RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (Full Version)

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



Message


SpinnerofTales -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/4/2009 10:06:29 AM)

quote:

Obama's probably spending a lot of time with SecDef Gates, which is how it should be.
ORIGINAL: thornhappy


Obviously some people consider Secretary of Defense Gates to have less experience and ability than Joe Biden.. Go figure.





tazzygirl -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/4/2009 10:17:42 AM)

quote:

Does he commit hundreds of thousands of US troops to a meatgrinder where nobody ever wins, or does he risk the political fallout that the next terrorist attack on the US of A will be based out of Afghanistan on his watch?


Its real easy to sit back and say what we would do in this situation... because... we dont have to do it... we dont have to make that single decision. Im so glad i dont have too, and i dont envy anyone that position. Having to clean up a mess not of my making... and then praying it doesnt come back to bite ANY of us in the ass later...

Even for you its a bit cynical to believe he is stalling at this point of the game for next term thoughts.




TheHeretic -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/4/2009 10:27:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Obama's probably spending a lot of time with SecDef Gates, which is how it should be.
ORIGINAL: thornhappy


Obviously some people consider Secretary of Defense Gates to have less experience and ability than Joe Biden.. Go figure.



No.  Some people consider him a deliberate holdover, so the new administration still has a fall guy from the old administration to blame if shit hits fan.





TheHeretic -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/4/2009 10:32:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its real easy to sit back and say what we would do in this situation... because... we dont have to do it... we dont have to make that single decision. Im so glad i dont have too, and i dont envy anyone that position. Having to clean up a mess not of my making... and then praying it doesnt come back to bite ANY of us in the ass later...

Even for you its a bit cynical to believe he is stalling at this point of the game for next term thoughts.



If so, then perhaps he should have contemplated that he would have to make hard decisions, before he decided to run for the job where hard decisions get made.

You haven't seen me get cynical, Tazzy.  [;)]




tazzygirl -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/4/2009 10:38:21 AM)

Im sure he did.... and im really sure he is very upset with himself for not performing to your standards on your time schedule.




servantforuse -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/4/2009 11:46:13 AM)

I guess it's ok for Obama to take a junket to Copenhagen. Talk about a waste of money.




tazzygirl -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/4/2009 11:52:30 AM)

Heads of state muscle in on 2016 vote
Thu Sep 24, 2009 By Reuters

BERLIN (Reuters) -- Whether they are presidents, kings or prime ministers, heads of state have muscled into the inner sanctum of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in recent years, successfully swinging votes for their bids.

When the IOC meets in Copenhagen on Oct. 2 to elect the hosts of the 2016 Summer Olympics, Chicago, Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro and Madrid will bank on senior politicians to be there working the corridors of power.

Until a few years ago heads of state did not make a point of attending the Olympic vote.

However, the ballooning size and budget of the Games and the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics bribery scandal, where gifts were exchanged for votes, contributed to a change in practice as IOC members were banned from traveling to candidate cities.

In 2005 when the IOC was voting for the 2012 Olympics, then British Prime Minister Tony Blair flew into Singapore to meet dozens of IOC members and actively back London's bid.

French leader Jacques Chirac was also there, though he was holding the bare minimum of meetings, thinking frontrunner Paris had done enough with a good bid.

As has been the case on many an IOC vote, the favorite was left beaten, with London celebrating an unexpected victory largely credited to Blair's successful lobbying.

At the IOC session in Guatemala in 2007 there were two clear frontrunners for the 2014 Winter Games: Austria's Salzburg with a long winter sports tradition and South Korea's Pyeongchang, which had narrowly missed out to Vancouver four years earlier.

Rank outsider Sochi, Russia's Black Sea resort, had technically the weakest bid with almost all of the venues needed to be built from scratch and with no experience of hosting major international winter sports events.

The presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the session, addressing the IOC members in impeccable English -- a first according to his country's reporters -- proved decisive as Sochi snatched victory.

The IOC has taken notice of politicians' growing presence and has urged heads of state to attend sessions without upstaging the event itself with long car convoys, large security and an even larger entourage.

"We will treat them according to the protocol. If heads of state want to be present that is their full right," IOC president Jacques Rogge said.

"But we want to contain the activities to what has been agreed by the ethics commission.

"Of course the IOC is very honored with the presence of dignitaries. It is also a reassurance that public authorities are behind the bid but it is not a requirement of the IOC."

When the world's top sports officials arrive in Copenhagen, leaders from all four bidders are expected to join them.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Spanish King Juan Carlos as well as Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will go to Denmark while Tokyo officials are working hard to get new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to fly in.

An appearance by Japanese Emperor Akihito should also not come as a surprise.

Chicago had been holding out for U.S. President Barack Obama, who has spent much of his life in the U.S. city, to travel to the session.

Locked in a domestic healthcare reform battle at home, Chicago officials will instead have the on-site support of First Lady Michelle Obama, a Chicagoan, who has confirmed her attendance.

http://www.universalsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=23000&ATCLID=204800662

And if he had not went, they would have insisted his lack of presence caused the loss of the olympics. Win or lose he had to go. Politcally, he had to go. This is more than just about a few games.




TheHeretic -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/4/2009 7:24:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

im really sure he is very upset with himself for not performing to your standards on your time schedule.



It ain't my time schedule, Tazzy. 

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1926578,00.html


Six months ago Obama called for a new strategy in Afghanistan, but the President now appears to be wavering in the wake of a report by his top commander there, General Stanley McChrystal, that says 10,000 to 40,000 more troops are needed or the mission "will likely result in failure."




maz123 -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/5/2009 12:08:22 AM)

the war against the taliban has to be fought on both sides of the border otherwise the taliban can just keep recrossing to whichever side of the border proves the most hospitable to them. it used to be Pakistan but the ongoing offensive through the Swat Valley is now forcing the Taliban up against the border- a border that McChrystal has now abandoned in an endeavour to pacify politicians and reporters that the cities are in Allied control. this is the strategy that the French tried in Viet Nam and it ended in disaster there, with 20 000 POWs killed or allowed to die by the Viet Minh- how would that play out on CNN with 20000 US troops at the hands of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda?
lets not get carried away by news reports and McChrystal's obvious panic. the north and west of the country are quiet; the east is only now starting to become a problem; so far in the south the Taliban has tried and failed to conquer villages and cities and has resorted to a guerrilla war in the confident belief that America will cut and run. casualties are nowhere near the level of Iraq (which is starting to improve markedly). the US army now has a solid core of Officers and senior NCOs with experience in counter-insurgency operations and, unlike Viet Nam, is not dragging behind it an undisciplined conscript army either as hosts or in its own ranks. the international fighters previously going to Iraq are now going to Afghanistan and their behaviours will do more to alienate the local Pashtuns than anything the ISAF has done- just as they did in Iraq and recently in Pakistan. there are commitments from Australia and Eastern Europe to increase their troop levels; France, Britain and now Germany are in for the long haul; India may yet provide a Brigade group at the request of the Afghan government; Iran is also a supporter of the current regime which means that the west should continue to remain quiet; the northern alliance of Uzbeks and Tajiks is in firm control there.
if the US leaves now it will be abandoning its allies and supporters, encouraging its enemies and re-enforcing the international perception that the US lacks the guts to keep going when things get rough.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/7/2009 8:28:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rikigrl

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Your coin landed wrong, Riki...

I'm from the "get the fuck out" school of thought.


my most sincere apologies Heretic, i knew not your position obviously. Given that McCrystal had just asked for more troops i read it that you wanted said request to be fullfilled asap. Once again, my apologies.


They arent mutually exclusive. Engaging in Afghanistan on their terms is a huge mistake, and there is no viable middle ground between fighting on their terms and bringing in massive ground and air power, something the US hasnt been able to stomach for decades. Obama had to do something after all the rhetoric from the campaign and his failure in everything else he's attempted, but once again is showing how weak and indecisive he is. Get the hell out and be prepared to try and contain the inevitable takeover by Islamic extremists, or get the fucking job done right and stop trying to tell the professionals how to wage war.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/7/2009 8:30:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

It was now-President Obama's "present" voting record in the Illinios legislature that earned him the reputation, Arroga.

It isn't just Afghanistan. "I'm-a-nut-jub" is watching this closely as well, wondering how long Obama might waver on stopping the Iranian bomb program.  ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



Did I miss the "life and death" issues of war and peace that were decided in the Illinois legislature?




War and peace arent the only life and death issues.




mnottertail -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/7/2009 10:00:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

It was now-President Obama's "present" voting record in the Illinios legislature that earned him the reputation, Arroga.

It isn't just Afghanistan. "I'm-a-nut-jub" is watching this closely as well, wondering how long Obama might waver on stopping the Iranian bomb program.  ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



Did I miss the "life and death" issues of war and peace that were decided in the Illinois legislature?




War and peace arent the only life and death issues.



Well it isn't the wrecking of the environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink and the land we use to feed ourselves, so what are life and death issues?
Creationism?

Ron




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/7/2009 10:13:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

It was now-President Obama's "present" voting record in the Illinios legislature that earned him the reputation, Arroga.

It isn't just Afghanistan. "I'm-a-nut-jub" is watching this closely as well, wondering how long Obama might waver on stopping the Iranian bomb program.  ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



Did I miss the "life and death" issues of war and peace that were decided in the Illinois legislature?




War and peace arent the only life and death issues.



Well it isn't the wrecking of the environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink and the land we use to feed ourselves, so what are life and death issues?
Creationism?

Ron


mmmmm...partial birth abortion?




mnottertail -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/7/2009 10:15:01 AM)

K. Lets talk about that shit, as well as the others I posted healthcare, infrastructure, environment and so on, instead of this droll tripe.

Ron




TheHeretic -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/7/2009 10:32:40 PM)

What, Ron?  Aren't you going to enlighten (or more likely, confuzzle the hell out of) everybody by talking about the lack of goddamn ku?






blacksword404 -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/7/2009 11:13:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eu_us_afghanistan

At least the trip to Copenhagen to pitch for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics wasn't a complete, humiliating waste of time and money.  President Obama met with General McCrystal for a whole 25 minutes (does that include posing for the pictures, do you think?) about a fairly critical decision he so far hasn't made, and keeps stalling on making.

Afghanistan.  Do we stay, or do we get the hell out?  There is no "present" button, Mr. President, and the facts aren't going to change, no matter how many meetings and conferences you call. 

We elected this man to be our Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, why is he running and hiding from making a decision?  The only difference next week, or next month, is going to be how much more blood has been spilled onto his legacy.

My own thoughts on what we should be doing there have been aired plenty of times, and I don't care where the majority of conservative pundits are on this.  The subject here is President Obama's apparent inability to make up his fucking mind. 


25 minutes is not a lot of time. It seems mighty short to me. I was expecting hours of talk. A round table of top cabinet. Raised voices, pounded desk and finger pointing. Maybe that will come later.




blacksword404 -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/7/2009 11:16:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Living up to your nic, again, I see, Spinner. The facts aren't going to change. Afghanistan isn't going to stop being the graveyards of empires. We aren't going to miraculously grow a supply line into the country. Is this sort of wavering going to be what happens when they wake his ass up at 3:00 a.m. and he has to answer "right fucking now?"
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


The last time a president had a judgment to make "right fucking now" he spent about 10 minutes finishing up a good read of "My Pet Goat". And then got us into two disastrous wars. There is a time for "right now" and a time for consideration. I don't expect you to acknowledge the difference. You're agenda has been set and clear for quite some time now.




Hmmm. I was unaware the Constitution gave the President the power to declare war.




Alphascendant -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/8/2009 12:17:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Bush got into Iraq for who knows the what reason, nothing to do with Afghanistan.


The answer to that might be in the last paragraph of the following article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html

And they both indeed may have everything to do with each other.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-are-we-in-Afghanistan-by-michael-payne-090930-287.html

Maybe we are in both places because of the same reason? And before it gets into a discussion of dem vs. rep, remember that both sides , nearly the entire federal government is sponsored by the Federal Reserve, which is not a branch of our government, but a private corporation. Is all of our income tax money given to the Federal Reserve as interest on the money that the U.S. has borrowed from them, sort of like paying interest on a credit card debt without cutting into the debt itself?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9q1oeMcoL0

Which currency will Britain and Norway use to buy oil? Those pieces of fiat circulating in town these days is about to take a bigger hit than ever. Until our, well, the Federal Reserve's U.S. government regains control of it's own currency, the American Dream is destined to to have the majority of us sleeping in FEMA camps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dj3Ew9Vokc

Meanwhile, nearly $800,000 of Social Security money was spent on a lavish party.

The POTUS will not consider offshore drilling here, but can lend 2 billion to Brazil so they can do it there, with a company that can be connected to George Soros? Can anybody say "Insider trading?"

Medicare
Medicaid
Post Office
Social Security
FreddieMac
FannieMae
Worker's Comp

Can anybody find a single U.S. Government initiated program, other than the IRS of course, that is not broken and needing to be fixed? Those assholes couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. Health care, oops, health insurance reform? How about Boo Boo Proxy? Global warming, ummm, climate change? Red sky at night , sailors delight?




MrRodgers -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/8/2009 4:22:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alphascendant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Bush got into Iraq for who knows the what reason, nothing to do with Afghanistan.


The answer to that might be in the last paragraph of the following article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html

And they both indeed may have everything to do with each other.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-are-we-in-Afghanistan-by-michael-payne-090930-287.html

Maybe we are in both places because of the same reason? And before it gets into a discussion of dem vs. rep, remember that both sides , nearly the entire federal government is sponsored by the Federal Reserve, which is not a branch of our government, but a private corporation. Is all of our income tax money given to the Federal Reserve as interest on the money that the U.S. has borrowed from them, sort of like paying interest on a credit card debt without cutting into the debt itself?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9q1oeMcoL0

Which currency will Britain and Norway use to buy oil? Those pieces of fiat circulating in town these days is about to take a bigger hit than ever. Until our, well, the Federal Reserve's U.S. government regains control of it's own currency, the American Dream is destined to to have the majority of us sleeping in FEMA camps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dj3Ew9Vokc

Meanwhile, nearly $800,000 of Social Security money was spent on a lavish party.

The POTUS will not consider offshore drilling here, but can lend 2 billion to Brazil so they can do it there, with a company that can be connected to George Soros? Can anybody say "Insider trading?"

Medicare
Medicaid
Post Office
Social Security
FreddieMac
FannieMae
Worker's Comp

Can anybody find a single U.S. Government initiated program, other than the IRS of course, that is not broken and needing to be fixed? Those assholes couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. Health care, oops, health insurance reform? How about Boo Boo Proxy? Global warming, ummm, climate change? Red sky at night , sailors delight?


You are correct, we are in Afghan. simply for a profit now (war spending) and for a profit later. (pipelines)  That's why American lives and treasure will be spent even after a clearly fraudulent election that is backed even by the UN.

Nothing will do more to convince the Afghans that the whole western idea of 'building' an Afghan democracy as also fraudulent than does a buildup in US military despite this election fraud.

Yes, the fed and the bankers control the world...see above. Yes, others are trying to get off the dollar standard...good luck. They will need all they can because no 'new' currency based on a 'basket' of currencies would survive the speculators.

Almost all of the real value in any of these currencies is in reference to the dollar that the world has accepted for almost 60 years.

Unlike others and those mentioned in this discussion, the US has yet to 'print' money anywhere near what most countries have since WWII. They will be financially shooting themselves in the foot anyway because of all of their holdings in dollars. To try to create another 'world' currency would automatically devalue all of those holdings.




Thadius -> RE: Pres. Obama meets with Afghanistan Commander (10/8/2009 9:11:10 AM)

**Fast Reply**

Just 2 really quick questions.

1. Isn't Gen. McChrystal the person that Pres. Obama personally selected to head up the Afghanistan campaign?

2. Wasn't Gen. McChrystal given "carte blanche" to effect the "new strategy" in Afghanistan?


I bring those up, because I am just a bit uneasy with the indecision and waiting that is going on now. Don't get me wrong, I believe the President has the right to make this decision, and that his decision should be the final one on the matter. That being said, I just want the man to make a decision one way or the other. Either we are going to stay and fight to win, or we are going to pack up and come home. There is no middle ground here. The troops on the ground deserve at least that much.

I don't want my remarks to be taken as a "bash the president" reply, it should be seen more in the light of a pleading to the man to make a decision one way or the other, and STICK TO IT. I can only imagine how the mixed messages are being taken by the men and women on the ground, their officers, the folks in the regiion, and even the enemy. Does a "perceived" inability to make a decision on this embolden the enemy? Does it make those that have been willing to help us, less willing? Those things are above my paygrade, but they still concern me. Just looking back at a little conflict we were involved in 40 years ago, provides some interesting insights into what happens when decisions are made based on political posturing.

I wish you all well,
Thadius




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875