How are conservatives going to bash Obamas new Afganistan announcement.

I think its the smartest move the military has made in about 6 years, and in 40 minutes time after the announcement Nato pledged support. So my question is how will Rush and Sean bash this, or will they stay away and talk about health care because this is actually a very smart decision.?

I cringe to hear rush and sean "represent" me (as a 'Right winger')... But whatever. I imagine they will just go back to what they were saying before, he took too long and should have listened to his generals in the first place.

Well, for starters, the bill is a compromise. He certainly didn't give the troops everything they need.psychobrew

its funny because I remember listening to Rush and Sean in 2007 and they werent really talking about Afganistan or pleading for Bush to do anything since he was doing such a great job in IRAQ in the first place.

I don't like the decision at all to be honest. I feel that nothing can be accomplished when we are trying to work with the most corrupt government in the world. Pull the troops out and save American lives.

I don't like the decision at all to be honest. I feel that nothing can be accomplished when we are trying to work with the most corrupt government in the world. Pull the troops out and save American lives.

honkyjoe

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

I don't like the decision at all to be honest. I feel that nothing can be accomplished when we are trying to work with the most corrupt government in the world. Pull the troops out and save American lives.

psychobrew

Are you aware that they took over the country with the guns we gave them to fight the Soviets? I'm not really sure what you are saying in your last sentence, seeing as we helped bring the Taliban to power in the region and have only been fighting them since the aftermath of 9-11.

We're not. But he should have done it sooner. Good decision though.

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

I don't like the decision at all to be honest. I feel that nothing can be accomplished when we are trying to work with the most corrupt government in the world. Pull the troops out and save American lives.

psychobrew

If US fails in Afghanistan, Pakistan will fall to extremists next and nuclear weapon in hands of Bin Laden hmmm ?

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

I don't like the decision at all to be honest. I feel that nothing can be accomplished when we are trying to work with the most corrupt government in the world. Pull the troops out and save American lives.

Are you aware that they took over the country with the guns we gave them to fight the Soviets? I'm not really sure what you are saying in your last sentence, seeing as we helped bring the Taliban to power in the region and have only been fighting them since the aftermath of 9-11.

hopefully we get international support, it seems Obama is getting to be very well liked over seas. The more nations get on the bandwagon to destroy taliban the better we are off. The taliban is a true evil and must be stopped.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

I don't like the decision at all to be honest. I feel that nothing can be accomplished when we are trying to work with the most corrupt government in the world. Pull the troops out and save American lives.

If US fails in Afghanistan, Pakistan will fall to extremists next and nuclear weapon in hands of Bin Laden hmmm ?

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"] And let another Taliban with Osama Binladen take over the country? No thanks. I remember what they did last time. We already abandoned them once, and we paid dearly for it.psychobrew

Are you aware that they took over the country with the guns we gave them to fight the Soviets? I'm not really sure what you are saying in your last sentence, seeing as we helped bring the Taliban to power in the region and have only been fighting them since the aftermath of 9-11.

Somalia is also a terrorist paradise, so is Sudan, Chad, Yemen, Iraq, Algeria, Jordan, Syria...the list goes on and on. Are you saying we risk 9-11 over again by not staying in Afghanistan? why aren't we fighting terrorists in the countries I just listed when they could easily be preparing for a large scale attack like 9-11?

Do you think that terrorist numbers have increased or decreased since2003?

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

Are you aware that they took over the country with the guns we gave them to fight the Soviets? I'm not really sure what you are saying in your last sentence, seeing as we helped bring the Taliban to power in the region and have only been fighting them since the aftermath of 9-11.

honkyjoe

Somalia is also a terrorist paradise, so is Sudan, Chad, Yemen, Iraq, Algeria, Jordan, Syria...the list goes on and on. Are you saying we risk 9-11 over again by not staying in Afghanistan? why aren't we fighting terrorists in the countries I just listed when they could easily be preparing for a large scale attack like 9-11?

Do you think that terrorist numbers have increased or decreased since2003?

Afghanistan has been in a state of war for decades. I don't have a problem with providing them some stability. If the USA were in the same situation, I'd be begging for foreign troops.

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"] Yes, we supported them when they were fighting the Soviets, then left them when their country was in chaos. If we leave now, we risk the same thing over again.psychobrew

Somalia is also a terrorist paradise, so is Sudan, Chad, Yemen, Iraq, Algeria, Jordan, Syria...the list goes on and on. Are you saying we risk 9-11 over again by not staying in Afghanistan? why aren't we fighting terrorists in the countries I just listed when they could easily be preparing for a large scale attack like 9-11?

Do you think that terrorist numbers have increased or decreased since2003?

Afghanistan has been in a state of war for decades. I don't have a problem with providing them some stability. If the USA were in the same situation, I'd be begging for foreign troops.

Islamic Extremists have a sole purpose of destroying "Infidels". The citizens of the United States constitutes "Infidels". Just because other terrorist organizations didn't participate in 9-11 doesn't make them any less of a threat to the United States.

The simple fact of the matter is that the United States is not providing stability in Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban are providing more stability in certain regions than we are. Throw in a government teeming with corruption and you have another Vietnam.

I find in humerous that America is getting so drawn into afganistan. You would think they would have lerned from Vietnam. You would think they would have learned by watching the Russians flail around in Afganistant. But no.

I find in humerous that America is getting so drawn into afganistan. You would think they would have lerned from Vietnam. You would think they would have learned by watching the Russians flail around in Afganistant. But no.

htekemerald

Why is he sending between 30,000 and 35,000? They requested 40,000. If he's willing to send 35,000 troops, why be a douche bag and arbitrarily send 5,000 fewer? He should just send the full 40,000. Hell, send 45,000 or 50,000. Finish the job and be done with it.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

I find in humerous that America is getting so drawn into afganistan. You would think they would have lerned from Vietnam. You would think they would have learned by watching the Russians flail around in Afganistant. But no.

fidosim

The Russians Ground Themselves to dust in Afghanistan

The British Ground Themselves to dust in Afghanistan

But NO! America can do it! You might not have had any real success right now, there might be a corrupt government in power, 80%+ of the country might be under taliban control after 8 year of occupation but you can do it.

Whatever though its Americas money. Hopefully Canada can pull so we can dirrect our resources to things of actuall importance.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

Somalia is also a terrorist paradise, so is Sudan, Chad, Yemen, Iraq, Algeria, Jordan, Syria...the list goes on and on. Are you saying we risk 9-11 over again by not staying in Afghanistan? why aren't we fighting terrorists in the countries I just listed when they could easily be preparing for a large scale attack like 9-11?

Do you think that terrorist numbers have increased or decreased since2003?

Afghanistan has been in a state of war for decades. I don't have a problem with providing them some stability. If the USA were in the same situation, I'd be begging for foreign troops.

Islamic Extremists have a sole purpose of destroying "Infidels". The citizens of the United States constitutes "Infidels". Just because other terrorist organizations didn't participate in 9-11 doesn't make them any less of a threat to the United States.

The simple fact of the matter is that the United States is not providing stability in Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban are providing more stability in certain regions than we are. Throw in a government teeming with corruption and you have another Vietnam.

I find in humerous that America is getting so drawn into afganistan. You would think they would have lerned from Vietnam. You would think they would have learned by watching the Russians flail around in Afganistant. But no.

htekemerald

It has been entertaining watching them fall as predicted though.

Why is he sending between 30,000 and 35,000? They requested 40,000. If he's willing to send 35,000 troops, why be a douche bag and arbitrarily send 5,000 fewer? He should just send the full 40,000. Hell, send 45,000 or 50,000. Finish the job and be done with it.

Mark_the_Lie

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

I find in humerous that America is getting so drawn into afganistan. You would think they would have lerned from Vietnam. You would think they would have learned by watching the Russians flail around in Afganistant. But no.

The Russians Ground Themselves to dust in Afghanistan

The British Ground Themselves to dust in Afghanistan

But NO! America can do it! You might not have had any real success right now, there might be a corrupt government in power, 80%+ of the country might be under taliban control after 8 year of occupation but you can do it.

Whatever though its Americas money. Hopefully Canada can pull so we can dirrect our resources to things of actually importance.

[QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"]

Why is he sending between 30,000 and 35,000? They requested 40,000. If he's willing to send 35,000 troops, why be a douche bag and arbitrarily send 5,000 fewer? He should just send the full 40,000. Hell, send 45,000 or 50,000. Finish the job and be done with it.

psychobrew

I know that. I was espousing the argument that is being made, and should be made, to answer the topic creator.

Meh, we shook off Vietnam syndrome a long time ago. Plus, we've fought insurgencies in the past and won. Thanks for your concern, but we can handle our business. fidosim

The Russians Ground Themselves to dust in Afghanistan

The British Ground Themselves to dust in Afghanistan

But NO! America can do it! You might not have had any real success right now, there might be a corrupt government in power, 80%+ of the country might be under taliban control after 8 year of occupation but you can do it.

Whatever though its Americas money. Hopefully Canada can pull so we can dirrect our resources to things of actually importance.

here is some conservative talking points already

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/obamas-afghan-strategy-sparks-debate-exit-plan-cost/

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"]

Why is he sending between 30,000 and 35,000? They requested 40,000. If he's willing to send 35,000 troops, why be a douche bag and arbitrarily send 5,000 fewer? He should just send the full 40,000. Hell, send 45,000 or 50,000. Finish the job and be done with it.

I know that. I was espousing the argument that is being made, and should be made, to answer the topic creator.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="htekemerald"] Good old America 'screw history' Attitude

The Russians Ground Themselves to dust in Afghanistan

The British Ground Themselves to dust in Afghanistan

But NO! America can do it! You might not have had any real success right now, there might be a corrupt government in power, 80%+ of the country might be under taliban control after 8 year of occupation but you can do it.

Whatever though its Americas money. Hopefully Canada can pull so we can dirrect our resources to things of actually importance.

psychobrew

this is very true, but im sure something else bad could of came of it. Its time to go after the Taliban on a full scale. It wont be easy though, its funny but we dont even talk about Osama Bin Laden anymore in the USA

Faux News tomorrow: Obama sending 30,000 troops, way less then recommendation, Obama sending troops to their death, Obama hates the troops. KukicAdo

Faux news?first time I ever heard it, but fitting.

[QUOTE="KukicAdo"]Faux News tomorrow: Obama sending 30,000 troops, way less then recommendation, Obama sending troops to their death, Obama hates the troops. PrimusGears

Faux news?first time I ever heard it, but fitting.

Gingrich found a way to bash Clinton on some of the things he did that would have otherwise pleased the Republicans. Don't worry, they'll find a way.Bourbons3

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

I find in humerous that America is getting so drawn into afganistan. You would think they would have lerned from Vietnam. You would think they would have learned by watching the Russians flail around in Afganistant. But no.

fidosim

I don't know, but I wish somebody would have the guts to stand up to the "military experts" who adhere to this belief that Afghanistan is somehow essential to America's very existence and the well-being of the entire world. These "experts" are, of course, simply the most outspoken ones. The US ambassador to Afghanistan, a retired Army Lieutenant General recently disparaged and opposed the proposal of sending more troops to Afghanistan. A retired Marine Captain, working for the State Department in Afghanistan also recently resigned, saying this:

"In the course of my five months of service in Afghanistan … I have lost understanding and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States' presence in Afghanistan. … I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul."

Hell, even one of Obama's top national security advisers has said that there are less than 100 members of Al Qaeda in the country with essentially no capacity to strike out.

I'm so frustrated by this entire deal. We have absolutely NOTHING to gain by fighting in Afghanistan. It's a country of loosely disparate tribes that have no political culture, democratic proclivities, or any conception or desire for central government. We're propping up a leader who is widely acknowledged to be one of the most corrupt men in an absurdly corrupt country. And we think we can take a country like this and just turn it into a democratic state in our own image by use of force? How presumptous and arrogant. America is increasingly like an 800 lb. gorilla tearing itself to bits in a cage; lashing out at everyone and everything. Projecting on the world "everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is."

Sorry for the rant. Just extremely pissed about this decision.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

I find in humerous that America is getting so drawn into afganistan. You would think they would have lerned from Vietnam. You would think they would have learned by watching the Russians flail around in Afganistant. But no.

Flanker15

It has been entertaining watching them fall as predicted though.

I don't find troops dying in Afghanistan entertaining...

BTW, this decision most likely means I will be getting deployed.

Conservatives prefer long, drawn out conflicts that never end, have no goals and cost thousands of lives.

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

I don't like the decision at all to be honest. I feel that nothing can be accomplished when we are trying to work with the most corrupt government in the world. Pull the troops out and save American lives.

psychobrew

First off, Osama Bin Laden was never in charge of the country. Second off, Al Qaeda is leaving Afghanistan in droves. Most US military commanders and national security advisers acknowledge this. We are primarily fighting the Taiblan; a group that has no transnational agenda. It wants to rule Afghanistan, not take over America or something absurd like that.

Also, why has this narrative emerged that Afghanistan was the place that all the 9/11 attackers were from and trained in? Hell, some of them trained RIGHT HERE IN THE US. Some of them were from Saudi Arabia. We could take over the entire world and terrorism would still exist. Fighting in Afghanistan just frees up extremist organizations to operate elsewhere with relative impunity...as our attention is obsessively focused on Afghanistan. They can move anywhere in the world they want. Fighting in Afghanistan isn't going to preclude or preempt anything.

[QUOTE="Flanker15"]

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

I find in humerous that America is getting so drawn into afganistan. You would think they would have lerned from Vietnam. You would think they would have learned by watching the Russians flail around in Afganistant. But no.

SpartanMSU

It has been entertaining watching them fall as predicted though.

I don't find troops dying in Afghanistan entertaining...

BTW, this decision most likely means I will be getting deployed.

Same.

It won't be for a while, though...still have a little bit of time to graduate college. What branch you with?

I don't know, but I wish somebody would have the guts to stand up to the "military experts" who adhere to this belief that Afghanistan is somehow essential to America's very existence and the well-being of the entire world. These "experts" are, of course, simply the most outspoken ones. The US ambassador to Afghanistan, a retired Army Lieutenant General recently disparaged and opposed the proposal of sending more troops to Afghanistan. A retired Marine Captain, working for the State Department in Afghanistan also recently resigned, saying this:

"In the course of my five months of service in Afghanistan … I have lost understanding and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States' presence in Afghanistan. … I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul."

Hell, even one of Obama's top national security advisers has said that there are less than 100 members of Al Qaeda in the country with essentially no capacity to strike out.

I'm so frustrated by this entire deal. We have absolutely NOTHING to gain by fighting in Afghanistan. It's a country of loosely disparate tribes that have no political culture, democratic proclivities, or any conception or desire for central government. We're propping up a leader who is widely acknowledged to be one of the most corrupt men in an absurdly corrupt country. And we think we can take a country like this and just turn it into a democratic state in our own image by use of force? How presumptous and arrogant. America is increasingly like an 800 lb. gorilla tearing itself to bits in a cage; lashing out at everyone and everything. Projecting on the world "everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is."

Sorry for the rant. Just extremely pissed about this decision.

xXBuffJeffXx

A Captain isn't a military "expert". He's only in charge of a company which is usually around 300 people. It's not that high of a rank. It's just right above 2LT, which is the lowest officer rank.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Flanker15"]

It has been entertaining watching them fall as predicted though.

xXBuffJeffXx

I don't find troops dying in Afghanistan entertaining...

BTW, this decision most likely means I will be getting deployed.

Same.

It won't be for a while, though...still have a little bit of time to graduate college. What branch you with?

Army National Guard 125th Infantry

[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"]

I don't know, but I wish somebody would have the guts to stand up to the "military experts" who adhere to this belief that Afghanistan is somehow essential to America's very existence and the well-being of the entire world. These "experts" are, of course, simply the most outspoken ones. The US ambassador to Afghanistan, a retired Army Lieutenant General recently disparaged and opposed the proposal of sending more troops to Afghanistan. A retired Marine Captain, working for the State Department in Afghanistan also recently resigned, saying this:

"In the course of my five months of service in Afghanistan … I have lost understanding and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States' presence in Afghanistan. … I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul."

Hell, even one of Obama's top national security advisers has said that there are less than 100 members of Al Qaeda in the country with essentially no capacity to strike out.

I'm so frustrated by this entire deal. We have absolutely NOTHING to gain by fighting in Afghanistan. It's a country of loosely disparate tribes that have no political culture, democratic proclivities, or any conception or desire for central government. We're propping up a leader who is widely acknowledged to be one of the most corrupt men in an absurdly corrupt country. And we think we can take a country like this and just turn it into a democratic state in our own image by use of force? How presumptous and arrogant. America is increasingly like an 800 lb. gorilla tearing itself to bits in a cage; lashing out at everyone and everything. Projecting on the world "everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is."

Sorry for the rant. Just extremely pissed about this decision.

SpartanMSU

A Captain isn't a military "expert". He's only in charge of a company which is usually around 300 people. It's not that high of a rank. It's just right above 2LT, which is the lowest officer rank.

I know what a Captain is. At that operational level, however, he has better insight into the tactical and "micro" level view of things that constitute the broader strategic goals. He also has the insight of working in both the military and for the State Department.

[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I don't find troops dying in Afghanistan entertaining...

BTW, this decision most likely means I will be getting deployed.

SpartanMSU

Same.

It won't be for a while, though...still have a little bit of time to graduate college. What branch you with?

Army National Guard 125th Infantry

Nice. I got a Guard ordnance unit in Philadelphia. Haven't formally entered it yet, though.

Here's the GOP strategy:

1. Attack everything Obama proposes, even it it's actually a good idea.

2. Propose no credible alternatives to anything that Obama brings to the table.

3. Claim that the recession, the Iraq War and all World Terrorism started the day Obama was sworn into office and ignore anything prior to that date.

4. Make up stupid terms like "death panels" to scare the right-wingnuts away from public healthcare and keep them shopping on CanadianPharamacy.com

5. Send money to Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and every other Pro-GOP host on Fox News.

That's about it.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"]

Same.

It won't be for a while, though...still have a little bit of time to graduate college. What branch you with?

xXBuffJeffXx

Army National Guard 125th Infantry

Nice. I got a Guard ordnance unit in Philadelphia. Haven't formally entered it yet, though.

The Guards the way to go man. Free college FTW.