obama won't accept current war options for afghanistan

[evince]

that is humorous coming from you

its quite "ironic" how you bemoaned the wars when bush was in office, now you attack anyone who does the same....hypocrite much?

Where have I attacked someone for "bemoaning" the war?

Incase you have not noticed your assholes decimated the military and just where the fuck are we going to get all the manpower to send a massive amount of more troops?

You loved it when Bush defied the generals who told him he could not do this right with so few troops. Bush fired the generals, you cheered. Now you exscoriate Obama for not rushing to judgement and doing whatever the Generals say without question.

I hate these fucking wars and you love them. Afganistan was a right move done totally wrong and Bush and teams dithering on it for 7 years has made it a huge clusterfuck that is now likely not capable of any decent outcome.

Learn to read and realize it was you and your hypocracy I was bemoaning.

 

[Topspin]

Bullshit Afghanistan is a cluster fuck as bad as Iraq.
Obama sold out the anit-war voters and will be lucky if republicans don't scoop them up with the anti-prohibition voters also sold out.

 

[Damocles]

SOmething wrong with demanding a better option?

When dragging your feet on the "keeping them safe" option is what you use as the stick, then yes there is something fricking wrong with it.

Sending in enough to at least keep people safe there while you are vacillating on what you plan on doing in what you repeatedly declared a "War of Necessity" in Afghanistan is the only responsible position. Running around telling the troops they're great while allowing them to be slaughtered as you drag your feet?

Sickening.

 

[evince]

Dragging your feet?


Now thinking things through is dragging your feet?

 

[Damocles]

Dragging your feet?


Now thinking things through is dragging your feet?

Again, you can think while you act to keep people under you command safe.

I don't care if he thinks it through, demands an exit strategy and all that. That's good even, so long as he takes the steps necessary to keep the troops safe during his vacillation process.

 

[Jarod]

When dragging your feet on the "keeping them safe" option is what you use as the stick, then yes there is something fricking wrong with it.

Sending in enough to at least keep people safe there while you are vacillating on what you plan on doing in what you repeatedly declared a "War of Necessity" in Afghanistan is the only responsible position. Running around telling the troops they're great while allowing them to be slaughtered as you drag your feet?

Sickening.

Ha, where were you the last 6 years.....

 

[Damocles]

Ha, where were you the last 6 years.....

Saying the same danged thing! Fricking partisan memory syndrome hack.

 

[Bonestorm]

When dragging your feet on the "keeping them safe" option is what you use as the stick, then yes there is something fricking wrong with it.

Sending in enough to at least keep people safe there while you are vacillating on what you plan on doing in what you repeatedly declared a "War of Necessity" in Afghanistan is the only responsible position. Running around telling the troops they're great while allowing them to be slaughtered as you drag your feet?

Sickening.

Uh, who says there aren't enough troops to "keep people safe?" I'm calling bullshit.

 

[Damocles]

Uh, who says there aren't enough troops to "keep people safe?" I'm calling bullshit.

The General in his letter speaking of what will happen. You can "call" whatever you want, but vacillating on this and attempting to use support troops as the "incentive" to get a plan is beyond disgusting. They have just enough for failure, as he clearly pointed out in his letter, the continued low presence level is unsustainable, as he said in his letter. It is beyond hackery to ignore this BS here.

 

[Jarod]

Saying the same danged thing! Fricking partisan memory syndrome hack.

Id like to see a post where you said the same thing about Bush.!


I belive it takes time to decide on an Afganistan position, especally while the situation is changins so much like it has been in the past couple of months.

Now that the presidency of Afganistan is settled I expect a plan soon.

 

[Damocles]

Id like to see a post where you said the same thing about Bush.!


I belive it takes time to decide on an Afganistan position, especally while the situation is changins so much like it has been in the past couple of months.

Now that the presidency of Afganistan is settled I expect a plan soon.

Holy moley!

I spent 6 years saying that it was unconscionable that he didn't increase troop levels high enough to give security in Iraq, that if you are going to do that, no matter how much I thought it was stupid, you have to do it right. And then when the surge began I said, "What took him so long, and why only that much?"

You fricking know I have. I am right, aren't I? This is a sign of partisan hack memory syndrome, isn't it?

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Saying the same danged thing! Fricking partisan memory syndrome hack.

I hear ya Damo. It's gone way past sickening.

 

[Bonestorm]

The General in his letter speaking of what will happen. You can "call" whatever you want, but vacillating on this and attempting to use support troops as the "incentive" to get a plan is beyond disgusting. They have just enough for failure, as he clearly pointed out in his letter, the continued low presence level is unsustainable, as he said in his letter. It is beyond hackery to ignore this BS here.

In his letter? I've read the unclassified version of McChrystal's Assessment. Clearly, you haven't. I'd like to see some support for the notion that Obama is putting troops at risk by not making a decision as quickly as you would like him to make one.

McChrystal's Assessment contemplates a number of changes in the way the war is fought. Those changes require additional personnel (and, in fact, according to the COIN manual an additional 40,000 is not sufficient by a fact of about 6) and actually expose U.S. forces to a substantial amount of additional risk. However, there is no indication in McChrystal's Assessment that current force levels (triple of the level in January 2008) expose the troops to unnecessary or additional risk.

Maybe you should read his assessment, no?

 

[Damocles]

In his letter? I've read the unclassified version of McChrystal's Assessment. Clearly, you haven't. I'd like to see some support for the notion that Obama is putting troops at risk by not making a decision as quickly as you would like him to make one.

McChrystal's Assessment contemplates a number of changes in the way the war is fought. Those changes require additional personnel (and, in fact, according to the COIN manual an additional 40,000 is not sufficient by a fact of about 6) and actually expose U.S. forces to a substantial amount of additional risk. However, there is no indication in McChrystal's Assessment that current force levels (triple of the level in January 2008) expose the troops to unnecessary or additional risk.

Maybe you should read his assessment, no?

Maybe I have, thanks.

Maybe I have also read other information.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/75702.html

Posted on Fri, Sep. 18, 2009
Military growing impatient with Obama on Afghanistan
Nancy A. Youssef * McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: October 08, 2009 08:00:26 AM

WASHINGTON — Six months after it announced its strategy for Afghanistan, the Obama administration is sending mixed signals about its objectives there and how many troops are needed to achieve them.

The conflicting messages are drawing increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and frustrating military leaders, who're trying to figure out how to demonstrate that they're making progress in the 12-18 months that the administration has given them.

Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.

In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion "premature." Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "time is not on our side"; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public "to take a deep breath."

The White House didn't respond to requests for comment. Officials willing to speak did so only on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.

In Kabul, some members of McChrystal's staff said they don't understand why Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" but still hasn't given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.

More at link...

There's no need to "turn things around" when they are going swimmingly.

It was going so well, he warned that we were losing. Then had to come out and publicly backstep...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...afghanistan-rift/story-e6frg6so-1225779335226

Add to that the current rise in GI deaths in Afghanistan (of course the Taliban would want to increase deaths while Obama was still vacillating, that is when it could have it's largest effect.) and we find that we can actually use information we actually see and hear as well. Including the letter that said success depends on more troops, that the General isn't getting. Yeah, it was written in political terms, but that is what it says.

There isn't "support" in the action of the President using the support troops as an "incentive" to hear what he wants from the General. Give them enough, at the very least, to stem the loss. Then make decisions.

Do not play political hardball with the lives of our troops at stake. Either poop or get off the pot, man.

 

[evince]

The place is a CLUSTERFUCK.

Obama is coiming to that conclusion.

Guess who made it a clusterfuck.

The right in this country made it one by going along with everything Bush did and refused to do to make it possible to see good outcome.

Damo never supported the Bush agenda on these wars as far as I remember.

It may very well be time to bail out of Afganistan. I had hoped it was salvageable but I believe after watching Obama listen to all options and finding no truely workable solution that the damage has been done and nothing workable can be done with our current military being so degraded and the on the ground facts being so bad.

 

[Bonestorm]

Maybe I have, thanks.

Maybe I have also read other information.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/75702.html





There's no need to "turn things around" when they are going swimmingly.

It was going so well, he warned that we were losing. Then had to come out and publicly backstep...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...afghanistan-rift/story-e6frg6so-1225779335226

There isn't "support" in the action of the President using the support troops as an "incentive" to hear what he wants from the General. Give them enough, at the very least, to stem the loss. Then make decisions.

Do not play political hardball with the lives of our troops at stake. Either poop or get off the pot, man.

You still haven't produced anything to suggest that troops are facing increasing risk because Obama has not yet decided whether to pursue the McChrystal policy. The overall mission may be at risk if McChrystal's recommendations aren't implements (although opinions differ on that score) but there is no indication that the troops face increased risk.

In fact, the McChrystal plan, if implemented, will certainly increase the risk to troops on the ground.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The place is a CLUSTERFUCK.

Obama is coiming to that conclusion.

Guess who made it a clusterfuck.

The right in this country made it one by going along with everything Bush did and refused to do to make it possible to see good outcome.

Damo never supported the Bush agenda on these wars as far as I remember.

It may very well be time to bail out of Afganistan. I had hoped it was salvageable but I believe after watching Obama listen to all options and finding no truely workable solution that the damage has been done and nothing workable can be done with our current military being so degraded and the on the ground facts being so bad.

do you even realize you're saying obama has done shit for afghanistan....wow, you must so proud of the do nothing president

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You still haven't produced anything to suggest that troops are facing increasing risk because Obama has not yet decided whether to pursue the McChrystal policy. The overall mission may be at risk if McChrystal's recommendations aren't implements (although opinions differ on that score) but there is no indication that the troops face increased risk.

In fact, the McChrystal plan, if implemented, will certainly increase the risk to troops on the ground.

dude....this year has seen the highest two or three months of US causulties since the war began....the second highest as well i believe....

any reasonable person would see that as troops facing increasing risk because of obama

 

[evince]

how is it you can never accept the blame for what you voted for and cheered for over the last decade and has left us this horrible mess.

Yurt you are as much to blame as Bush.

Obama was handed this mess and is finding out ther is no slavaging the mess with ANY option we have left.

Lets remember it took Bush 7 years to fuck it up this bad and Obama has only had this mess for less than 10 months ( along with a huge list of other messes Bush left).

 

[evince]

dude....this year has seen the highest two or three months of US causulties since the war began....the second highest as well i believe....

any reasonable person would see that as troops facing increasing risk because of obama

Have you forgotten Obama had already increased the troops levels in Afganistan?

That is why the deaths have increased.