Obama escalates war in Afghanistan

OK. Now we're on Iraq, after Pakistan? But we haven't done Afghanistan yet.

How long did he say it would take once we started removing troops? 16 months. Same as it ever was.

So according to you, he's still calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops beginning in 2008?

Obama has also said troops should be out be 2012 .. then again, he's also said in a debate that he couldn't guarantee they'd be out by 2013.

Which one is it? He's been all over the place on Iraq .. and I'm thinking you're too smart not to know that.

I've already said he's been consistently wrong and calculated on Afghanistan.
 
Pinheads, let's remember, the Taliban didn't attack us any more than Saddam attacked us. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, which was not responsible for the attacks on 9/11. We were attacked by a radical Muslim extremist group, which happened to be based in Afghanistan. They have now moved into the mountainous regions of northern Pakistan. The Afghanistan government, run by the Taliban, was enabling and allowing alQaeda to operate in their country, just as Sudan was before we ran them out of there after the first WTC attacks. They actually wanted to move to Iraq, but we made that impossible by eliminating the only man who could have facilitated that action, Saddam Hussein. So now, they are in Pakistan, and we are going into Afghanistan full-bore, just as we went into Iraq without alQaeda present.

The only difference between the Taliban and Saddam, is the Taliban is Muslim based and Saddam was secular, both were sympathetic to alQaeda, just as Pakistan, Syria and Iran are sympathetic to alQaeda. Saddam was so sympathetic to their cause that he actually helped to fund the first WTC attacks, and was harboring one of the 1993 WTC bombers, paying him a state salary. He was also allowing alQaeda and other similar radical Islamic groups to establish training camps in his country, just as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria are currently doing.

Then, there is Saudi Arabia, who is currently teaching their school kids the message of hate preached by alQaeda. The only difference between them and Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran, is the fact they sell us oil and are our "ally" like Pakistan. We could throw Jordan in here too, but I don't want to get you too confused. In short, it's a great big mess, and we are right in the middle of it. We didn't cause it, we didn't create it, we are fighting it.

You may wish to continue arguing that Iraq had nothing to do with alQaeda, and that is fine... but why do you think, alQaeda is present in all these other countries, has operatives in a hundred other countries, but for some mysterious reason, were never present in Iraq? Fact is, since about the first month after we invaded Iraq, alQeada and their supporters are who we've been fighting there, with the help of Iraqi security forces... let's forget that fact, the fundamental objectives of alQaeda and radical Muslim extremists, is an Islamic Caliphate, which would include dominating the territory known as Iraq. Doesn't it seem the least bit odd to you, that alQaeda has been fighting so fiercely for Iraq, a country they supposedly had nothing to do with?

Oh yes, I know, you've all been pumped full of your koolaid propaganda, and you have an answer for all of these questions. You will drag out the same old tired arguments about Saddam not being connected to alQaeda, but... neither is Afghanistan or Pakistan, really. Neither is Syria or Iran, these are all sovereign nations. They are all part of the radical Islamic vision of Caliphate which would span from Indonesia to Turkey.

I think you people need to educate yourselves on this, dig a little deeper than Micheal Moore for your answers, and understand this problem and what it will take to defeat it. Right now, you are a bunch of wandering sheep, following your leader Obama, and your shepherd, the Democrat Party.


Ooooohhh, 6 paragraphs, divisible into thirds. Nice work Dix. I'm just going to assume its all 100% true and accurate, particularly the part about the Caliphate. Scary stuff there, you wily pants-shitter.
 
The escalation is to fight the Taliban, bin Laden is in the mountains of northern (and nuclear) Pakistan. Do you really think Bush (or any US politician) and a ton of special force people have not been trying to find him for the last 7 years?
You don't need 30,000 more troops to find one man, they are there to fight the Taliban, nothing more.
Why is it that on the left, only blackascoal seems to understand where Obama and Dems really are on foreign policy?

I'm supposed to take the word of someone who has been wrong and inept on just about everything relating to the war on Terror and the people who attacked this nation? Fuck that. I'll take my chances with Obama as Bush proved to be a royal fuck up.

When Obama prove's he's a royal fuck up to I'll get off that band wagon. Till then he has my support and I not only hope he kills the bastard but finds a way to fill the power vacuum in Afghanistan.

There's a credibility factor here and by their very own actions the right wing has none and should just simply shut the fuck up and let those who know how to get a job done alone.

Until you can prove your something a little more then a bunch of fuck ups butt out. You've proven all to well you don't know what the fuck you're doing.

When it comes times to walk the talk you wing nuts keep talking and talking and taling and don't get a hell of a lot done other than making a royal mess of things.
 
Unfortunately MD our gummit seems to think more of the same will fix everything.
Sad so sad.
Too much credit? Give em more :clink:
 
I'm supposed to take the word of someone who has been wrong and inept on just about everything relating to the war on Terror and the people who attacked this nation? Fuck that.

No, you are supposed to take the word of Bin Laden and alQaeda, who have been telling you what Bush has told you for the past 7 years. You are supposed to stop and realize you aren't the smartest fucker on the planet, and you don't know more than anyone else about this particular subject, you are not right, never have been right, and probably never will be right, regarding the threat we face. Why? Because you are an idiot liberal who finds it easier to listen to Micheal Moore, Jimmy Carter, and Wesley Clarke, instead of Bin Laden and alQaeda.
 
Dixie, are you ever going to stop inventing strawmen in your neverending quest to justify Iraq?

You were wrong. Just deal with it.
 
Dixie, are you ever going to stop inventing strawmen in your neverending quest to justify Iraq?

You were wrong. Just deal with it.

Nope, sorry...wasn't wrong. The Bush Administration mishandled the aftermath, did a piss poor job making the case, and had some terrible PR blunders, but I was not wrong, and you've sure as hell not proven me wrong. Now, if you want to just keep gulping koolaid and chortling at me about Iraq, that's fine, but it looks like your boy isn't going to do much different in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so maybe I can chortle at you like a jackass know-it-all when flag-draped caskets start coming back home?
 
Nah - you were wrong. You have been proven definitively wrong at this point. The fact that you can't admit that is unsurprising, but doesn't change it.
 
Nope, sorry...wasn't wrong. The Bush Administration mishandled the aftermath, did a piss poor job making the case, and had some terrible PR blunders, but I was not wrong, and you've sure as hell not proven me wrong. Now, if you want to just keep gulping koolaid and chortling at me about Iraq, that's fine, but it looks like your boy isn't going to do much different in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so maybe I can chortle at you like a jackass know-it-all when flag-draped caskets start coming back home?

How did that Dixie quote go about Iraq... I doubt that 500 will be killed or somesuch...
 
But he wouldn't act immediately unilaterally. He'd try to work with Musharraf first, which was my point (and his).

:)

I like you brother .. like many Obama supporters I think you have a good heart and genuinely want the best for this country .. and I understand the Bush fatigue and wanting to remove his stench from memory. Regardless of our disagreements on Obama, I still have much respect for your opinions and perspectives.

However, "immediately" is nuance, something he's becoming famous for. But, the bottom line is whether immediately or not, he would act unilaterally, something many who support Obama .. and I'm betting that includes you .. jumped all over Bush for .. unilaterally invading another country.

Obama, who positioned himself as an antiwar candidate, is in fact as hawkish as they come. THAT is where expectations meet reality. What democrats have elected is a man who believes in war every bit as much as Bush and Cheney. If you and his supporters are cool with that, fine. But as demonstrated in Iraq and Vietnam, needless war has tremendous costs.

Obama is not antiwar, and neither are those who support him. Something to remember when the check arrives for his wars. You'll get an upfront seat on how republicans must feel for their blindness on Bush.
 
wow..that goes way back. I had forgotten how boneheaded he had been on that issue from the very beginning!

Well our dixie is nothing if not consistent. Constantly stupid but consistant.

As I have always said the best way to go is the opposite way dixie says to go.
Empirical evidence bears that out.
 
:)

I like you brother .. like many Obama supporters I think you have a good heart and genuinely want the best for this country .. and I understand the Bush fatigue and wanting to remove his stench from memory. Regardless of our disagreements on Obama, I still have much respect for your opinions and perspectives.

However, "immediately" is nuance, something he's becoming famous for. But, the bottom line is whether immediately or not, he would act unilaterally, something many who support Obama .. and I'm betting that includes you .. jumped all over Bush for .. unilaterally invading another country.

Obama, who positioned himself as an antiwar candidate, is in fact as hawkish as they come. THAT is where expectations meet reality. What democrats have elected is a man who believes in war every bit as much as Bush and Cheney. If you and his supporters are cool with that, fine. But as demonstrated in Iraq and Vietnam, needless war has tremendous costs.

Obama is not antiwar, and neither are those who support him. Something to remember when the check arrives for his wars. You'll get an upfront seat on how republicans must feel for their blindness on Bush.



I understand your position. But the idea that Obama is antiwar as a general principle is misplaced. I disagree that he is "Hawkish as they come." There are plenty of other folks on the "left" (TNR folks immediately come to mind) and right that are much much more hawkish.

Obama has been at least clear about not being "antiwar" for a long time. If you go back and read the must discussed speech he gave on October 2, 2002 he makes it plain that he is not "antiwar" as a matter of general principle but was against the Iraq War as a matter practical and political reality. Below is the text of the speech in its entirety with emphasis added where appropriate:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.


If you heard that speech or read the text and came away with the conclusion that Obama is antiwar I can't help you.
 
I understand your position. But the idea that Obama is antiwar as a general principle is misplaced. I disagree that he is "Hawkish as they come." There are plenty of other folks on the "left" (TNR folks immediately come to mind) and right that are much much more hawkish.

Obama has been at least clear about not being "antiwar" for a long time. If you go back and read the must discussed speech he gave on October 2, 2002 he makes it plain that he is not "antiwar" as a matter of general principle but was against the Iraq War as a matter practical and political reality. Below is the text of the speech in its entirety with emphasis added where appropriate:




If you heard that speech or read the text and came away with the conclusion that Obama is antiwar I can't help you.

Don't get it twisted .. I don't believe Obama is antiwar, he's prowar .. which is why I didn't vote for him, nor do I support him now. But he undeniably rode the false perception of his being antiwar to the nomination over Clinton. The fault lies in those who believed that bullshit, not Obama.

But that still leaves Obama as a pro-war president who will not genuinely seek appropriate alternatives to militarism in the Middle East and who will enflame tensions in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If you believe that will produce any "change" in American foreign policy that has any real difference from that of Bush, then you'd be as blind as his supporters were .. and as blind as those who thought Barack Obama was antiwar.

Then again, maybe you are as prowar as Obama .. in which case, congratulations.
 
Pinheads, let's remember, the Taliban didn't attack us any more than Saddam attacked us. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, which was not responsible for the attacks on 9/11. We were attacked by a radical Muslim extremist group, which happened to be based in Afghanistan. They have now moved into the mountainous regions of northern Pakistan. The Afghanistan government, run by the Taliban, was enabling and allowing alQaeda to operate in their country, just as Sudan was before we ran them out of there after the first WTC attacks. They actually wanted to move to Iraq, but we made that impossible by eliminating the only man who could have facilitated that action, Saddam Hussein. So now, they are in Pakistan, and we are going into Afghanistan full-bore, just as we went into Iraq without alQaeda present.

The only difference between the Taliban and Saddam, is the Taliban is Muslim based and Saddam was secular, both were sympathetic to alQaeda, just as Pakistan, Syria and Iran are sympathetic to alQaeda. Saddam was so sympathetic to their cause that he actually helped to fund the first WTC attacks, and was harboring one of the 1993 WTC bombers, paying him a state salary. He was also allowing alQaeda and other similar radical Islamic groups to establish training camps in his country, just as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria are currently doing.

Then, there is Saudi Arabia, who is currently teaching their school kids the message of hate preached by alQaeda. The only difference between them and Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran, is the fact they sell us oil and are our "ally" like Pakistan. We could throw Jordan in here too, but I don't want to get you too confused. In short, it's a great big mess, and we are right in the middle of it. We didn't cause it, we didn't create it, we are fighting it.

You may wish to continue arguing that Iraq had nothing to do with alQaeda, and that is fine... but why do you think, alQaeda is present in all these other countries, has operatives in a hundred other countries, but for some mysterious reason, were never present in Iraq? Fact is, since about the first month after we invaded Iraq, alQeada and their supporters are who we've been fighting there, with the help of Iraqi security forces... let's forget that fact, the fundamental objectives of alQaeda and radical Muslim extremists, is an Islamic Caliphate, which would include dominating the territory known as Iraq. Doesn't it seem the least bit odd to you, that alQaeda has been fighting so fiercely for Iraq, a country they supposedly had nothing to do with?

Oh yes, I know, you've all been pumped full of your koolaid propaganda, and you have an answer for all of these questions. You will drag out the same old tired arguments about Saddam not being connected to alQaeda, but... neither is Afghanistan or Pakistan, really. Neither is Syria or Iran, these are all sovereign nations. They are all part of the radical Islamic vision of Caliphate which would span from Indonesia to Turkey.

I think you people need to educate yourselves on this, dig a little deeper than Micheal Moore for your answers, and understand this problem and what it will take to defeat it. Right now, you are a bunch of wandering sheep, following your leader Obama, and your shepherd, the Democrat Party.

I will continue to shake my head at the completely retarded foreign policies you support and have supported. Afghanistan is where we need to be. I don't need to waste my time with an essay to prove it. You've supported the Iraq war since the beginning and still do, so debating you would be pointless. In fact debating just about anyone on this board is pretty much pointless. But you stick out like a sore thumb on the 'Completely pointless to debate' radar. So, I'm just a kool-aid drinking, Michael Moore supporting, Libertarian who realizes that a bitch like Saddam, wasn't the guy we were looking for. He wasn't even a threat, but he sure made a good face of evil to make ourselves feel better about having tiny dicks.
 
Back
Top