Some Commander and Chief he will make.....
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there," Obama said of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan."
Didn't he initally vote against the surge? I am confused...
Yeah Obama WOULD be the better choice..He is perfect and when shiet like this that spews from his Harvard Educated mouth, it simply amaze me...Yeah, let's vote for Obama...NOT
VOTE MCCAIN
10/6/2008 10:58:50 AM
Ya know there is no doubt in my mind that whatever bad things have happened in the past eight years are the fault of "The Democrats".And, whatever happened in the eight years prior to that was the fault of the Democrats.And whatever bad things happened eight years before that were the fault of the Democrats.And whatever bad things are goning to happen in the next eight years are going to be the fault of "The Democrats".So I can't blame people for voting Republican: They can fall into a pile of shit and come out smelling like a rose.
Back to the BS
10/6/2008 11:45:31 AM
Why more troops?? I understand that this is a mountain region, as high tech as our military is why not use it instead of our troops??
Air & Missle Power, Drones, etc...if they are hiding behind rocks, cluster bombs should handle that! Drive them back into caves, block buster bombs, then let our troops drag their bodies out...
10/6/2008 11:52:00 AM
Doesn't work that way. Technology is a force multiplier but it can't replace boots on the ground in whole; especially when the strategy is to win the hearts and minds of the natives.
10/6/2008 1:03:05 PM
I am not military guy Ronin .....I was just wondering why we couldnt use more technology ! I was hoping there was a better way!
10/6/2008 1:20:25 PM
Let's see...who would be better at commanding our troops?
A guy who has been in the military, fought for his country, been a prisoner of war...or a guy who was once a community organizer?
10/6/2008 1:45:08 PM
Lets see ...Osama attacked us so ..We should attack someone else...1 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of people dead ...Who agrees with that thinking?
10/6/2008 2:26:52 PM
Yup--Osama did have his cronies attack us. We went into Afghanistan to disrupt them and capture/kill OBL. We went into Iraq to put in place a democracy that would allow us to stay in the region--close to Iran, South Korea, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and be relatively easy to topple and an easy sell to the American public. The Global intel said that Iraq had WMD's--you can argue that Bush lied or whatever, but the truth is he didn't. He went on what was presented to him. Anyway, that is why we went in and that is why we are still there--the keep rogue nations in check and be close enough to preemptively strike if necessary.
Sorry for the long winded answer, but yes, I agree with that. After all, we are the world's rent-a-cops. We need to be there.
10/6/2008 3:13:10 PM
Lets see ...Osama attacked us so ..We should do nothing and wait till he attacks again and kills 3000 more people on our soil.
Or wait, how many does he HAVE to kill before you take action?
Who agress with THAT thinking?
10/6/2008 3:15:14 PM
We should attack Mongolia so we can get closer to Russia.
10/6/2008 3:45:52 PM
Over 4000 Coalition troops killed in Iraq ...
And an estimated 90,000 civillian (innocent folks in Iraq - just like the innocent 3000 folks killed 9/11/2001) casualties.
War sucks and that's why you have to be really careful how and when you do it. Any action isn't necesarrily a good action.
10/6/2008 3:58:06 PM
Yeah, but we didn't kill most of those 90,000 civilians. They were killed by AQ or fighting betwen the religious factions. Most of the Iraqis killed by the US was in the initial invasion and they were Iraqi military.
The only thing that kept the internal warring factions in check was Saddam, who was killing thousands of civilians a year on his own.
Compare that to the Vietnam War (brought to you by JFK and LBJ) and the amount of military and civilian casualties. Iraq is a skirmish compared to the deaths from that war.
10/6/2008 4:18:47 PM
"Lets see ...Osama attacked us so ..We should do nothing and wait till he attacks again and kills 3000 more people on our soil.
Or wait, how many does he HAVE to kill before you take action?
Who agress with THAT thinking?"
Hun$Dem - That's EXACTLY the point "Bush Nay-Sayers" have been trying to make for YEARS now - we friggin' took our focus OFF of OBL and focussed our troops and attention (wrongly IMO) to Iraq... our "leaders" tried selling it to us many ways: WMDs, Axis of Evil, Taking down SadHssn, Liberating Iraq and establishing Democracy...
If *I* had my vote to cast way back when between:
- Staying in Afghanistan/Pakistan and FINISHING what we needed to finish (INSTEAD of outsourcing our efforts to local rebel groups and militia-for-hire)
- Or shifting our focus after a terrorist attack to "liberate" a country... (or which ever "label" you want to give it)
I'd have voted for: FOCUS ON Bin Laden and Alkheida(sp?) and do it NOW...!!!
But no... we had to go work on G.W.B's pet project.
10/6/2008 4:20:41 PM
Outsourcing was done because in Afghanistan, that's the only proven way to fight. Remember, England, then the Soviets had tried to take over the country and suppress the Afghanis. Both failed miserably. Our invasion has to date been the only successful one by using the local militias.
At the end of the day, Afghanistan will never been a normal operating country. The culture is just too tribal.
10/6/2008 4:50:28 PM
Ronin,
I am sure you are correct. And yes, this is no Vietnam. Still, the numbers are staggering and horrible (even if you were to cut 90,000 in half, the 3000 coalition is pretty much fact) that's my only point. And this is in the name of VERY questionable motives.
10/6/2008 5:59:14 PM
All I can say is "Mission Accomplished".
Congratulations, Bush administration for keeping your eye on the ball and getting Osama Bin Laden.
*rolls eyes*
10/6/2008 6:55:11 PM
i vote for lt. dangle as secretary of war.
10/6/2008 7:10:34 PM
I don't believe the whole "they took the eye off the ball" argument. Our military was built to fight on two fronts at the same time. That's two major fronts not the low-intensity conflict we're dealing with in OIF/OEF.
There have been SF guys looking for Bin Laden since 9/12/01 and they haven't stopped to fight in Iraq. There are many reason why OBL hasn't been captured but Iraq is hardly one of them. That's just a moonbat red herring.
10/6/2008 8:26:47 PM
That,and the neocons had better targets to shoot at
10/6/2008 9:10:46 PM
Ok, then either the U.S. Special Forces really, really suck at their jobs or they're not looking too hard. Osama should have been priority #1 before everything else. The chimp-in-chief even said something to the effect that Osama was the top priority. But like so many things that Georgie got his fingers in, it's turned into a huge failure.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, George. Mission Accomplished.
10/6/2008 9:50:18 PM
Anybody ever play "RISK"?
I love that game....
I also Love ..."Walk Softly and carry a big Stick" TR
I think I'm going to reform the Progressive (moose) party..
We need anothe Harry Truman as well...
I vowed not to respond to this thread and I broke my promise to myself ...damn!!!LOL
Senor
10/6/2008 10:25:05 PM
I know a few SF troops who have spent months and months in Afghanistan, doggie. You'd be swallowing your chicklets if you said that to their faces.
These guys want to capture him badly. It's just very difficult when he's being given shelter in Pakhistan by the tribes in what is a very mountaneous remote region. Perhaps you'd like to volunteer to go find him if you think it's so easy.
10/6/2008 10:43:38 PM
I'm sure they don't suck and I appreciate what they do. But at the same time, the U.S. has had FIVE years to find Osama. In the FIVE years we've managed to capture every BUT Osama.
I don't think Osama is any kind of priority any more.
10/6/2008 10:55:19 PM
Dog..obviously Osama is not as powerful as he was 9/11
and pre 911...and I don't think he'll ever be a threat to us again. I don't think he'll ever be able to come out of hiding if in fact he isn't already dead.
And BTW I'm no military strategists but I do believe in a strong presence regardless of what the world thinks...in the long run it I believe it does protect us...BTW all of what I say has nothing to do with the political bullshit campaigning type BS spewed around every election year or years (it seems like years) LOL
Senor
10/6/2008 11:06:16 PM
The US has always had strategic military presence throughout the world. Unfortunatly, we got lax pre 911.
Our military presence has kept us safe.....remember Cuban missile crisis , Korea (the 50's) etc etc. We did not have a strong or strong enough presence in the middle east... Unfortunately we paid the price...and learned lessons the hard way.
just my take...non partisan
Senor
10/6/2008 11:14:27 PM
"Dog..obviously Osama is not as powerful as he was 9/11
and pre 911...and I don't think he'll ever be a threat to us again. I don't think he'll ever be able to come out of hiding if in fact he isn't already dead."
It doesn't matter if he's a threat or not. He masterminded the worst attack on U.S. soil and he needs to account for it. If he's dead, we need to know he's really dead. This is what the President promised. This is what I expect as a American.
10/6/2008 11:28:47 PM
BTW that quote and this is not intended in a negative tone ..nothing I say is....I hope you know that...
I always like to look at the positive...and I do believe in accountability. I also believe the intentions(promise) of finding OBL and making him accountable were there.
Have you ever made a promise (with the best of intentions) for the good of your friends, family or whatever that didn't go the way you intended?
I have....and I don't believe it makes me less of a man(person). and again I'll say with me it's not about politics.
But I guess I'm not as high profile as the president so I won't get the national coverage.....I don't know of any person (all Presidents included) that haven't made a good intention promise that may have not worked out the way it was planned...especially when that person
has to rely on many other people to execute the promise..
Senor
10/6/2008 11:50:29 PM
Also....If the Bush administion knew he were dead it would be (politically) an advantage to announce it. The only reason i included that statement was due to the fact that I haven't seen any OBL tapes or threats for quite a while. It was merely my speculation of a potential death situation (I'm sounding like George Carlin now)lol
Positively, for the World... his (OBL) reign is over..and he if he shows his face...he will pay the penalty .....
"and that's all I have to say about that"
i'm off tonight ....my eyelids are shutting LOL (God I hate early day gigs)..have a great one Dog...
Senor
10/7/2008 12:16:28 AM
OK ..one more thing....
I like your avatar...not as far as party beliefs....
But as the current campaigning goes ...
Senor
10/7/2008 12:25:02 AM
Needle in the proverbial haystack. If it was as easy as doggie thinks, then he'd have been captured years ago. In fact, the actual "mastermind" behind 9-11 was Khalid Mohammad who was captured years ago and is intered down at Gitmo.
10/7/2008 8:15:35 AM
Well..So many opinions floating around here..It went from the intial post of how much of an idiot Obama is saying what he said to Osama Bin Laden, Russia, England, and the Korean War........BUT
Do you think Obama would be the best fit for our next President AFTER the comments he made about Afghanistan(posted above)?
FYI....We had Bin Laden. Our special forces had him in their sites less than 2000 meters away(This was documented on 60 minutes by a Special Forces Leader on the Team that was specifically sent forth to kill OBL) BUT our supposed Afghan allies screwed us...Nice huh?
Back to the original comment...
Obama/Biden inexperience / underachiever
McCain/Palin Experience / Determination
As always..Your thoughts?
10/7/2008 11:55:53 AM
« Back to Politics or All Forum Discussions
Login or Register to Post a Reply
All messages are the express view of the author of the message and not those of LowellRocks.com or its affiliates, advertisers, or sponsors. Neither the owners of LowellRocks.com nor its affiliates will be held responsible for the content of any message. LowellRocks.com does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message.
