Leader of the year: Barack Obama

Link

Hers a bit of it:

It's been a big year for our new president. He is juggling, mightily, two wars; he staved off the second Great Depression; he fielded rage from tea baggers; and he is working to accomplish what very few have—real health care reform. And that's just the short list. Which is why, whether you believe he is the best president in generations or an overhyped threat to low taxes and freedom everywhere, there's no denying that Barack Obama has already ushered in massive transformation, both domestically and to our standing around the world. In honor of this time of change and possibility, we've named Obama, for the second year in a row, Man of the Year—or more specifically, Leader of the Year. And to help make the case, we surveyed everyone from pundits to policymakers to Rush Limbaugh to get their opinions on how Obama has shaped the past eleven months. Here are their responses.

I like the guy, but if he was a game he would be an overhyped game. Altough im not american so i dont really know many of the things he has done for america, but the media pratically aclaimed him as a world saviour, and that he would change the world. So far its all the same. Still i dont know who else would be a good choice, our world leaders suck.

Oh and Berluscolni was chosen rockstar of the year. No joke, i saw it on the news. I dont know how this guy got where it is. Hes hilarious but he doesnt seem the right guy for his job.

Link

Drakes_Fortune

Dear god that is the worst picture of Obama I've ever seen....

Certainly a better leader than my country will have for a good while, fancy a trade? :P

No way. Obama sucks. He's done nothing but push meaningless health care reform, delay on making any important decisions about the war, create useless stimulus packages that have not had any affect on our economy, steep us furthur in debt and served a whole bunch of special interest groups and corrupt politicians. And of course theresa fewmore things i could mention.

Obama does not deserve the title"Leader of the Year".

No way....(facepalms). He is way too overhyped now. He hasn't really done anything benefical yet, unless you count increasing our national debt benefical. However it's only been a year so I will wait and see the end results but please stop praising him for not even doing anything yet.

No way. Obama sucks. He's done nothing but push meaningless health care reform, delay on making any important decisions about the war, create useless stimulus packages that have not had any affect on our economy, steep us furthur in debt and served a whole bunch of special interest groups and corrupt politicians. And of course theresa fewmore things i could mention.

Obama does not deserve the title"Leader of the Year".

ff7cloudking

Health-care reform may be the biggest domestic policy change of the decade, several presidents have tried and failed due to the fact special interest groups and corporations lobby to have it killed.

i dont recall him doing any of that...

Seriously? Only Obama can keep winning awards for doing NOTHING. It's disgusting.

"Yes, he's our leader of the year. Disagree? Here's why everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Lil Wayne thinks you're wrong"

Really? Seriously? Oh well if one of his cabinet members and a rapper think so then who else could get it?! :lol:

[QUOTE="ff7cloudking"]

No way. Obama sucks. He's done nothing but push meaningless health care reform, delay on making any important decisions about the war, create useless stimulus packages that have not had any affect on our economy, steep us furthur in debt and served a whole bunch of special interest groups and corrupt politicians. And of course theresa fewmore things i could mention.

Obama does not deserve the title"Leader of the Year".

Ace_WondersX

Health-care reform may be the biggest domestic policy change of the decade, several presidents have tried and failed due to the fact special interest groups and corporations lobby to have it killed.

There are also several special interest groups who are lobbying to have it passed. I should specifically point out SEIU, Acorn, AARP, and the Apollo Alliance. And yes, if it is passed (which, unfortunatly, it most likely will be) it will be one of the biggest policy changes of the last decade and yes many presidents have attempted in the past to pass such reforms. HoweverI must disagreewith you on whyit was never passed. It was never passedbecause the people of this country dont want it and because it has never been a viable option. Such a reform would add a great amount of debt to the already astronomically high debt that this country has built up do to past leaders.

Does our health care system need reform? Yes. I will concede that it most likely does. However the issue is not as bad asthe supportingpoliticians make it out to be and now is not the right time for such a reform. To put it simply, our debt is too high and our economy is too poor. How is the government even going to pay for this? Taxes? Thats the last thing we need more of in this economic climate.

Oops, i really didnt mean to turn this into a debate on health care. :P ...my bad guys.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

[QUOTE="ff7cloudking"]

No way. Obama sucks. He's done nothing but push meaningless health care reform, delay on making any important decisions about the war, create useless stimulus packages that have not had any affect on our economy, steep us furthur in debt and served a whole bunch of special interest groups and corrupt politicians. And of course theresa fewmore things i could mention.

Obama does not deserve the title"Leader of the Year".

ff7cloudking

Health-care reform may be the biggest domestic policy change of the decade, several presidents have tried and failed due to the fact special interest groups and corporations lobby to have it killed.

There are also several special interest groups who are lobbying to have it passed. I should specifically point out SEIU, Acorn, AARP, and the Apollo Alliance. And yes, if it is passed (which, unfortunatly, it most likely will be) it will be one of the biggest policy changes of the last decade and yes many presidents have attempted in the past to pass such reforms. HoweverI must disagreewith you on whyit was never passed. It was never passedbecause the people of this country dont want it and because it has never been a viable option. Such a reform would add a great amount of debt to the already astronomically high debt that this country has built up do to past leaders.

Does our health care system need reform? Yes. I will concede that it most likely does. However the issue is not as bad asthe supportingpoliticians make it out to be and now is not the right time for such a reform. To put it simply, our debt is too high and our economy is too poor. How is the government even going to pay for this? Taxes? Thats the last thing we need more of in this economic climate.

Oops, i really didnt mean to turn this into a debate on health care. :P ...my bad guys.

"Yes, he's our leader of the year. Disagree? Here's why everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Lil Wayne thinks you're wrong"

Really? Seriously? Oh well if one of his cabinet members and a rapper think so then who else could get it?! :lol:

Pirate700

Lol, Nancy Pelosi is House Speaker, not a cabinet member...

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

"Yes, he's our leader of the year. Disagree? Here's why everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Lil Wayne thinks you're wrong"

Really? Seriously? Oh well if one of his cabinet members and a rapper think so then who else could get it?! :lol:

chessmaster1989

Lol, Nancy Pelosi is House Speaker, not a cabinet member...

Of course, lets shower a guy who's done literally nothing succesful in the last 11 months with enough hype and praise soon everyone forgets things are worse now than they where before. This is an insult to good leaders everywhere.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

"Yes, he's our leader of the year. Disagree? Here's why everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Lil Wayne thinks you're wrong"

Really? Seriously? Oh well if one of his cabinet members and a rapper think so then who else could get it?! :lol:

Pirate700

Lol, Nancy Pelosi is House Speaker, not a cabinet member...

Yes, but under the circumstances I felt like mocking you for it. :P

good for him :)

as for you who keep saying he's done nothing much.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE thats heading the direction of a better future for not just one. but for an entire damn nation.

you yell and bicker about politics and how they screw up in every single way yet you do nothing much to change anything.

Obama has been ushering us into a new wave of living in America; we need to change how we've been doing things for the past generation.

stop complaining, its been ONE YEAR since he's been in office.

when he screws up completely in his fourth year, THAN YOU START COMPLAINING. why?

because thats the whole point our presidents go on term for FOUR YEARS. so we can kick em out when were sick of them.

Drakes_Fortune

[QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"]

clubsammich91

good for him :)

as for you who keep saying he's done nothing much.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE thats heading the direction of a better future for not just one. but for an entire damn nation.

you yell and bicker about politics and how they screw up in every single way yet you do nothing much to change anything.

Obama has been ushering us into a new wave of living in America; we need to change how we've been doing things for the past generation.

stop complaining, its been ONE YEAR since he's been in office.

when he screws up completely in his fourth year, THAN YOU START COMPLAINING. why?

because thats the whole point our presidents go on term for FOUR YEARS. so we can kick em out when were sick of them.

muffintheduffin

[QUOTE="muffintheduffin"]

good for him :)

as for you who keep saying he's done nothing much.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE thats heading the direction of a better future for not just one. but for an entire damn nation.

you yell and bicker about politics and how they screw up in every single way yet you do nothing much to change anything.

Obama has been ushering us into a new wave of living in America; we need to change how we've been doing things for the past generation.

stop complaining, its been ONE YEAR since he's been in office.

when he screws up completely in his fourth year, THAN YOU START COMPLAINING. why?

because thats the whole point our presidents go on term for FOUR YEARS. so we can kick em out when were sick of them.

Burnt_Star

It's funny because it's true:P

But as far as change, isn't withdrawing from Iraq change. Also health-care reform?

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Lol, Nancy Pelosi is House Speaker, not a cabinet member...

chessmaster1989

Yes, but under the circumstances I felt like mocking you for it. :P

I agree with what you that this wasn't the right time for it, but it's here now and if we don't get it done now, who knows when the next chance will come.Ace_WondersX

Yes, another time would be good. And I think perhaps we should do it another way. But thats a whole other arguement. :P

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Sorry I misspoke. You know what I meant though. :P

Pirate700

Yes, but under the circumstances I felt like mocking you for it. :P

It's still a month before Christmas. :P

But fine... now where's my present? :D

[QUOTE="Burnt_Star"]

[QUOTE="muffintheduffin"]

good for him :)

as for you who keep saying he's done nothing much.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE thats heading the direction of a better future for not just one. but for an entire damn nation.

you yell and bicker about politics and how they screw up in every single way yet you do nothing much to change anything.

Obama has been ushering us into a new wave of living in America; we need to change how we've been doing things for the past generation.

stop complaining, its been ONE YEAR since he's been in office.

when he screws up completely in his fourth year, THAN YOU START COMPLAINING. why?

because thats the whole point our presidents go on term for FOUR YEARS. so we can kick em out when were sick of them.

Ace_WondersX

It's funny because it's true:P

But as far as change, isn't withdrawing from Iraq change. Also health-care reform?

i agree with ace

Bush's administration flew under my radar for a good year before actually hitting me in the stomach with his horrible leadership and very poor communication skills with other foreign countries.

but it THAT was bad compared to what obama has been.

your talking about change, and how it hasnt even appeared yet. am i correct?

do you know how hard is it to convince the whole country and its politicians to CHANGE something as HUGE has healthcare and especially a war that has been going on for 8 years?

people tend to forget that the president isn't exactly ALL POWERFUL in america. he has blocked by many challenges and checks and balances.

it takes a lot of time for HUGE plans to go through. you can expect so much in under a year.

[QUOTE="muffintheduffin"]

good for him :)

as for you who keep saying he's done nothing much.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE thats heading the direction of a better future for not just one. but for an entire damn nation.

you yell and bicker about politics and how they screw up in every single way yet you do nothing much to change anything.

Obama has been ushering us into a new wave of living in America; we need to change how we've been doing things for the past generation.

stop complaining, its been ONE YEAR since he's been in office.

when he screws up completely in his fourth year, THAN YOU START COMPLAINING. why?

because thats the whole point our presidents go on term for FOUR YEARS. so we can kick em out when were sick of them.

Lilyanne46

I'm sorry, but I lol'd.

Don't feel bad, I Lol'd too. I don't feel like getting into another political discussion with Obama-ites, so I'll leave it at that.

It was kind of interesting reading what all sorts of different people had to say about him. And the Limbaugh quote was pretty hilarious.

As far as him being leader of the year, that's a bit premature, I think. The man is obviously trying to do a lot, but whether that's a positive remains to be seen.

good for him :)

as for you who keep saying he's done nothing much.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE thats heading the direction of a better future for not just one. but for an entire damn nation.

you yell and bicker about politics and how they screw up in every single way yet you do nothing much to change anything.

Obama has been ushering us into a new wave of living in America; we need to change how we've been doing things for the past generation.

stop complaining, its been ONE YEAR since he's been in office.

when he screws up completely in his fourth year, THAN YOU START COMPLAINING. why?

because thats the whole point our presidents go on term for FOUR YEARS. so we can kick em out when were sick of them.

muffintheduffin

I'm confused by the reason you think presidents only serve a four year term, to complain abou them? What?

And just throw in my opinion on the topic, I'd take Bush over Obama any day. Except Thursdays.

[QUOTE="Burnt_Star"]

[QUOTE="muffintheduffin"]

good for him :)

as for you who keep saying he's done nothing much.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE thats heading the direction of a better future for not just one. but for an entire damn nation.

you yell and bicker about politics and how they screw up in every single way yet you do nothing much to change anything.

Obama has been ushering us into a new wave of living in America; we need to change how we've been doing things for the past generation.

stop complaining, its been ONE YEAR since he's been in office.

when he screws up completely in his fourth year, THAN YOU START COMPLAINING. why?

because thats the whole point our presidents go on term for FOUR YEARS. so we can kick em out when were sick of them.

Ace_WondersX

It's funny because it's true:P

But as far as change, isn't withdrawing from Iraq change. Also health-care reform?

Iraq withdrawal change? The Bush Admin had already set a time table with the Iraqi government. Obama is just trying to follow it through. Afghanistan is his war now, and his (possible) decision to sent 34,000 more troops was foolish. In order to achieve ANY of the things we want to do, we would need to send at the least 200,000 or more. The country is too large for the force we currently have and the enemy is too elusive. If the Soviets could not with 100,000-150,000 troops, and the British, Greeks and Mongols could not at the height of their respective powers; We will not win this war. The insurgents will out last the American people and they know this. Obama either needed to send a massive force in, or get the hell out of the country. The implications of losing in Afghanistan are far greater than in Vietnam. The Vietnamese did not want to attack the American homeland, many radical Jihadists and insurgents do. They have attacked before and with this "victory", they'll do it again. Ace, for 8 years I have been holding firm to my belief that Afghanistan was our most important fight. Even though we were starting to falter for the past couple of years, we still had a chance .Now, I can firmly say that: the war is lost.

lmao they guy who keeps spending money the country does'nt have

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

[QUOTE="Burnt_Star"] I very much doubt that you waited till the last months of Bush's presidencey to critique him and if you had that's actually very dissapointing. Believe me Bush was bashed from the moment he won his first election till the moment he "stole" the other. The entire Obama nobel peace prize nomination the day after he was Inaugarated was just another stab at Bush. Obama has been riding the change tide for about 11 months now yet change hasn't come, at least not any change in the right direction, until he comes through on a percentange of his change promises I'll reserve my right to criticize the guy.

On3ShotOneKill

It's funny because it's true:P

But as far as change, isn't withdrawing from Iraq change. Also health-care reform?

Iraq withdrawal change? The Bush Admin had already set a time table with the Iraqi government. Obama is just trying to follow it through. Afghanistan is his war now, and his (possible) decision to sent 34,000 more troops was foolish. In order to achieve ANY of the things we want to do, we would need to send at the least 200,000 or more. The country is too large for the force we currently have and the enemy is too elusive. If the Soviets could not with 100,000-150,000 troops, and the British, Greeks and Mongols could not at the height of their respective powers; We will not win this war. The insurgents will out last the American people and they know this. Obama either needed to send a massive force in, or get the hell out of the country. The implications of losing in Afghanistan are far greater than in Vietnam. The Vietnamese did not want to attack the American homeland, many radical Jihadists and insurgents do. They have attacked before and with this "victory", they'll do it again. Ace, for 8 years I have been holding firm to my belief that Afghanistan was our most important fight. Even though we were starting to falter for the past couple of years, we still had a chance .Now, I can firmly say that: the war is lost.

I agree. We could have won Vietnam. I've read many books on the subject, Lyndon B. Johnson gave our our troops inferior plastic M16ks that constantly malfunctioned. HE pulled too many troops out, and he ultimately ran away with his tail between his legs. Look what withdrawing has done for us. Absolutely Nothing.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

[QUOTE="Burnt_Star"] I very much doubt that you waited till the last months of Bush's presidencey to critique him and if you had that's actually very dissapointing. Believe me Bush was bashed from the moment he won his first election till the moment he "stole" the other. The entire Obama nobel peace prize nomination the day after he was Inaugarated was just another stab at Bush. Obama has been riding the change tide for about 11 months now yet change hasn't come, at least not any change in the right direction, until he comes through on a percentange of his change promises I'll reserve my right to criticize the guy.

On3ShotOneKill

It's funny because it's true:P

But as far as change, isn't withdrawing from Iraq change. Also health-care reform?

Iraq withdrawal change? The Bush Admin had already set a time table with the Iraqi government. Obama is just trying to follow it through. Afghanistan is his war now, and his (possible) decision to sent 34,000 more troops was foolish. In order to achieve ANY of the things we want to do, we would need to send at the least 200,000 or more. The country is too large for the force we currently have and the enemy is too elusive. If the Soviets could not with 100,000-150,000 troops, and the British, Greeks and Mongols could not at the height of their respective powers; We will not win this war. The insurgents will out last the American people and they know this. Obama either needed to send a massive force in, or get the hell out of the country. The implications of losing in Afghanistan are far greater than in Vietnam. The Vietnamese did not want to attack the American homeland, many radical Jihadists and insurgents do. They have attacked before and with this "victory", they'll do it again. Ace, for 8 years I have been holding firm to my belief that Afghanistan was our most important fight. Even though we were starting to falter for the past couple of years, we still had a chance .Now, I can firmly say that: the war is lost.

EDIT: Actually ,You're right there was a target for withdrawal set under the Bush Adminstration, but it only came after originally being opposed by Bush. Link

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

It's funny because it's true:P

But as far as change, isn't withdrawing from Iraq change. Also health-care reform?

Snipes_2

Iraq withdrawal change? The Bush Admin had already set a time table with the Iraqi government. Obama is just trying to follow it through. Afghanistan is his war now, and his (possible) decision to sent 34,000 more troops was foolish. In order to achieve ANY of the things we want to do, we would need to send at the least 200,000 or more. The country is too large for the force we currently have and the enemy is too elusive. If the Soviets could not with 100,000-150,000 troops, and the British, Greeks and Mongols could not at the height of their respective powers; We will not win this war. The insurgents will out last the American people and they know this. Obama either needed to send a massive force in, or get the hell out of the country. The implications of losing in Afghanistan are far greater than in Vietnam. The Vietnamese did not want to attack the American homeland, many radical Jihadists and insurgents do. They have attacked before and with this "victory", they'll do it again. Ace, for 8 years I have been holding firm to my belief that Afghanistan was our most important fight. Even though we were starting to falter for the past couple of years, we still had a chance .Now, I can firmly say that: the war is lost.

I agree. We could have won Vietnam. I've read many books on the subject, Lyndon B. Johnson gave our our troops inferior plastic M16ks that constantly malfunctioned. HE pulled too many troops out, and he ultimately ran away with his tail between his legs. Look what withdrawing has done for us. Absolutely Nothing.

I agree completely. Vietnam was winable, just like A-stan was (we almost destroyed the Al-Qaeda organization believe it or not). We could have won in 67-68 but failed to obtain our military momentum and reassure the American public.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

Iraq withdrawal change? The Bush Admin had already set a time table with the Iraqi government. Obama is just trying to follow it through. Afghanistan is his war now, and his (possible) decision to sent 34,000 more troops was foolish. In order to achieve ANY of the things we want to do, we would need to send at the least 200,000 or more. The country is too large for the force we currently have and the enemy is too elusive. If the Soviets could not with 100,000-150,000 troops, and the British, Greeks and Mongols could not at the height of their respective powers; We will not win this war. The insurgents will out last the American people and they know this. Obama either needed to send a massive force in, or get the hell out of the country. The implications of losing in Afghanistan are far greater than in Vietnam. The Vietnamese did not want to attack the American homeland, many radical Jihadists and insurgents do. They have attacked before and with this "victory", they'll do it again. Ace, for 8 years I have been holding firm to my belief that Afghanistan was our most important fight. Even though we were starting to falter for the past couple of years, we still had a chance .Now, I can firmly say that: the war is lost.

On3ShotOneKill

I agree. We could have won Vietnam. I've read many books on the subject, Lyndon B. Johnson gave our our troops inferior plastic M16ks that constantly malfunctioned. HE pulled too many troops out, and he ultimately ran away with his tail between his legs. Look what withdrawing has done for us. Absolutely Nothing.

I agree completely. Vietnam was winable, just like A-stan was (we almost destroyed the Al-Qaeda organization believe it or not). We could have won in 67-68 but failed to obtain our military momentum and reassure the American public.

Absolutely True. That was the plan all along. Ho Chi Minh wanted to extend the war as long as possible because he knew the public would soon lose heart (Pathetic Society), and when the Public starts rioting and Protesting, well, you catch my drift. They were actually smarter than we give them credit for.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

Iraq withdrawal change? The Bush Admin had already set a time table with the Iraqi government. Obama is just trying to follow it through. Afghanistan is his war now, and his (possible) decision to sent 34,000 more troops was foolish. In order to achieve ANY of the things we want to do, we would need to send at the least 200,000 or more. The country is too large for the force we currently have and the enemy is too elusive. If the Soviets could not with 100,000-150,000 troops, and the British, Greeks and Mongols could not at the height of their respective powers; We will not win this war. The insurgents will out last the American people and they know this. Obama either needed to send a massive force in, or get the hell out of the country. The implications of losing in Afghanistan are far greater than in Vietnam. The Vietnamese did not want to attack the American homeland, many radical Jihadists and insurgents do. They have attacked before and with this "victory", they'll do it again. Ace, for 8 years I have been holding firm to my belief that Afghanistan was our most important fight. Even though we were starting to falter for the past couple of years, we still had a chance .Now, I can firmly say that: the war is lost.

On3ShotOneKill

I agree. We could have won Vietnam. I've read many books on the subject, Lyndon B. Johnson gave our our troops inferior plastic M16ks that constantly malfunctioned. HE pulled too many troops out, and he ultimately ran away with his tail between his legs. Look what withdrawing has done for us. Absolutely Nothing.

I agree completely. Vietnam was winable, just like A-stan was (we almost destroyed the Al-Qaeda organization believe it or not). We could have won in 67-68 but failed to obtain our military momentum and reassure the American public.

That not that much of an accomplishment considering they have more cells in Somalia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was never the hotbed or HQ for Al-Qaeda

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

It's funny because it's true:P

But as far as change, isn't withdrawing from Iraq change. Also health-care reform?

Ace_WondersX

Iraq withdrawal change? The Bush Admin had already set a time table with the Iraqi government. Obama is just trying to follow it through. Afghanistan is his war now, and his (possible) decision to sent 34,000 more troops was foolish. In order to achieve ANY of the things we want to do, we would need to send at the least 200,000 or more. The country is too large for the force we currently have and the enemy is too elusive. If the Soviets could not with 100,000-150,000 troops, and the British, Greeks and Mongols could not at the height of their respective powers; We will not win this war. The insurgents will out last the American people and they know this. Obama either needed to send a massive force in, or get the hell out of the country. The implications of losing in Afghanistan are far greater than in Vietnam. The Vietnamese did not want to attack the American homeland, many radical Jihadists and insurgents do. They have attacked before and with this "victory", they'll do it again. Ace, for 8 years I have been holding firm to my belief that Afghanistan was our most important fight. Even though we were starting to falter for the past couple of years, we still had a chance .Now, I can firmly say that: the war is lost.

EDIT: Actually ,You're right there was a target for withdrawal set under the Bush Adminstration, but it only came after originally being opposed by Bush. Link

I knew I was right, that's why I said it:P (I apologize if I sound like a smart-ass forsayingthat). Our originalAfghanistan mission was not doomed from the start (destroy the Al-Qaeda network specifically). It is our current mission of: "lets build a democracy, clear areas then leave, and let politicians run the war" that was doomed from the start.So I guess in a way you are right :D I never supported going into Iraq, but always supported A-stan. If we're not going to commit, I wish we would withdraw as well, but either way the U.S. is screwed. This is a VERY bad situation for our country and is far greater than anyone thinks it is right now. You reap what you sow.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

Iraq withdrawal change? The Bush Admin had already set a time table with the Iraqi government. Obama is just trying to follow it through. Afghanistan is his war now, and his (possible) decision to sent 34,000 more troops was foolish. In order to achieve ANY of the things we want to do, we would need to send at the least 200,000 or more. The country is too large for the force we currently have and the enemy is too elusive. If the Soviets could not with 100,000-150,000 troops, and the British, Greeks and Mongols could not at the height of their respective powers; We will not win this war. The insurgents will out last the American people and they know this. Obama either needed to send a massive force in, or get the hell out of the country. The implications of losing in Afghanistan are far greater than in Vietnam. The Vietnamese did not want to attack the American homeland, many radical Jihadists and insurgents do. They have attacked before and with this "victory", they'll do it again. Ace, for 8 years I have been holding firm to my belief that Afghanistan was our most important fight. Even though we were starting to falter for the past couple of years, we still had a chance .Now, I can firmly say that: the war is lost.

On3ShotOneKill

EDIT: Actually ,You're right there was a target for withdrawal set under the Bush Adminstration, but it only came after originally being opposed by Bush. Link

I knew I was right, that's why I said it:P (I apologize if I sound like a smart-ass forsayingthat). Our originalAfghanistan mission was not doomed from the start (destroy the Al-Qaeda network specifically). It is our current mission of: "lets build a democracy, clear areas then leave, and let politicians run the war" that was doomed from the start.So I guess in a way you are right :D I never supported going into Iraq, but always supported A-stan. If we're not going to commit, I wish we would withdraw as well, but either way the U.S. is screwed. This is a VERY bad situation for our country and is far greater than anyone thinks it is right now. You reap what you sow.

"Al Qaida was established around 1988 by bin Laden, al-Qaeda helped finance, recruit, transport and train thousands of fighters from dozens of countries to be part of an Afghan resistance to defeat the Soviet Union. To continue the holy war beyond Afghanistan, al-Qaeda's current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries. In February 1998, al-Qaeda issued a statement under banner of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens—civilian or military—and their allies everywhere. Al-Qaeda would merge with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) of Ayman al-Zawahiri in June 2001."

"Coalition attacks on Afghanistan since October 2001 have dismantled the Taliban–al-Qaida's protectors–and led to the capture, death, or dispersal of many Al-Qaida operators"

They obviously do have cells in other countries. But I think we dealt a decent blow to them in Afghanistan.

Here's a question. Why do more minorities love Obama, but more white middle and upper middle class dislike him? As a minority, Obama is one of the greatest thing that ever happen to this country. Public health care is the next best thing. nchan

You probably don't realize this but most upper white class people earned their upper class living. Yes, hard work can pay off. There's nothing wrong with having money and being prejudiced against people just cause they have money is no different then being prejudiced against people just cause they're black. Our society is so reverse-racist now it's disgusting.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

I agree. We could have won Vietnam. I've read many books on the subject, Lyndon B. Johnson gave our our troops inferior plastic M16ks that constantly malfunctioned. HE pulled too many troops out, and he ultimately ran away with his tail between his legs. Look what withdrawing has done for us. Absolutely Nothing.

Ace_WondersX

I agree completely. Vietnam was winable, just like A-stan was (we almost destroyed the Al-Qaeda organization believe it or not). We could have won in 67-68 but failed to obtain our military momentum and reassure the American public.

That not that much of an accomplishment considering they have more cells in Somalia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was never the hotbed or HQ for Al-Qaeda

They were the ones we wanted to destroy, and we almost did do it. They cells in Somalia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Yemen etc, were far smaller than they are now, and their morale was weakened significantly after our initial invasion and attacks on their hierarchy. We had the support of most of the entire world behind us, Al Qaeda was suffering finacially, morally, and losing many men across the globe. Afghanistan WAS the hot bed at the time for Osama, Al-Zawahiri, Atef, Al-Yazid, etc were all there. They were and the foundation and rock of Al-qaeda at the time.

Here's a question. Why do more minorities love Obama, but more white middle and upper middle class dislike him? As a minority, Obama is one of the greatest thing that ever happen to this country. Public health care is the next best thing. nchan

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

I agree completely. Vietnam was winable, just like A-stan was (we almost destroyed the Al-Qaeda organization believe it or not). We could have won in 67-68 but failed to obtain our military momentum and reassure the American public.

On3ShotOneKill

That not that much of an accomplishment considering they have more cells in Somalia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was never the hotbed or HQ for Al-Qaeda

They were the ones we wanted to destroy, and we almost did do it. They cells in Somalia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Yemen etc, were far smaller than they are now, and their morale was weakened significantly after our initial invasion and attacks on their hierarchy. We had the support of most of the entire world behind us, Al Qaeda was suffering finacially, morally, and losing many men across the globe. Afghanistan WAS the hot bed at the time for Osama, Al-Zawahiri, Atef, Al-Yazid, etc were all there. They were and the foundation and rock of Al-qaeda at the time.

Here's a question. Why do more minorities love Obama, but more white middle and upper middle class dislike him? As a minority, Obama is one of the greatest thing that ever happen to this country. Public health care is the next best thing. nchan

How's he a minority if he's Half-White?

[QUOTE="nchan"]Here's a question. Why do more minorities love Obama, but more white middle and upper middle class dislike him? As a minority, Obama is one of the greatest thing that ever happen to this country. Public health care is the next best thing. chesterocks7

You probably don't realize this but most upper white class people earned their upper class living. Yes, hard work can pay off. There's nothing wrong with having money and being prejudiced against people just cause they have money is no different then being prejudiced against people just cause they're black. Our society is so reverse-racist now it's disgusting.

Exactly. Why do we need to be penalized because we work hard and earn our status?

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] The Afghan war was doomed from the start, I've never supported any of these wars. And honestly I wish would withdraw immediately and focus more on homeland security. And Bush never set a withdrawal timetable for Iraq, and he vetoed any bill suggesting a timetable.

EDIT: Actually ,You're right there was a target for withdrawal set under the Bush Adminstration, but it only came after originally being opposed by Bush. Link

Ace_WondersX

I knew I was right, that's why I said it:P (I apologize if I sound like a smart-ass forsayingthat). Our originalAfghanistan mission was not doomed from the start (destroy the Al-Qaeda network specifically). It is our current mission of: "lets build a democracy, clear areas then leave, and let politicians run the war" that was doomed from the start.So I guess in a way you are right :D I never supported going into Iraq, but always supported A-stan. If we're not going to commit, I wish we would withdraw as well, but either way the U.S. is screwed. This is a VERY bad situation for our country and is far greater than anyone thinks it is right now. You reap what you sow.

Because the majority of their leadership and manpower was in the country. The Northern Alliance (who supported us when we invaded, and who was fighting the Taliban and radical Muslims for years), were far more reasonable (even though they did some very bad things) whom the Afghanis respected and their leader was a man who I also respect, Ahmad Shah Massoud. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

That not that much of an accomplishment considering they have more cells in Somalia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was never the hotbed or HQ for Al-Qaeda

Ace_WondersX

They were the ones we wanted to destroy, and we almost did do it. They cells in Somalia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Yemen etc, were far smaller than they are now, and their morale was weakened significantly after our initial invasion and attacks on their hierarchy. We had the support of most of the entire world behind us, Al Qaeda was suffering finacially, morally, and losing many men across the globe. Afghanistan WAS the hot bed at the time for Osama, Al-Zawahiri, Atef, Al-Yazid, etc were all there. They were and the foundation and rock of Al-qaeda at the time.

Osama was in Sudan, then left the country after being banned in 96'. This is the same year he made his war decleration speech, which was filmed in Afghanistan. We started Tora Bora in December of2001.

[QUOTE="nchan"]Here's a question. Why do more minorities love Obama, but more white middle and upper middle class dislike him? As a minority, Obama is one of the greatest thing that ever happen to this country. Public health care is the next best thing. Snipes_2

How's he a minority if he's Half-White?

Technically, his being bi-racial makes him part of an even smaller minority.:P

That, and he looks black, which is really all that matters.

[QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

[QUOTE="nchan"]Here's a question. Why do more minorities love Obama, but more white middle and upper middle class dislike him? As a minority, Obama is one of the greatest thing that ever happen to this country. Public health care is the next best thing. Snipes_2

You probably don't realize this but most upper white class people earned their upper class living. Yes, hard work can pay off. There's nothing wrong with having money and being prejudiced against people just cause they have money is no different then being prejudiced against people just cause they're black. Our society is so reverse-racist now it's disgusting.

Exactly. Why do we need to be penalized because we work hard and earn our status?

Because those minorities need someone to hate.