OBAMA a peace loving liberal

[lamboguy]

before he got in he claimed that he will bring the troops home. he just decided 30,000 more of our sons and brothers needs to get their arms and legs blown off. does it sound familiar to you? does this guy resemble his rotten predicessor?
i think he is the spitting image of bush. he ran against bush but when elected he has acted no different. i am sure you liberals out there are happy with this guy.

just curious if they want to win a war don't they have planes out there that can zero in on targets and blow them up without any loss of american life. is this stupid war worth losing one valuable soldier that devotes themselves to this country?

we all know why the presidents send these guys in to fight wars that can't be won, yet everyone turns their heads when it comes time to stand up against our piss poor leadership

[Snag]

before he got in he claimed that he will bring the troops home. he just decided 30,000 more of our sons and brothers needs to get their arms and legs blown off. does it sound familiar to you? does this guy resemble his rotten predicessor?
i think he is the spitting image of bush. he ran against bush but when elected he has acted no different. i am sure you liberals out there are happy with this guy.


aaaaah lamboguy, BO didn't run against George Bush. BO ran against another guy. :lol:

[kenwoodallpromos]

While on the campaign trail, Obama had said this failure centered on President Bush not having sent enough troops to Afghanistan. And at campaign rallies, he constantly pledged to stop the war in Iraq and turn to the other.

"We will bring this war to an end. We will focus our attention on Afghanistan," Obama said.

O'Hanlon says Obama's campaign focused mostly on sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Occasionally, Obama raised the problem of fighters coming across the border from Pakistan.

"But that's at best only two of five key parts of this problem," O'Hanlon says.

[GameTheory]

Why doesn't it ever occur to the "don't send more troops to get killed" crowd that the larger the force we have in a combat area the SAFER our troops are?

[chrisl]

My Nephew: just landed in Afghanistan last week. Over the last few months of speaking to him, he stated to me, that this is something, he wants, and has to do. I am praying for them all, everyday. Like many American's, this has come to my home. Chris

[lamboguy]

My Nephew: just landed in Afghanistan last week. Over the last few months of speaking to him, he stated to me, that this is something, he wants, and has to do. I am praying for them all, everyday. Like many American's, this has come to my home. Chrisme too, i will pray for him.

it would be an honor for my wife to bake cookies for him for christmas. they are real good and we do it for free. if you are interested please pm me and we will have them to him in time for christmas

[PaceAdvantage]

before he got in he claimed that he will bring the troops home.He never said he would bring the troops home from Afghanistant. In fact, THROUGHOUT the campaign, he said he would CONCENTRATE on Afghanistan, as that was where the just fight was...don't you guys remember any of this drivel from his campaign? Iraq was wrong, Afghanistan was right, Bush took his eye off the ball, blah blah blah blah....

Why is it ANY surprise to ANYONE that Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan?

In Obama's own words...

Ga859TrvjiQ

[Tom]

My question is, if he was so focused on THIS war, why did it take him 5 months to come up with last night's pathetic plan??????

Agonizing over state dinners, trips to NY, golf outings......the poor thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

My question is, if he was so focused on THIS war, why did it take him 5 months to come up with last night's pathetic plan??????

Agonizing over state dinners, trips to NY, golf outings......the poor thing.An entirely different but important point you raise there Tom.

It took him 3 months (or 5 or whatever) because he and his administration (which is filled with nothing but public sector folks) have ZERO clue on how to run these types of operations...so they rely on George W. Bush and go with the tried and true SURGE baby...

Does what Obama's doing qualify as Bush Doctrine material? Mark Levin thought so last night...curious what others think...

[boxcar]

My question is, if he was so focused on THIS war, why did it take him 5 months to come up with last night's pathetic plan??????

Agonizing over state dinners, trips to NY, golf outings......the poor thing.

Thank YOU! Once again, his actions belie his words. It's amazing this guy doesn't gag to death on all his lies.

Boxcar

[rastajenk]

Definitely not Bush Doctrine stuff. On the surface, it may look like it, but the timeline attached to it makes these additional troops mere pawns in the game of making Obama Himself Look Good. There was no clearly defined military goal or agenda other than containment, which is where we've been for eight years.

I was struck last night by his never-ending supply of narcissism. "I" went to Dover for a photo-op; "I" have visited Walter Reed; "I" have to struggle with the tough decisions; "I" know what needs to be known in order to come up with the vagueness needed to sound good to everyone but inspire no one. Bush Doctrine is meat-and-potatoes; Obama Doctrine is strained peas and cottage cheese. No Mas!

[Robert Goren]

No matter what you think of Obama, he gave the generals what they wanted. It is now put up or shut up time for the Pentagon. Although I have some doubts, I pray they got it right.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
I was struck last night by his never-ending supply of narcissism. "I" went to Dover for a photo-op; "I" have visited Walter Reed; "I" have to struggle with the tough decisions; "I" know what needs to be known in order to come up with the vagueness needed to sound good to everyone but inspire no one. ...

I must admit... I almost posted something last night about the absurd use of the pronoun ad nauseum while delivering news to those about to sacrifice themselves...

A simple tactical outline would have been sufficient and effective rather than forty minutes of using the platform to make another round of cagey innuendo and odd digressions.

[chickenhead]

Why doesn't it ever occur to the "don't send more troops to get killed" crowd that the larger the force we have in a combat area the SAFER our troops are?

My cousin just got back from Afghanistan -- whatever the statistics work out to be, maybe he's actually be safer in Afghanistan than in Georgia where he's now home with his wife and newborn baby -- he'd just as soon take his chances in Georgia.

[ArlJim78]

No matter what you think of Obama, he gave the generals what they wanted. It is now put up or shut up time for the Pentagon. Although I have some doubts, I pray they got it right.
umm not really, he scaled back the troop request considerably, and I'm quite sure the Generals didn't request that a troop pullout date be given in advance.
I think that undermines the whole idea of the surge.

[ddog]

ummmm , last I checked , despite your and the other fascists desires, the freakin generals don't tell the elected leadership(i use that term lightly in the ones case) what to say and what policy to implement.

This thing is a joke and will not do a thing to help us.

[ArlJim78]

ummmm , last I checked , despite your and the other fascists desires, the freakin generals don't tell the elected leadership(i use that term lightly in the ones case) what to say and what policy to implement.

This thing is a joke and will not do a thing to help us.
Of course I never said that the generals tell the elected leaders what to say. as usual that was something that got twisted around in your mind. the other guy said that Obama gave them what they wanted, my comment was that I'm sure that they didn't want their hands tied in such a way by that date.

your comments about fascist desires are baseless. get a clue.

[Greyfox]

Instead of troops, maybe Obama should go himself.
The man is a drone. He'd bore the Taliban to death.
(How many cadets were sleeping by the end of that spiel?)
The speech last night was torture to listen to.
Add troops or withdraw them doesn't make me feel any safer today with this indecisive Mr. Dithers at the wheel.

[skate]

You people miss the strategy. BtheO has Never come accross with the truth Lately, never.:cool:

[LottaKash]

War ?...What war ?......Don Quixote fighting windmills, is more like it....

best,

[PaceAdvantage]

No matter what you think of Obama, he gave the generals what they wanted. It is now put up or shut up time for the Pentagon. Although I have some doubts, I pray they got it right.Not only didn't he give them what they wanted, he gave them less than their MINIMUM request...

[Robert Goren]

Not only didn't he give them what they wanted, he gave them less than their MINIMUM request...He gave 30,000 troops. One general ( the one who tried cover up the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman) wanted 40k but most thought 30k would do. They wanted at least 10 years , they got 18 mos. They have already had 8 years and done nothing with it. It is time the generals were held accountable. It took less than 4 years to defeat the NAZIs and Japan. I know none of these guys could mistaken for IKE or Patton, but I think he was generous. If these generals can't do it in 18 months then they should busted to private and sent out patrols to fight along side the real soldiers.

[Robert Goren]

Instead of troops, maybe Obama should go himself.
The man is a drone. He'd bore the Taliban to death.
(How many cadets were sleeping by the end of that spiel?)
The speech last night was torture to listen to.
Add troops or withdraw them doesn't make me feel any safer today with this indecisive Mr. Dithers at the wheel. Maybe we should use an Obama speech instead of water boarding. No, on second thought thats too cruel to use even on a terrorist.

[boxcar]

He gave 30,000 troops. One general ( the one who tried cover up the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman) wanted 40k but most thought 30k would do. They wanted at least 10 years , they got 18 mos. They have already had 8 years and done nothing with it. It is time the generals were held accountable. It took less than 4 years to defeat the NAZIs and Japan. I know none of these guys could mistaken for IKE or Patton, but I think he was generous. If these generals can't do it in 18 months then they should busted to private and sent out patrols to fight along side the real soldiers.

Generals don't make war policy. Commander-in-Chiefs do. The problem is very simple to solve really. Puts lots and lots and soldiers in there and then fight the war to WIN it, and forget all the politically correct stuff. Go in there and kill the enemy and leave.

Boxcar

[lamboguy]

this guy is telling the enemy he is leaving in 18 months. if i was the enemy i would hide in caves for the next 18 months and wait for them to leave and then go back to work.

so now after the 18 months ovama is gonna say bush lost over 800 troops and he only lost 200. he will tell you how much better he is than bush. he is nothing but a con-artist. meanwhile the guys that paid to get him elected fleeces the american public out of more money for supplies and amunition. expensive i must add.

[Robert Goren]

Generals don't make war policy. Commander-in-Chiefs do. The problem is very simple to solve really. Puts lots and lots and soldiers in there and then fight the war to WIN it, and forget all the politically correct stuff. Go in there and kill the enemy and leave.

Boxcar But they do make the tactics. FDR made war policy in WW II and that worked out. The trouble we have now is not the foot soldiers or the president we have or had (and everyone on this board knows I am no fan of Bush), but the total incompetence of generals on the ground. None of them is ever held responsible for anything. I like the Lincoln approach. Keep changing them until you find one who knows what he is doing. How many did he go through? 4 or 5?

[boxcar]

But they do make the tactics. FDR made war policy in WW II and that worked out. The trouble we have now is not the foot soldiers or the president we have or had (and everyone on this board knows I am no fan of Bush), but the total incompetence of generals on the ground. None of them is ever held responsible for anything. I like the Lincoln approach. Keep changing them until you find one who knows what he is doing. How many did he go through? 4 or 5?

Sir, you need to get yourself up to speed on what BHO's policy for engagement are for the troops in Afghanistan. As it stands at this moment, the U.S. military has been reduced to some Third World U.N. peace-keeping force. This is why we're getting our butts kicked. Obama has no intentions of winning this war. Period. End of story.

Boxcar
P.S. And BO ain't no FDR, which is why the current policy ISN'T working out.

[newtothegame]

He gave 30,000 troops. One general ( the one who tried cover up the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman) wanted 40k but most thought 30k would do. They wanted at least 10 years , they got 18 mos. They have already had 8 years and done nothing with it. It is time the generals were held accountable. It took less than 4 years to defeat the NAZIs and Japan. I know none of these guys could mistaken for IKE or Patton, but I think he was generous. If these generals can't do it in 18 months then they should busted to private and sent out patrols to fight along side the real soldiers.

If it weren't sad...this would almost be funny.
The generals held accountable? Accountability in the military is in the form of the UCMJ. Could you please provide the article for which these generals should be held accountable? Maybe ( and I am trying to think for you ) you would propose "dereliction of duty?".
Sorry...won't work when their orders come from the pentagon (who get their orders from the commander in chief.)
And then you go on to say 18 months is "generous" to do the job?
I would agree if our soldiers hands weren't tied. And please don't say they arent. If you think they arent, just ask the three SEALS who are up for court martial for bloodying a KNOWN TERRORIST CAPTIVE's lip.
Tell that to the men and women who are taking repeated grenade fire from mosque but are told NOT to fire back. Tell that to the men and women who were originally "supported" (through the known meeting with congressional leaders about tactics of the CIA) who have had those same people (PELOSI) turn around and try to hold them accountable for said tactics.
Tell that to the men and women who have to fight a fight under the rules of the geneva convention yet their opponents have NO rules to fight by.
If you COMPLETELY untie their hands, this war could be over in weeks...NOT months as Obama has given as a timeline.
Then, you want to talk about how generous Obama was in giving them 18 months and accountability needs to happen...let me ask you this. Where does the accountability stop? If we are gonna have accountability such as you propose, I am ALL FOR IT as long as it goes to the HEAD of the military which is OBAMA like it or not. He is the CNC....so your right...lets hold his azz accountable!

[Tom]

You people miss the strategy. BtheO has Never come accross with the truth Lately, never.:cool:

If Obama came out and said he was a liar, that would be a conundrum.
That would defy the laws of physics. The time -space continuum would be disrupted. :D

[Robert Goren]

There are only two place where the top leaders are not held responsible for their job performance; the Military and banking. The Military at the top has become nothing more than a bunch of cry babies blaming everyone and everything for their failures. If they can't blame a private then they try to blame a sergeant. If that doesn't work they go for a second leuy or a capitain. I am glad I am not serving in this day and age. Oboma will be held responsible. It called the 2012 presidential election. Those generals have had 8 years. Obama only gets 4 and thats more than enough. This war should been over with years ago. If these generals were jockeys, they still be 10 lb bug boys after 8 years.

[Bochall]

Since you asked, i wear 1/4 bend shoes...look for me on the inner at Aqu.

[Robert Goren]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Black Ruby]

As part of the surge in Iraq, we paid about 80000 Sunnis $300 per month not to attack American troops. Should we do the same kinda thing in Afghanistan?

Interesting if you look at a map of where the US troops are in Afghaninam, it pretty much coincides with where we want the pipeline built from the former Soviet "stans" to the sea.

[Quagmire]

There are only two place where the top leaders are not held responsible for their job performance; the Military and banking.

When I was in the military we used the term "F*** up and move up".

[Robert Goren]

As part of the surge in Iraq, we paid about 80000 Sunnis $300 per month not to attack American troops. I hope we get our troops out of there before the money runs out.