Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Debating with the enemy (http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/)
-   -   17,000 More Troops Afghanistan (http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/28456-17-000-more-troops-afghanistan.html)

firstdown 02-18-2009 10:03 AM

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.

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/obama.afghanistan.canada/index.html"]Obama: Troops alone cannot win in Afghanistan - CNN.com[/URL]

steveo395 02-18-2009 10:13 AM

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 
[quote=firstdown;527686]So yesterday when passing the stimulas bill Obama announced more troops are going over seas. [B]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....[/B] I did not here any of these concerns addressed when he announced his troop build up.

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/obama.afghanistan.canada/index.html"]Obama: Troops alone cannot win in Afghanistan - CNN.com[/URL][/quote]
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

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 
[quote=steveo395;527695]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.[/quote]
I do to but I'm having fun with his lack of details.

Mattyk 02-18-2009 10:20 AM

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?

dmek25 02-18-2009 10:30 AM

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 
[quote=steveo395;527695]Don't you know those things only matter when Bush does it?

But anyway this is one of the few things [B]I actually agree with Obama on[/B].[/quote]
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

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).

SmootSmack 02-18-2009 10:33 AM

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 
[quote=dmek25;527702]i voted for Obama, but i disagree with this. im trying to figure out what exactly the United States is trying to accomplish?[/quote]

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

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 
[quote=Mattyk72;527700]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?[/quote]
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

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 
[quote=firstdown;527749]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?[/quote]

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

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 
[quote=Mattyk72;527760]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.[/quote]

[url=http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2185]DefenseLink News Transcript: Secretary Rumsfeld Remarks on ABC "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"[/url]
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, [B]new questions about how long it might last[/B].

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]

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

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.[/quote]

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

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 
[quote=SmootSmack;527704]Hadn't he been saying for months that we needed to redirect troops to Afghanistan to fight the insurgents and [B]find Bin Laden[/B]?[/quote]

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

[URL="http://news-en.trend.az/politics/foreign/1407615.html"]Trend News : Angry civilians protest civilian deaths in Afghanistan[/URL]

Why else would we target civilians.

Of course I am not serious.

More

[url=http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990218004]US general visits Afghan bomb site for death claim | CITIZEN-TIMES.com | Asheville Citizen-Times[/url]

FRPLG 02-18-2009 01:46 PM

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 
[quote=Mattyk72;527700]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?[/quote]

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

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 
[quote=Mattyk72;527760]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.[/quote]

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

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 
Back to the topic...

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

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-17-afghanistan-forces_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip]Obama's war: Deploying 17,000 raises stakes in Afghanistan - USATODAY.com[/url]

Mattyk 02-18-2009 03:01 PM

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 
[quote=FRPLG;527787]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.[/quote]

I'm talking more of what goes on here.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.15557 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25