Afghanistan or what

Is the health care bill holding up the troops to Afghanistan or what?Everything else has been rush rush,whats you take and whats his angle?

Truth

Judged:

Most good commander doesn't rush into a decision like that if they don't need too. Look how Bush rush into Iraq see what that got us.

CyWe

Judged:

Truth wrote:

Most good commander doesn't rush into a decision like that if they don't need too. Look how Bush rush into Iraq see what that got us.

What rush? I thought you guys always claim he had been planning it for years.

CyWe

Obadiah wrote:

Is the health care bill holding up the troops to Afghanistan or what?Everything else has been rush rush,whats you take and whats his angle?

This is his angle.

He knows that if he sends a surge of troops to Afghanistan it is going to alienate his ultra-liberal base who is already unhappy with him. He will also be following the very policy that he railed against when the same was done in Iraq and he would have to admit that that strategy has merit which he will be loathe to do since it would mean that he was wrong. Lets face it, even after the surge in Iraq turned things around the guy still couldn't accept that it had worked.

By not acting or acting in the very minimul way possible it will cause the perception of things getting worse, which they are, and when that happens public opinion follows so he can use that as an excuse to pull out the troops that are there.

The State Department has already been dropping hints that the Us is going to abandon Afghanistan.

In other words he isn't serious about pursueing the war in Afghanistan, he never has been.

Before anyone brings up GWB, I'll go ahead and nip that in the bud. GWB was never serious about it either.

There are so many simple and practical ways to turn that conflict around that it is almost criminal to just ignore them.

Truth

He rush in shortly after the phony CIA reports.

CyWe

Truth wrote:

He rush in shortly after the phony CIA reports.

Phony implies fake, they were not fake reports. They contained flawed information, there is a difference.

Truth

lol

sunbean

Maybe we could realize this is just a game ,and both sides are getting played. Or,Or just maybe he's waiting for Iran to drop a bomb somewhere and start WW3 and then maybe we could realize this is just a game ,and both sides are getting played.

TanyaHawke13

“NANEENANEEBOOBOO”

Since: Jul 09

3,138

The land of the Free......

ISP: AOL

CyWe wrote:

<quoted text>
This is his angle.
He knows that if he sends a surge of troops to Afghanistan it is going to alienate his ultra-liberal base who is already unhappy with him. He will also be following the very policy that he railed against when the same was done in Iraq and he would have to admit that that strategy has merit which he will be loathe to do since it would mean that he was wrong. Lets face it, even after the surge in Iraq turned things around the guy still couldn't accept that it had worked.
By not acting or acting in the very minimul way possible it will cause the perception of things getting worse, which they are, and when that happens public opinion follows so he can use that as an excuse to pull out the troops that are there.
The State Department has already been dropping hints that the Us is going to abandon Afghanistan.
In other words he isn't serious about pursueing the war in Afghanistan, he never has been.
Before anyone brings up GWB, I'll go ahead and nip that in the bud. GWB was never serious about it either.
There are so many simple and practical ways to turn that conflict around that it is almost criminal to just ignore them.

He may save part of his base...but will go down in history as the man who lost the war.....

CyWe

TanyaHawke13 wrote:

<quoted text>
He may save part of his base...but will go down in history as the man who lost the war.....

Nope, not how it works. he will go down in history as the President that got us out of Afghanistan.

Think about it, Nixon went down in history as the President that got us out of Vietnam. in reality we were winning the war as long as we were there. But the war was unpopular and so he didn't lose the Vietnam war...he simply extracted us from a hopeless situation, facts be damned.

This is what Obama is heading us towards. I just read the objectives of the next strategy meeting on Afghanistan and among them is developing an exit strategy. They are already in the midst of planning the withdrawal. I also would count on them making a 2011 deadline for it, that way he can take credit for ending an increasingly unpopular war before the election cycle.

SpeakUp

RE Vietnam, a General VoNguyen Giap stated the following.

He did not understand why we stopped bombing Hanoi or the Battles of TET. He stated that had we kept up just only a couple more days, they were ready to surrender. He said we had won. However, he indicated that with all the dissolution going on in America, the media caused more disruption in the War than the fighting and stated that in fact, the american dissolution is what saved THEM.

I question what affect now, the american dissolution is having on the current war. Much more emphasis seems to be placed on who is Republican, Democrat, strattle cat..whatever, which side wants War stopped, who wants it to go on, etc., that eventually due to our own stubborness for "self" , will make us the laughing stock of the world (not that we hadn't already become that after invasions), we will be shown up for our apparent weaknesses, none will fear us (as most don't any more anyway). If we pull out, half the country yaps. If we stay, half the country yaps...we literally are destroying ourselves.

SpeakUp

sunbean wrote:

Maybe we could realize this is just a game ,and both sides are getting played. Or,Or just maybe he's waiting for Iran to drop a bomb somewhere and start WW3 and then maybe we could realize this is just a game ,and both sides are getting played.

WW111 is most people's next bet and when that happens, it's all over period for everyone. Given progressive technologies, this is precisely what we are eventually headed for. You hit the nail right on the head.

SpeakUp

Truth wrote:

Most good commander doesn't rush into a decision like that if they don't need too. Look how Bush rush into Iraq see what that got us.

Yes, a third grader can get into them. It's the getting out that's the real work.

Even Eisonhower referred to the Viet Nam profits as "the Military Industrial Complex", referring to Exxon, GE, Bell Helicopter, McDonnell-Douglas and so many arms merchants leading the pack.

SpeakUp

CyWe wrote:

<quoted text>
What rush? I thought you guys always claim he had been planning it for years.

Red tape, CyWe, Red tape. I believe Hillary was planning it prior to Obama?

Truth

No one win a war!!! But there is profit to be made in a war. Vietnam we won every battle on the field.

SpeakUp

Trouble is, it's costing us in the 21st century since we don't have much manufacturing any more. But, it sure boosted the Exxon Mobil's profits higher than in history.

sunbean

SpeakUp wrote:

Trouble is, it's costing us in the 21st century since we don't have much manufacturing any more. But, it sure boosted the Exxon Mobil's profits higher than in history.

Exxon is the double cross.

SpeakUp