No Thread About 'The Speech'?

No Thread About 'The Speech'? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Mercnbeth -> No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 1:19:35 PM)
Six months in the making, all the build up, everyone waiting with baited breath and no new thread started about the 'CHANGE!' initiated in Afghanistan? My excuse - it was my birthday yesterday, and beth arranged a kidnapping for me and took me to a secluded resort outside of Santa Barbara without TV and computer. But I saw the speech this morning in its entirety. Interesting to note the dozing cadets being reported. I heard a little something for everyone. To the hawks - "We're going in!" To the doves - "We're going out!" (in 18 months - just in time for the 2012 election). I expected and heard the prerequisite for any Obama speech - blame Bush. Not for the "good war" in Afghanistan, but for the to date reason for failure; the past 6 years of involvement in Iran. The "We're going out" fans only have to count on the next 18 months accomplishing what the past 3,000 years haven't - a stable, self governing Afghanistan. What are the odds? A word I didn't hear - victory on any terms. But I thought this was supposed to be a speech detailing the new Afghanistan plan and how these new troops will specifically change what's occurring now? The General with his boots on the ground, said he could accomplish his mission with 45,000 troops, not what was allocated. Sitting as a military cadet in the live audience, I'd especially would like to know what Obama knows that the General doesn't. Anyone hear those or any details? There was a reference to expected troops coming from other "allies"; but again - no substance. Who? When? How many? Some other government thinks this will accomplish the "mission"? What's the mission again? One foreign opinion coming from the German 'Spiegel International': Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught. For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free. The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added. It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives -- their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die. The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself. I'm left with the question - Why bother? We're out of there in 18 months. Were I running the enemies side; I'd give everyone an 18 month furlough, use some of the funds coming from Iran, and take up residence in a Villa on the Italian Riviera. Why fire a shot? You know for a fact you have won - 18 months from now. The American President promised you victory. We're I making the speech last night - especially knowing I'm essentially promising surrender in 18 months - I'd avoid further bloodshed and leave now, announcing... "Ladies and gentleman of West Point, your former commander and chief George Bush, may have had good intentions, maybe was seeking revenge for his father, maybe was misinformed, maybe was just wrong. Whatever you want to chose, I stand before you ready to put those issues behind us. Whether you think we should have gone into Iraq or not - we did go in, and many of your friends, family and fellow soldiers died in the process. I am sorry for your sacrifice and loss. We now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Although I'm sure that was not the only reason to get both houses of Congress to vote in favor of the war with only a hand full of exceptions, one in the Senate; it seems to be the only one people reference today. I encourage you to challenge each and every incumbent who funded both Iran and Afghanistan over the past years to give you a reason why they chose to do so. But again that's history that can not be changed. One thing we do know for sure. NOW there are no WMD's in Iraq. I will begin initiating an immediate withdraw starting tomorrow. Same holds for Afghanistan. Over the last six months I've been using my superior intellect and determined that no victory, or even US agenda is served by being there either. We're coming home from there tomorrow too. To insure the locals will be busy in our absence all weapons and ammunition for them, with the exception of military aircraft, will be left behind as parting gifts to both sources. We'll let them know the time, place and first come - first served. To our 'friends and allies' in Europe - Good luck with your new neighbors. To you, our finest and brightest being educated here at West Point. I assure you that your knowledge and abilities will be used to the greatest potential here in the USA protecting our borders. That mission will include strategic, dramatic, and instantaneous response to any attack from any source outside the US by missile, by aircraft, and as a last resort - troops. We have technology and will continue to exploit our advantage in that area to insure that no US military personal will die protecting any corporate interest doing business in a foreign land, or policing by occupation any other sovereign country Good night - and have a pleasant tomorrow, when a new day dawns for the US and the world. A world where economically, militarily, and philosophically the US will limit itself to doing what's best for the US."

slvemike4u -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 1:56:02 PM)
Reactions to the speech can be found inTazzy's "34,000" thread....or housesubs "will you listen....." thread. Happy Birthday to you Merc....and for the rest of us....considering your proposed speech thank god you chose the private sector.

Brain -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 2:36:51 PM)
Now it's Obama's war. Very much like the strategy in March, very much the same goals and mission with more troops. The difference is trying to get the troops in quickly from 18 months to eight months. It's hard to do anything in Afghanistan in 18 months so this is doomed to fail. 18 months is not a long time, he says he wants to put the Taliban on its heels and then on the other hand he tries to ensure Americans we are not going to try to do too much. Obama opposed the war in Iraq and that's why he won the nomination to lead the Democratic Party. I don't know how this is going to work. It used to be too difficult to get people in there in 18 months and now in 18 months he's going to get everyone out? I don't think this is going to work, it's not doable. The United States cannot afford this war it’s doomed to fail and will accomplish nothing, just like Iraq. It will destroy his presidency just like George Bush. Afghanistan is a much bigger country than Iraq and there were 160,000 troops in Iraq. I don't think Afghanistan is going to be any better in two years than it is now. The notion of a long-term war in Afghanistan is not something you can get public support for, there is as good a chance for success as there is to fail by just leaving, so why not just leave, it's less expensive. I guess he's afraid the right wing will impeach him, or try to impeach him if he leaves Afghanistan. Maybe Obama should just pray to God that a miracle happens and it gets better, like that's going to help.

Fellow -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 2:46:02 PM)
War is profitable business for many. One can not believe a word president says publicly. G.W. Bush lied all the time, why should we think Obama words have some connection to what is really going on?

chiaThePet -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 3:27:48 PM)
I say we flood the country with Musicals. They'll be so busy humming a tune, nobody will have a notion for goat head polo. Everyone will simply forget what in the hell they were blood thirsty for. All together now, Collarme Glee Club, "How do you solve a problem like Al Qaeda? "How do you catch a drone and pin it down?" "How do you solve a problem like Al Qaeda?" "How do you hold a M72 LAW Antitank Rocket Grenade Launcher in...............your...............haaaaaaaaaaand?" chia* (the pet)

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 3:42:39 PM)
The thing I've always wondered is what this number of troops would be doing if not engaged in some conflict or other? Competing in the US job market? This is the main problem the entity is so big that it has to be used in some way otherwise it sits dormant costing money with people being paid to do training exercises. People are missing the point didn't he say 18 months would be the start of the withdrawal? i.e. if you start at that point and withdraw one troop a day then it'll take 100,000 days from that point on. Like Churchill said this is the end of the beginning; the beginning just took longer than expected. We don't know when the beginning of the beginning started but we suspect it was some time in 2003. The right moan about him taking too long to decide and make a speech now surprise surprise they complain that the speech wasn’t all it should have been. The BBC interviewed a senior Taliban leader. Seems the BBC can find these senior Taliban leaders but not the allied forces. OK we don’t know for sure it was a senior Taliban leader it could have been a pizza delivery boy wanting to be thought of more highly.

Musicmystery -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 3:46:59 PM)
He said what we knew he'd say about what we knew he'd address. From there it's the required political theater, including the responses. And all those also completely predictable, scripted months ago, no surprises.

Underumam -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 4:02:05 PM)
I'm sooo brain-dead to anything those political idiots say, and rarely listen(waste my time). They are doing whatever they want, and just offering us lip-service. They have a very long way to go in returning to being true public SERVANTS, and until such time, not a one will ever get a vote from me. The system is an insult to our intelligence.

Mercnbeth -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 4:02:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery He said what we knew he'd say about what we knew he'd address. From there it's the required political theater, including the responses. And all those also completely predictable, scripted months ago, no surprises. Agreed - a waste of time. Could have been done as a written proclamation and a two minute address from the Oval office if there wasn't such a narcissistic need for theatrics, using the cadets as backdrop props and West Point as a stage, to give an updated, location changed, version of Nixon's Vietnamization speech. Shame troops are dying over what "we knew he'd say" being said, and the predictable responses. Just goes to further document - nothing has changed, nothing new was offered. The process hasn't changed. The expectation for the result hasn't either. The historical reference to the exact strategy being attempted by Nixon is so in parallel its amazing; as would be the expectation in a different result in Afghanistan. I would think it surprising that there is any support remaining for Obama's long awaited new Afghanistan strategy. Then again - considering the sources of that support - that too is completely predictable. It takes a foundation of believing in rhetoric over result and substance, or in this case history. It would seem pragmatic at this point that expecting 'CHANGE!' from this Administration would be akin to thinking Gilligan would get off the island.

rulemylife -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 4:16:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth It would seem pragmatic at this point that expecting 'CHANGE!' from this Administration would be akin to thinking Gilligan would get off the island. What change exactly were you expecting? A change from what he promised in his campaign? If so, I can imagine your surprise.

LadyEllen -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 4:27:32 PM)
From what I understand, the UK shall be sending another 1000 troops, bringing our presence up to around 9500, or half whispered, over 10,000 including special forces. It doesnt sound a lot, but with our forces diminished as they are and stretched as they are, its a major deployment of people and a very large investment. As I understand it, we are the second biggest contributor, and at that miles behind the US, but then we cant compete with US troop numbers and budgets. Meanwhile the British public grows as uneasy about the prospects for success as it is unsure of what success might be, and fears more lives lost not to some hope of victory but to a nightmarish apparition combining support for a corrupt government and a lost cause. Where are the rest of NATO? Some are contributing more than others but even they are remarkably few in number by comparison to the Brits, let alone the Americans. E

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 4:40:11 PM)
Why can't we just spy on them with those satellite things and if tents start appearing or those monkey bars/barb wire assault courses then we’ll know that Al-Qaida are back. Either that or we can just watch to see if there is a big increase in passenger travel from Birmingham to Afghanistan.

Mercnbeth -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 4:45:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth It would seem pragmatic at this point that expecting 'CHANGE!' from this Administration would be akin to thinking Gilligan would get off the island. What change exactly were you expecting? A change from what he promised in his campaign? If so, I can imagine your surprise. He promised a 'plan', along with the escalation of troops, for Afghanistan. I sure didn't expect a surrender date be set. At the very least, you weren't surprised at the Nixon initiative? You didn't think Obama would have a better idea about securing Afghanistan than he did last night? I am surprised he hasn't lived up to his intellectual representation. RML, I'll put you down again for the "all is well" contingent. What can I say - I don't' think it is, and I don't think last night gave anyone a warm and fuzzy feeling that the man making the speech had a clue about how to accomplish any goal, let alone definitively set one. But instead of worrying about me and "what change exactly were you expecting"; why not tell me what result are you expecting to come from the war escalation and the disclosed surrender timetable. Or do you believe that, going unsaid but assumed, like Nixon, if conditions change so will the timetable so its irrelevant? Why not tell me why tax money being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq should be used to fund the Health Care Bill, or put people and businesses back to work in the USA? And yes - I still think the Health Care initiative is the 2nd worst idea this Administration has come up with, but I'd rather lose that battle see the Bill pass and see my money spent here versus to police a people who don't want us there for 18 months, suffer more casualties, and ultimately accomplishing nothing. Unless you can make a case how this troop deployment and 18 more months of war will work even though many prior attempts, many more troops, and 3000 years of history in the region hasn't.

LadyEllen -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 5:03:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Why can't we just spy on them with those satellite things and if tents start appearing or those monkey bars/barb wire assault courses then we’ll know that Al-Qaida are back. Either that or we can just watch to see if there is a big increase in passenger travel from Birmingham to Afghanistan. And isnt this that you allude to the cruellest joke of all? That we are supposedly defending the UK by being in Afghanistan, but more it seems we're pissing off a sizeable proportion of the population who more likely thereby to be radicalised against us - and all the time we've had border controls that might as well be absent for all the good they do, with thousands every year going off to Pakistan for family reasons (which I'm sure is mostly the case) without the same level of intrusion on their travel plans as there should be in time of war considering the potential risks, and all the time too we've had truck loads of Afghan asylum seekers coming into Dover and planeloads of Pakistani students coming into Heathrow with similar pitiful controls and absence of intrusion. And worst of all, just as we did with the Iraqi interpreters who worked for us and then found themselves threatened, we're refusing to do a damned thing for the Afghan interpreters who now find themselves threatened tenfold by comparison. Some might say the whole thing is amateurish, dangerous and ridiculous. I meanwhile couldnt possibly comment. E

slvemike4u -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 5:14:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth It would seem pragmatic at this point that expecting 'CHANGE!' from this Administration would be akin to thinking Gilligan would get off the island. What change exactly were you expecting? A change from what he promised in his campaign? If so, I can imagine your surprise. He promised a 'plan', along with the escalation of troops, for Afghanistan. I sure didn't expect a surrender date be set. You are the one that heard a surrender date....I heard an exit strategy.Without one being offered you and others would be bitching about an open ended morass ala VietNam.And by the way that analogy doesn't work for a number of reasons....most of which President Obama laid out last night....go back and listen again At the very least, you weren't surprised at the Nixon initiative? See above...the Nixon analogy just doesn't work...but keep putting it out there...I'm sure there are some on here who will jump on it. You didn't think Obama would have a better idea about securing Afghanistan than he did last night? Lets see....what sort of process did he use to get to this decision....He listened to the Generals....read the reports....heard all the intelligence briefings.....and he gave it some thought.Shit imagine a President doing that instead of just listening to his gut! I am surprised he hasn't lived up to his intellectual representation. I'm not surprised you feel this way....are you this blue and moody in your everyday life? RML, I'll put you down again for the "all is well" contingent. What can I say - I don't' think it is, and I don't think last night gave anyone a warm and fuzzy feeling that the man making the speech had a clue about how to accomplish any goal, let alone definitively set one. Put me down for that too...I'm just so giddy that my President thinks I have this toasty warm and fuzzy feeling that not even your sky is falling act can puncture But instead of worrying about me and "what change exactly were you expecting"; why not tell me what result are you expecting to come from the war escalation and the disclosed surrender timetable. Or do you believe that, going unsaid but assumed, like Nixon, if conditions change so will the timetable so its irrelevant? Selective hearing Merc...no surrender date was set....a plan was put in place to sharpen the goals and hand it off to the Afghans. Why not tell me why tax money being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq should be used to fund the Health Care Bill, or put people and businesses back to work in the USA? And yes - I still think the Health Care initiative is the 2nd worst idea this Administration has come up with, but I'd rather lose that battle see the Bill pass and see my money spent here versus to police a people who don't want us there for 18 months, suffer more casualties, and ultimately accomplishing nothing. Unless you can make a case how this troop deployment and 18 more months of war will work even though many prior attempts, many more troops, and 3000 years of history in the region hasn't. Well the response to this would actually belong in a health care thread would it not. The 3000 years of history thing though does deserve a response...was the history not the same on 9/12/2001...did you,at that time,feel we shouldn't have pursued the planners of that infamous act to wherever they happened to be....no matter the regions history?

Mercnbeth -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 6:05:29 PM)
Mike, Thanks for your response! First reply to the irrelevant banter. Anyone who's ever met me will confirm that the last traits that would be assigned to me would be "blue & moody", nor do I see the "sky falling". I see no change and because of it expect none. If you feel that points to a sky is falling now, when the same action conducted by Obama as it was by Bush, you must feel overjoyed for me pointing out, not that the sky is falling, but that everything is just continuing as it was, except for more troops being put at risk. BTW - You can feel free to confirm first hand anytime you're in my neighborhood; that I am neither "blue & moody" nor do I have a "sky is falling" approach to life. I never can understand that why my positions, which I feel come from logic, are considered emotional or moody? Simply tell me the positives with similar logic, and I'll singing 'kumbaya' with you! Regarding the "surrender date"; you're right he didn't say so. But as I said, as an enemy if I know you are going home - I'm pragmatically treating it as such. How would you take it? Since you point out "sharpen the goals" it should be easy for you to document them for me so I can keep track of their progress for when things are handed back to the Vietnamese, I mean Afghans. Six months, listening to the Generals, read the reports, heard all the intelligence briefings, gave it thought and what was the result? The same as it was for a "gut" reaction? Either that means Bush was right and just needed these extra troops to succeed (you stipulating to that?) or since the Bush Stimulus II that Obama signed worked so well that he's following it up with 'Bush-Afghanistan II'. Either way - somebody has somebody's reputation wrong. Either Bush's intelligence or Obama's. The problem thinking it's Bush is that nothing has changed other than adding more troops and putting in an 18 month time frame. I think that makes things worse you think it will help - only 18 months of causalities stands in the way of determining the answer. Really happy for your "giddiness". If you and Matthews get together you can share leg tingles. I appreciate that response to the request for specific goals - what other response could you have when the President didn't provide any in the first place. For the I'm sure, NOT last time, my position hasn't changed from 9/12/2001. When it comes to the 9/11 perpetrators; find them, kill them, if necessary hire the Mafia or Israeli commandos. Don't send tens of thousands of US troops to police a distant sovereign nation, using 9/11 as an excuse to protect offshore US corporate interests, military contractors, or domestic special interests who, through PAC contributions got you elected. I guess the 3000 years can't have a response you'd like to consider; because Obama has a better idea and in 18 months - "all is well!" Yeah - the alternative isn't possible and consideration of it is "sky is falling". But I guess what else can you think? I'd much rather be debating the merits of the new plan put in place versus why giving a final date of departure makes any merits a moot point. I'm still waiting for you, or anyone, to point out how any date line helps. Convinced, as you think he is, that the surge and initiative would be enough, why not just do it and surprise everyone with how well it worked and leave? Only because the left side of the aisle would take nothing from such a position is the reason it was there in the first place. As he has done with just about everything that's passed his desk, the President painted himself into a corner. His conflicting campaign promises to end one war for one audience and escalate another war for another created his dilemma which I'd say contributed more to the six month of pondering than any 'strategy' discussion. If strategy were discussed in such detail - we would have heard some yesterday.

TheHeretic -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 6:05:49 PM)
I hope you are right about the Taliban strategy, Merc. I'll take it. They go dark for 18 months, we declare victory and get out, then they can take over easily. It's not a hope I would bet a nickel on. More troops equals more invaders for them to fight. The speech was lousy. That was the worst performance I've ever seen from President Obama. I don't blame his fan club for not wanting to talk about it. I just hope whoever planned that speech doesn't have anything to do with planning for troop withdrawals. This was done with the sort of ignorance that can't read the elevation markings on a map.

Lucylastic -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 6:32:46 PM)
Merc, I just wanted to wish you a belated happy birthday. The kidnap idea is wonderful, I hope you had a superb time with regards to your lovely lady Beth too Lucy

thishereboi -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 6:44:51 PM)
Sorry, I must have missed the speach. But [sm=line.gif][sm=alien.gif]Happy Birthday

slvemike4u -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:02:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Mike, Thanks for your response! Your welcome. First reply to the irrelevant banter. Anyone who's ever met me will confirm that the last traits that would be assigned to me would be "blue & moody", nor do I see the "sky falling". I see no change and because of it expect none. If you feel that points to a sky is falling now, when the same action conducted by Obama as it was by Bush, you must feel overjoyed for me pointing out, not that the sky is falling, but that everything is just continuing as it was, except for more troops being put at risk. No,this isn't the same action as pursued by Bush.Bush treated Afghanastan as if it was a backwater conflict to be run on the cheap.President Obama is treating it the way it should have been treated from the start.....the epicenter of this vaporous so called war on terror. More troops...means more operations means more progress......means a chance to finish and get out. BTW - You can feel free to confirm first hand anytime you're in my neighborhood; that I am neither "blue & moody" nor do I have a "sky is falling" approach to life. I never can understand that why my positions, which I feel come from logic, are considered emotional or moody? Simply tell me the positives with similar logic, and I'll singing 'kumbaya' with you! You present your positions as one of logic...and do a damm good job of it,yet they all have one unmistakable theme...one of disatisfaction no matter the course, no matter the party.....no matter the policy. Please if I'm wrong point it out to me.....point out that one instance when you saw anything positive coming from either the public sector or the private sector.....it will be a pleasure to read....seriously...you write compelling logical arguments...it would be nice to read one from a positive standpoint. Regarding the "surrender date"; you're right he didn't say so. But as I said, as an enemy if I know you are going home - I'm pragmatically treating it as such. How would you take it? Since you point out "sharpen the goals" it should be easy for you to document them for me so I can keep track of their progress for when things are handed back to the Vietnamese, I mean Afghans. Again not a surrender date.....a hard target for both our forces and Afghani forces to work towards....and as Rich as already pointed out the Taliban can not as you say go on "furlough".The status quo does not work for an insurgency. Here is a link that might help you with the aims issue...I could type it out for you...but what the hell I would just be typing someone else's analysis... http://www.rferl.org/content/New_US_AfghanistanPakistan_Strategy_Aims_To_Take_Fight_To_AlQaeda/1893506.html Six months, listening to the Generals, read the reports, heard all the intelligence briefings, gave it thought and what was the result? The same as it was for a "gut" reaction? Either that means Bush was right and just needed these extra troops to succeed (you stipulating to that?) or since the Bush Stimulus II that Obama signed worked so well that he's following it up with 'Bush-Afghanistan II'. Either way - somebody has somebody's reputation wrong. Either Bush's intelligence or Obama's. The problem thinking it's Bush is that nothing has changed other than adding more troops and putting in an 18 month time frame. I think that makes things worse you think it will help - only 18 months of causalities stands in the way of determining the answer. How was Bush right.....he practically ignored the conflict.Nothings changed? American troop levels will be about 100,000 troops. Really happy for your "giddiness". If you and Matthews get together you can share leg tingles. I appreciate that response to the request for specific goals - what other response could you have when the President didn't provide any in the first place. For the I'm sure, NOT last time, my position hasn't changed from 9/12/2001. When it comes to the 9/11 perpetrators; find them, kill them, if necessary hire the Mafia or Israeli commandos. Don't send tens of thousands of US troops to police a distant sovereign nation, using 9/11 as an excuse to protect offshore US corporate interests, military contractors, or domestic special interests who, through PAC contributions got you elected. Well the planners weren't in backstreet Idaho...they were sheltered,protected and aided by a Goverment in control of a Sovereign Nation(Afghanastan)invading a nation is called waging war...for that you call the Armed Forces.The big difference here is this President is actually paying attention to what happens there. I guess the 3000 years can't have a response you'd like to consider; because Obama has a better idea and in 18 months - "all is well!" Yeah - the alternative isn't possible and consideration of it is "sky is falling". But I guess what else can you think? I can and do think whatever the fuck I like to..... Shit changes Merc.War is different...equipment,tactics they evolve and change...the 3,000 years shit does not hold much water against a modern well equipped Army. I'd much rather be debating the merits of the new plan put in place versus why giving a final date of departure makes any merits a moot point. I'm still waiting for you, or anyone, to point out how any date line helps. Convinced, as you think he is, that the surge and initiative would be enough, why not just do it and surprise everyone with how well it worked and leave? Only because the left side of the aisle would take nothing from such a position is the reason it was there in the first place. Come now Merc...who do you think was the target audience for the time line...could it possibly had something to do with the follow up line about being partners and not patrons of a currupt Afghan gov. American politics meant far less in this case than Afghani politics. As he has done with just about everything that's passed his desk, the President painted himself into a corner. His conflicting campaign promises to end one war for one audience and escalate another war for another created his dilemma which I'd say contributed more to the six month of pondering than any 'strategy' discussion. If strategy were discussed in such detail - we would have heard some yesterday. We did...please read the link I posted.....it's there and its a substantial and obtainable sharpening of the goal. Tell me this Merc...did you even notice he offered a way out to the Taliban....and emphasised the real enemy was al quaeda?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875