I remember it. I thought we only occupied "SOUTH VIETNAM". I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

If memory serves, the population of "South Vietnam" was something like 15, 16 or at most 17 million".

I believe I heard on the news that the population of Afghanistan is somewhat MORE than 30 MILLION.

Oops. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

I believe I said that we had half a million troops occupying half the population of Afghanistan in Vietnam while a hundred thousand are in Afghanistan. Well, I think I was probably wrong there too. I think that with the 40,000 troop INCREASE the right is whining for, that would bring the troop count up to 100 thousand in Afghanistan.

So, the point was, we couldn't win in Vietnam with 5 times the troops and half the population.

Is that clear to those conservatard "deep thinkers"?

Someone even said, "If the government in Afghanistan falls....".

Well, I got news for the conservatards. There IS NO government in Afghanistan. We are fighting to protect a "strawman". Something that doesn't exist. Of course, constervatards are good with that. They have had so much practice trying to make "gays" evil and "religion" real.

Always looking forward to their "facts" and "figures". Cuz they are so good at "figuring out" their "facts.

Usually, I rush off to find facts and figures, but I don't think I have to this time. I'm pretty sure I'm "close" to the facts. If not, I'm sure they will prove me wrong - or not.

Why is Obama making us stay there?

Damn good question.

In the world of today's Republican Party, you can just do "stuff" with no repercussions. No fallout. And if there is fallout, you can just say it doesn't exist. (Index finger in each ear, eyes tightly closed, loudly singing the "la la" song.)

Example: The Constitution in Iraq. All legislation based on Islam. Islam the National Religion. If those were good things, our founders would have put them into our constitution instead of creating "restrictions" against organized religion.

The Christians have been pretty much wiped out in Iraq and women are back to wearing burk-as, many not allowed to work, not allowed to attend school and not allowed to go outside without a male escort. Gays and adulterers are being murdered. To American Conservatives, Iraq is a "wild" success.

What I'm pointing out is "unintended consequences".

Getting up and leaving could be just as bad as staying.

My personal opinion is that Obama rejected the strategies presented to him because none included an exit strategy.

When the entire world was behind us, we might have had a chance in Afghanistan, but Bush destroyed that when he veered into Iraq.

And believe me, I totally understand why Bush went into Iraq. If things had gone as planned, this is what would have happened:
1. The US frees Iraq
2. The people, in thanks, throw flowers and hard candy at US soldiers for liberating them
3. Iraq would become a democracy
4. Other countries in the Middle East would see the wonderful success in Iraq and adopt a US style government
5. Middle Easterners would see how wonderful the US is and become Christian
6. Bush would become the greatest president ever.

Instead, the guy who throws shoes at Bush gets a house and marriage proposals and is proclaimed a hero.

So, what are the "unintended consequences" from Afghanistan? That's fodder for another thread. But it's something to think about.

 

[Ame®icano]

So he rejected a bunch of plans that had no clear end game and exit strategy. Good.

Is he clear on anything at all?

 

[rdean]

So he rejected a bunch of plans that had no clear end game and exit strategy. Good.

Is he clear on anything at all?

[/QUOTE]

For some reason, now that Obama is in charge, EVERYTHING is clear to the Republicans. They suddenly have all the answers to all the problems they created.​

 

[Ame®icano]

This is not breaking news, this was the news the day Obama got elected.

 

[dilloduck]

Wow, I guess all those Republican deep thinkers really got me today. I pointed out that Afghanistan is two or three times as big as Vietnam and had twice the population.

Size wise, I remember Afghanistan to be like a quarter million square mile and South Vietnam something like 70,000 square miles with all of Vietnam twice that. But I don't think we occupied ALL of Vietnam, did we?

And that we had a half million troops in Vietnam and a hundred thousand in Afghanistan.

Well, I wasn't quoting anyone except my memory so I didn't attach any links.

So, since I'm relying on memory, let's see if those "deep thinkers" can prove me wrong.

I did say, "Vietnam", but those Republican "deep thinkers" and "quick with the facts" have to know that we didn't occupy ALL of Vietnam. At least that's how I remember it. I thought we only occupied "SOUTH VIETNAM". I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

If memory serves, the population of "South Vietnam" was something like 15, 16 or at most 17 million".

I believe I heard on the news that the population of Afghanistan is somewhat MORE than 30 MILLION.

Oops. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

I believe I said that we had half a million troops occupying half the population of Afghanistan in Vietnam while a hundred thousand are in Afghanistan. Well, I think I was probably wrong there too. I think that with the 40,000 troop INCREASE the right is whining for, that would bring the troop count up to 100 thousand in Afghanistan.

So, the point was, we couldn't win in Vietnam with 5 times the troops and half the population.

Is that clear to those conservatard "deep thinkers"?

Someone even said, "If the government in Afghanistan falls....".

Well, I got news for the conservatards. There IS NO government in Afghanistan. We are fighting to protect a "strawman". Something that doesn't exist. Of course, constervatards are good with that. They have had so much practice trying to make "gays" evil and "religion" real.

Always looking forward to their "facts" and "figures". Cuz they are so good at "figuring out" their "facts.

Usually, I rush off to find facts and figures, but I don't think I have to this time. I'm pretty sure I'm "close" to the facts. If not, I'm sure they will prove me wrong - or not.

Why is Obama making us stay there?

Damn good question.

In the world of today's Republican Party, you can just do "stuff" with no repercussions. No fallout. And if there is fallout, you can just say it doesn't exist. (Index finger in each ear, eyes tightly closed, loudly singing the "la la" song.)

Example: The Constitution in Iraq. All legislation based on Islam. Islam the National Religion. If those were good things, our founders would have put them into our constitution instead of creating "restrictions" against organized religion.

The Christians have been pretty much wiped out in Iraq and women are back to wearing burk-as, many not allowed to work, not allowed to attend school and not allowed to go outside without a male escort. Gays and adulterers are being murdered. To American Conservatives, Iraq is a "wild" success.

What I'm pointing out is "unintended consequences".

Getting up and leaving could be just as bad as staying.

My personal opinion is that Obama rejected the strategies presented to him because none included an exit strategy.

When the entire world was behind us, we might have had a chance in Afghanistan, but Bush destroyed that when he veered into Iraq.

And believe me, I totally understand why Bush went into Iraq. If things had gone as planned, this is what would have happened:
1. The US frees Iraq
2. The people, in thanks, throw flowers and hard candy at US soldiers for liberating them
3. Iraq would become a democracy
4. Other countries in the Middle East would see the wonderful success in Iraq and adopt a US style government
5. Middle Easterners would see how wonderful the US is and become Christian
6. Bush would become the greatest president ever.

Instead, the guy who throws shoes at Bush gets a house and marriage proposals and is proclaimed a hero.

So, what are the "unintended consequences" from Afghanistan? That's fodder for another thread. But it's something to think about.

So you are content with him doing nothing to correct the "unintended consequences". NOTHING ? I have no idea what Obama is thinking but so far it's really clear that he's doing nothing.

 

[Ame®icano]

so you would have him choose a plan that he didn't like and probably wouldn't work and probably mean more soldiers being sent over there just to make you idiots happy?

Now why don't you enlighten us to Obama's qualifications to design wars plans or to understand what constitutes a good one or a bad one?

ahuh and you call others idiots?

What gives any president that power? O yeah, that's part of his job description.

Straight from community organizing...

That explains why he has so many advisors.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sending more troops isn't strategy, he is asking for strategic options. Makes sense.

Of course it is a very smart move. If he has to send more troops in the end, fine but they'd better have an exit strategy.

If you would only know what "strategy" means.

There is only one acceptable exit strategy for Obama... to exit the WH.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm going to only say this, as a former member of the US Military, without any clear mission objectives which include force structure, exit, etc. Then to keep those young men and women there is placing them in harms way without guidence . That being said, it's time for these brave soldiers, sailors, arimen and marines to come home if they will not have the support from the top they need to accomplish the mission. To leave them there now, is just placing their lives in danger and ALL those hero's deserve better than that.

Exactly.

Every time when politicians are playing soldiers, it ends bad for - real soldiers. Let soldiers do their job.

 

[Liability]

I'm going to only say this, as a former member of the US Military, without any clear mission objectives which include force structure, exit, etc. Then to keep those young men and women there is placing them in harms way without guidence . That being said, it's time for these brave soldiers, sailors, arimen and marines to come home if they will not have the support from the top they need to accomplish the mission. To leave them there now, is just placing their lives in danger and ALL those hero's deserve better than that.

Exactly.

Every time when politicians are playing soldiers, it ends bad for - real soldiers. Let soldiers do their job.

FUCK you, Mr. President, sir.

You fuckwad.

 

[Ame®icano]

Let me remind you again, that the US Ambassador --Karl Eikenberry-- is a Retired General who was the Commander in Afghanistan for several years. He has advised the Prez not to send in more troops.

Ambassador job is to support policies of his government. He'll say anything that WH asked him to say.

 

[Ame®icano]

Obama is showing himself to be a true leader.

He is listening to both sides and not rushing to make a hasty decision on Afghanistan.

All Americans should be grateful we have been blessed with such a wise Commander-in-Cheif

And he's doing that for how long? Three months of thinking?

My pet rock is wiser then that.

 

[Liability]

Let me remind you again, that the US Ambassador --Karl Eikenberry-- is a Retired General who was the Commander in Afghanistan for several years. He has advised the Prez not to send in more troops.

Ambassador job is to support policies of his government. He'll say anything that WH asked him to say.

AB-so-fucking-lutely!