Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I presume the reason that he is a US ambassador now is because he is a politician who is telling the great nobel peace prize winner what he wants to hear.
Ame®icano;1711562 said:I presume the reason that he is a US ambassador now is because he is a politician who is telling the great nobel peace prize winner what he wants to hear.
Obama can't send more troops before he receive the Prize. If he send troops now, he wouldn't be only one that received prize for doing nothing, but also only one that lost the prize for doing something.
Ame®icano;1711562 said:I presume the reason that he is a US ambassador now is because he is a politician who is telling the great nobel peace prize winner what he wants to hear.
Obama can't send more troops before he receive the Prize. If he send troops now, he wouldn't be only one that received prize for doing nothing, but also only one that lost the prize for doing something.
Seems he could just bring em all home and make the world all lover each other, right ?
I mean that was the prize deal wasn't it ?
Bush attacking Iraq after 9/11 was idioticI think Pres. Bush was spot on. He did somethign never done before. He took the fight to the terrorists, rather than the terrorists continuously attacking the US and then go and hide in their safe haven countries.
As someone once said: It was like attacking Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor
[youtube]FCVZlLBchVE[/youtube]
So he rejected a bunch of plans that had no clear end game and exit strategy. Good.
Ame®icano;1711553 said: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.
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.
Ame®icano;1711724 said:Bush attacking Iraq after 9/11 was idiotic
As someone once said: It was like attacking Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor
[youtube]FCVZlLBchVE[/youtube]
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.
Obama unveils Afghanistan plan - Afghanistan- msnbc.com
"“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
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?
So much for really supporting the troops and yet another campaign promise broken.
Not surprising.
Maybe someone should read to him from the Constitution that part where it is his first and foremost duty to protect America.
Here is another one.
news.outlookindia.com | World Can't afford a Taliban Win in Afghanistan: Obama
"The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked."
"We have a shared responsibility to act -- not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends on it."
