Obama loses in Afganistan.....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2012 11:14 PM GMT
    http://news.yahoo.com/us-military-deaths-afghanistan-hit-2-000-11-131020733.html


    2000 deaths with no end in sight. When this happened in Iraq, the republican haters were hysterical.


    My headline and comments are hyperbolic, of course, as an example to those who do the same with articles from left wing propaganda sites. We MUST learn to look in the mirror sometimes.....
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 01, 2012 3:12 AM GMT
    To be honest, there wasn't an anti-war protest until the drums started on Iraq. The anti-war protest was about Iraq policy, not war in general.

    Now, the Iraq War is over and the Obama surge in Afghanistan has ended. Americans understand that Al-Qaeda is a proven threat and are willing to support a war effort against them, but frustration is increasingly growing due to the reports of the increased Green-on-Blue attacks. That 2000th casualty was from a Green-on-Blue attack.

    But I am definitely in favor of immediate withdrawal. I saw first-hand that nothing more can be accomplished over there.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Oct 01, 2012 3:24 AM GMT
    Of course, waging war on Iraq was a huge mistake.

    And, we have nothing to gain by having soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2012 10:14 AM GMT
    Where are the breathless reports and sad stories in the news about this horrible milesone? Could it be that there is a double standard in the news media, and they don't want to report anything that could make Obama look bad? And that they fell all over themselves to make Bush look bad? As if he needed it?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 01, 2012 6:43 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidWhere are the breathless reports and sad stories in the news about this horrible milesone? Could it be that there is a double standard in the news media, and they don't want to report anything that could make Obama look bad? And that they fell all over themselves to make Bush look bad? As if he needed it?


    Bush looked bad all on his own.

    mission-accomplished.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2012 11:44 PM GMT
    coolarmydude: ... frustration is increasingly growing due to the reports of the increased Green-on-Blue attacks. That 2000th casualty was from a Green-on-Blue attack.But I am definitely in favor of immediate withdrawal. I saw first-hand that nothing more can be accomplished over there.

    jockfever: I'm generally a "hawk" but I support immediate withdrawal.

    The Green-on-Blue attacks are a predictable result of announcing a troop withdrawal date.

    Who the hell ever won a military victory after announcing a troop withdrawal date?

    It's like pre-emptive surrender - which is the main military doctrine of the Democrat party.

    Afghans know that the insurgents will be there after the Americans leave. Where would you invest your expectations?

    Obama's foreign policy is a disaster. The current rules of engagement are nuts.

    Like any war, including the War In Vietnam, this war was winnable.

    If military victory is no longer the goal, the military shouldn't be there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 12:55 AM GMT
    I thought the mission was the kill Osama? That was done by our Kenyan born president, I say now is a great time to do a full retreat and let those insane savages get back to growing heroin and living life back in the stone age. We have nothing to gain staying there another day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 6:53 AM GMT
    jockfever saidcoolarmydude: ... frustration is increasingly growing due to the reports of the increased Green-on-Blue attacks. That 2000th casualty was from a Green-on-Blue attack.But I am definitely in favor of immediate withdrawal. I saw first-hand that nothing more can be accomplished over there.

    jockfever: I'm generally a "hawk" but I support immediate withdrawal.

    The Green-on-Blue attacks are a predictable result of announcing a troop withdrawal date.

    Who the hell ever won a military victory after announcing a troop withdrawal date?

    It's like pre-emptive surrender - which is the main military doctrine of the Democrat party.

    Afghans know that the insurgents will be there after the Americans leave. Where would you invest your expectations?

    Obama's foreign policy is a disaster. The current rules of engagement are nuts.

    Like any war, including the War In Vietnam, this war was winnable.

    If military victory is no longer the goal, the military shouldn't be there.


    I reject the argument that Green-on-Blue attacks have increased because of the announcement of a withdrawal date. If the bad guys in Afghanistan know the withdrawal date, why would they risk the date being delayed with Green-on-Blue attacks? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to sit back and blend in and wait for the US to leave?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 1:08 PM GMT
    sfbayguy: I reject the argument that Green-on-Blue attacks have increased because of the announcement of a withdrawal date. If the bad guys in Afghanistan know the withdrawal date, why would they risk the date being delayed with Green-on-Blue attacks? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to sit back and blend in and wait for the US to leave?

    jockfever: Suppose that one of your goals is to hasten the withdrawal?

    For radical Islam, especially Al Qaeda, this is only one battle in a much larger war. They believe in military victory. They believe in destroying and humiliating the U.S. and NATO forces to teach them a lesson.

    There have been more U.S. casualties in Afghanistan under the Obama regime, which prides itself on setting "withdrawal dates" and never uses the phrase "military victory."

    The looming bad outcome in Afghanistan will make U.S./NATO involvement in similar situations far less likely. Most Americans have rightly had their fill of U.S. casualties with no hope of victory.

    The NATO commander has already conceded that Afghans turning on NATO forces may speed up the withdrawal, i.e., speed up the day when all that has been achieved will be reversed.

    That's the genius of the Left's military strategy of preemptive surrender.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 1:49 PM GMT
    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really do not bear comparison. The Iraq war was begun by Bush (aided and abetted by Blair) on a false premise (i.e. the illusive 'weapons of mass destruction').

    The war in Afghanistan was justified. In the wake of 9/11, the initial objective for the NATO action in Afghanistan was to go after and eliminate Al Qaeda (Clearly jockfever thinks AQ and the Taliban are one and the same. They are not). In that respect, it has been a success. AQ is no longer in Afghanistan. Latterly, however, the task of preparing the Afghan police and armed forces to go it alone, has proven less successful. It is a war no one can win and the long-term solution for a stable Afghanistan is probably going to lie in accommodating the Taliban in governing parts of the country de jure (they already 'govern' some of it de facto).

    Meanwhile, NATO forces will be out of there by late 2014. If the best military minds in the US have not been able to find a way of winning the war in Afghanistan, what chance do the armchair generals of RJ have?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 2:46 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidThe wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really do not bear comparison. The Iraq war was begun by Bush (aided and abetted by Blair) on a false premise (i.e. the illusive 'weapons of mass destruction').

    The war in Afghanistan was justified. In the wake of 9/11, the initial objective for the NATO action in Afghanistan was to go after and eliminate Al Qaeda (Clearly jockfever thinks AQ and the Taliban are one and the same. They are not). In that respect, it has been a success. AQ is no longer in Afghanistan. Latterly, however, the task of preparing the Afghan police and armed forces to go it alone, has proven less successful. It is a war no one can win and the long-term solution for a stable Afghanistan is probably going to lie in accommodating the Taliban in governing parts of the country de jure (they already 'govern' some of it de facto).

    Meanwhile, NATO forces will be out of there by late 2014. If the best military minds in the US have not been able to find a way of winning the war in Afghanistan, what chance do the armchair generals of RJ have?

    Well stated. Unfortunately the people of Afghanistan will be forced to revert back to 7th-Century Islamic culture.

    But that's OK, let them slip back into a Middle Ages existence, one less international player on the world stage the US must worry about, other than through terrorism. If the Afghan people themselves cannot deal with this, I don't see why the US should. The only reason we went there was to defeat al Qaida, and if they have a resurgence, we can just send cruise missiles at them.