willbeurdaddy
Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy No, it was a military success that isolated the Taliban and restricted OBLs movement. Since we did not occupy Afghanistan after that success, things deteriorated again due to the governments inability to defend itself against the Taliban. It is not finishing what GWB started, it is a new effort. Uh.....we did and currently occupy Afghanistan. lol, sure we did The mission was not to restrict Bin-Laden, it was to capture him. missions change Which we failed to do because we committed nine times as many troops to the misadventure in Iraq. there was no failure You did see that quote I posted earlier about "dead or alive"? missions change. Obama said virtually the same thing, and then turned around and said it isnt that important quote:
Moreover Afhanistan a real life laboratory showing the peril of premature withdrawal, and is one of the reasons why Obama changed his rhetoric and his plans on Iraq to match GWBs. Perhaps he will even apply that lesson in Afghanistan. He's shown some progress in retreating on OBL's capture even being an important enough objective to justify the cost, again consistent with GWB. Yeah, you're right. The murder of 3000+ American citizens and attacks on two US cities is really not important enough to bring the man responsible to justice. Yeah youre right, wasting hundreds or thousands of lives on a mission that accomplishes nothing but "feel good" value makes a lot of sense and makes up for the lives already lost Hopefully Obama will do the cost-benefit analysis Bush did, after flip-flopping on his dead-or-alive statement, and realize cost is the most important thing. Obama already did it and agreed with Bush Youre entitled to your own opinions, not to your own facts.
|