17,000 More Troops Afghanistan

firstdown · 02-18-2009, 10:03 AM

So yesterday when passing the stimulas bill Obama announced more troops are going over seas. What's his exit strategy, how long will they be there, what's is his goals, when will we know his goals are met. etc.... I did not here any of these concerns addressed when he announced his troop build up.

Obama: Troops alone cannot win in Afghanistan - CNN.com

steveo395 · 02-18-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

So yesterday when passing the stimulas bill Obama announced more troops are going over seas. What's his exit strategy, how long will they be there, what's is his goals, when will we know his goals are met. etc.... I did not here any of these concerns addressed when he announced his troop build up.

Obama: Troops alone cannot win in Afghanistan - CNN.com

Don't you know those things only matter when Bush does it?

But anyway this is one of the few things I actually agree with Obama on.

firstdown · 02-18-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveo395

Don't you know those things only matter when Bush does it?

But anyway this is one of the few things I actually agree with Obama on.

I do to but I'm having fun with his lack of details.

Mattyk · 02-18-2009, 10:20 AM

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?

dmek25 · 02-18-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveo395

Don't you know those things only matter when Bush does it?

But anyway this is one of the few things I actually agree with Obama on.

i voted for Obama, but i disagree with this. im trying to figure out what exactly the United States is trying to accomplish?

SmootSmack · 02-18-2009, 10:30 AM

Thankfully our new President isn't as petty as many of the people who voted for him, and believes that the best way to right any previous wrongs is not to look back but move forward. The Democrats have wanted their guy in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for nearly a decade now. "Once we get our guy in the White House, things will change." Well they're not going to change if all you want to do is harp on the past. Were there problems with the Bush administration? Of course. Just like there were with Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman, and so on. And I know, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it, or whatever the saying is. I don't think it's a matter of Obama and his administration ignoring the past, it's a matter of not dwelling on it.

(this could just as easily go in the silly senate investigation thread as well).

SmootSmack · 02-18-2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

i voted for Obama, but i disagree with this. im trying to figure out what exactly the United States is trying to accomplish?

Hadn't he been saying for months that we needed to redirect troops to Afghanistan to fight the insurgents and find Bin Laden?

firstdown · 02-18-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?

I was joking to a point but why demand time lines and dates and such from one president but not another. Isn't that a double standard? I just remember all the fuss when we had the troop build up in Iraq a year or so ago and isn't that what we are doing in Afghanistan?

Mattyk · 02-18-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

I was joking to a point but why demand time lines and dates and such from one president but not another. Isn't that a double standard? I just remember all the fuss when we had the troop build up in Iraq a year or so ago and isn't that what we are doing in Afghanistan?

Nobody demanded time lines until Iraq was dragging out and we appeared to be spinning our wheels. If the same thing ends up happening in Afghanistan we can be pretty sure people will want the same kind of answers.

CRedskinsRule · 02-18-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Nobody demanded time lines until Iraq was dragging out and we appeared to be spinning our wheels. If the same thing ends up happening in Afghanistan we can be pretty sure people will want the same kind of answers.

DefenseLink News Transcript: Secretary Rumsfeld Remarks on ABC "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
This interview was 2wks after the start of the war, I did a very quick google so there are probably others. The question of "How long" is always asked when troops are put into danger zones, although the answer is usually more to serve political needs than reality.

Quote:

ANNOUNCER: This morning, as the war enters its second week, new questions about how long it might last.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: However long it takes. That's the answer to your question, and that's what you've got to know.

Quote:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think we'll still be fighting in Iraq six months from now?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, goodness, you know, I've never -- we've never had a timetable. We've always said it could be days, weeks, or months and we don't know.

I showed both the question - to prove that it was asked from the start, and the answer, to show that Pres. Obama could answer as well without giving specifics.

KLHJ2 · 02-18-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Hadn't he been saying for months that we needed to redirect troops to Afghanistan to fight the insurgents and find Bin Laden?

PFFT...That was the first things that Obamma took care of. Don't you remember this?

Trend News : Angry civilians protest civilian deaths in Afghanistan

Why else would we target civilians.

Of course I am not serious.

More

US general visits Afghan bomb site for death claim | CITIZEN-TIMES.com | Asheville Citizen-Times

FRPLG · 02-18-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?

Seriously? The bullshit way in which Bush and his administration were treated just gets thrown out now? What a bunch of hypocrites the lefties are. Democrats spent years harping on everything and making political battles through disinformation and down right lying on many occasions (not to forget they were right on a lot of things too.) Now when righties start pointing stuff out it is "childish and unproductive" What a joke. I understand the tit for tat being seen negatively viewed but that doesn't mean the last administration, or the one before it was treated fairly. It is one of the biggest problems with Washington and Obama was sent to "change" it. Good luck Barack. That is if you actually have the stones to try and "change" it. Nothing so far indicates that you do.

FRPLG · 02-18-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Nobody demanded time lines until Iraq was dragging out and we appeared to be spinning our wheels. If the same thing ends up happening in Afghanistan we can be pretty sure people will want the same kind of answers.

No no no. Once Iraq turned around after we refocused our previously misguided efforts the rhetoric from the Obama campaign never changed. He never once said the surge worked and he simply played politics with it. Isn't that true?

I am simply trying to dispell this crazy notion that Obama is any different than any other politician and this idea of "change", a real tangible different way of our country being governed" is ever coming under him. He ahs already showsn signs of busniess as usual.

Mattyk · 02-18-2009, 02:56 PM

Back to the topic...

Obama is supposed to reveal details about their strategy after a 60 day review

Obama's war: Deploying 17,000 raises stakes in Afghanistan - USATODAY.com

Mattyk · 02-18-2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Seriously? The bullshit way in which Bush and his administration were treated just gets thrown out now? What a bunch of hypocrites the lefties are. Democrats spent years harping on everything and making political battles through disinformation and down right lying on many occasions (not to forget they were right on a lot of things too.) Now when righties start pointing stuff out it is "childish and unproductive" What a joke. I understand the tit for tat being seen negatively viewed but that doesn't mean the last administration, or the one before it was treated fairly. It is one of the biggest problems with Washington and Obama was sent to "change" it. Good luck Barack. That is if you actually have the stones to try and "change" it. Nothing so far indicates that you do.

I'm talking more of what goes on here.

02-18-2009, 10:03 AM	#1
firstdown Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: chesapeake, va Age: 49 Posts: 15,206	17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan So yesterday when passing the stimulas bill Obama announced more troops are going over seas. What's his exit strategy, how long will they be there, what's is his goals, when will we know his goals are met. etc.... I did not here any of these concerns addressed when he announced his troop build up. Obama: Troops alone cannot win in Afghanistan - CNN.com

02-18-2009, 10:20 AM	#4
Mattyk ‎\m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 72,751	Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing? __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

02-18-2009, 10:30 AM	#6
SmootSmack The Bluths Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 43,105	Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan Thankfully our new President isn't as petty as many of the people who voted for him, and believes that the best way to right any previous wrongs is not to look back but move forward. The Democrats have wanted their guy in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for nearly a decade now. "Once we get our guy in the White House, things will change." Well they're not going to change if all you want to do is harp on the past. Were there problems with the Bush administration? Of course. Just like there were with Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman, and so on. And I know, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it, or whatever the saying is. I don't think it's a matter of Obama and his administration ignoring the past, it's a matter of not dwelling on it. (this could just as easily go in the silly senate investigation thread as well). __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

02-18-2009, 02:56 PM	#14
Mattyk ‎\m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 72,751	Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan Back to the topic... Obama is supposed to reveal details about their strategy after a 60 day review Obama's war: Deploying 17,000 raises stakes in Afghanistan - USATODAY.com __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17,000 More Troops Afghanistan

Debating with the enemy