• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he explained.

"We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."
Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan - Political News - FOXNews.com

I'm sorry, we're not there for victory, just to.. keep Al-quada from attacking us again...

Our President just admitted he doesn't want Victory, he's ashamed of defeating our enemies... What a freaking moron.
 
I don't get it.
Isn't securing Afghanistan from terror, a victory?
 
The real question is... define "winning".
 
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

This statement shows Obama knows nothing of history. Emperor Hirohito did not sign the surrender Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu did Sept. 2,1945 on Battleship Missouri.

Emperor Hirohito was humbled by Mac Arthur summing him to Mac Arthur's head quarters to show that he not Emperor Hirohito was in charge.

Obama should have known that.
As to him not wanting to win is no surprise he recently bent over backwards to appease his Muslim brothers. Obama's a the ultimate Wimp in Chief . He doesn't care that it would mean all who died did so for nothing because the Taliban will take back over in no time at all, giving Al Queda their training ground back. It makes you wonder who's side is the Amateur in Chief on.
 
Last edited:
Do you people even bother to read?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut the trolling and flaming
 
This statement shows Obama knows nothing of history. Emperor Hirohito did not sign the surrender Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu did Sept. 2,1945 on Battleship Missouri.

Emperor Hirohito was humbled by Mac Arthur summing him to Mac Arthur's head quarters to show that he not Emperor Hirohito was in charge.

Obama should have known that.
As to him not wanting to win is no surprise he recently bent over backwards to appease his Muslim brothers. Obama's a the ultimate Wimp in Chief . He doesn't care that it would mean all who died did so for nothing because the Taliban will take back over in no time at all, giving Al Queda their training ground back. It makes you wonder who's side is the Amateur in Chief on.

1.) The U.S. has been in negations since 2008 (who was President then?)
2.) Learn the meaning of metaphor, obviously lost on you.
 
I don't get it.
Isn't securing Afghanistan from terror, a victory?

That's exactly the point you are missing.

What Obama is saying that "leadership" is not about some catchphrase claim of "Victory" or "Mission Accomplished" to try to appease your supporters.

Anyone can move the boundaries around and claim "Victory"....hell, we see it everyday on these boards...people claiming "I won the debate" when all they really did was define it in a way that met their definition in order to make a bogus claim.
 
That's exactly the point you are missing.

What Obama is saying that "leadership" is not about some catchphrase claim of "Victory" or "Mission Accomplished" to try to appease your supporters.

Anyone can move the boundaries around and claim "Victory"....hell, we see it everyday on these boards...people claiming "I won the debate" when all they really did was define it in a way that met their definition in order to make a bogus claim.




Oh so after attacking police officers, he thought it appropriate to attack the previous administration?


How about he instead focuses on winning in afghanistan so our troops can come home.
 
Oh so after attacking police officers, he thought it appropriate to attack the previous administration?


How about he instead focuses on winning in afghanistan so our troops can come home.

I see that you are still caught up in the last administration catch phrases....I thought that "Mission" was already "Accomplished" :doh
 
I think Obama's meaning is being missed here by some literalists. I believe what he was saying is that in the War on Terror, there can never be a traditional victory, as we are not dealing with a state, but multiple terror groups working under one umbrella. How can one know if you have killed the last member of Al-Qaeda? They are spread throughout the world, without defined uniform, language, or even command. So the take home message is that the measure of victory in this struggle is different from conventional measures of victory.
 
Oh so after attacking police officers, he thought it appropriate to attack the previous administration?


How about he instead focuses on winning in afghanistan so our troops can come home.

Not to hijack the thread, but Rev do you really think those officers behaved properly. I think that after identifying Gates as the owner of the home, the officer should have left. From cops I know, the "disturbing the peace," charge is nothing more really than "contempt against cop." I have been told several times that they use the charge to arrest people who are guilty of nothing but pissing them off.
 
That's exactly the point you are missing.

What Obama is saying that "leadership" is not about some catchphrase claim of "Victory" or "Mission Accomplished" to try to appease your supporters.

Anyone can move the boundaries around and claim "Victory"....hell, we see it everyday on these boards...people claiming "I won the debate" when all they really did was define it in a way that met their definition in order to make a bogus claim.
Yes, that is what he's saying.
But when you complete your Goals, and the other side has failed to completed his, you've won, whether you like it or not.

Saying that victory is not a goal is pretty weird, because the goal is securing A-stan from terrorism, and if Obama doesn't necessarily want victory, he doesn't necessarily want to complete this goal, and doesn't necessarily want to secure A-stan from terrorism.

This is why I got confused from Obama's words.
 
Oh so after attacking police officers, he thought it appropriate to attack the previous administration?


How about he instead focuses on winning in afghanistan so our troops can come home.

Well i think the point that hes making is that victory is difficult to define. Obviously we,re not going to get to the point were no one is taking to arms against the government attal any time soon.So at what point can we say we have won? E.G if everythings quiet for 6 months and then theres an attack does that mean we,ve won?
 
Last edited:
I think Obama's meaning is being missed here by some literalists. I believe what he was saying is that in the War on Terror, there can never be a traditional victory, as we are not dealing with a state, but multiple terror groups working under one umbrella. How can one know if you have killed the last member of Al-Qaeda? They are spread throughout the world, without defined uniform, language, or even command. So the take home message is that the measure of victory in this struggle is different from conventional measures of victory.

"So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."

There are two ways--and only two ways--to ensure that Al Qaeda can't use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack the US:

  1. Kill every Al Qaeda member, or at the very least every member of the leadership.
  2. Garrison troops in Afghanistan as a permanent occupying force from now until Judgment Day.
The tone of the article suggests Dear Leader is more willing to accept the second than to attempt the first. Which means once again Dear Leader has the wrong goal.

Endless defensive war is a poor substitute for victory which lets the troops come home. The goal in Afghanistan must be nothing less than exterminating Al Qaeda, exterminating the Taliban, so that matters can be turned over to the government in Kabul and that our troops can come home.

Since a "non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda" has no diplomatic standing from which to proffer surrender, the strategy must proceed from the realization that Al Qaeda, like any other tribe of terrorist thugs, is never hors de combat--they chose a fight to the death, and so our troops' mission is to make sure the dying is on them and not on us.
 
President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he explained.

"We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."

Afghanistan is unwinnable. Victory is impossible. The soviets couldn't take them out, we have no chance. We have less soldiers and weapons and they have gone more crazy.

At least he has a pragmatic and reachable goal. Beats trying to grasp the impossible 'defeat Al Qaeda'. No one can defeat a ideology.
 
Afghanistan is unwinnable. Victory is impossible. The soviets couldn't take them out, we have no chance. We have less soldiers and weapons and they have gone more crazy.

At least he has a pragmatic and reachable goal. Beats trying to grasp the impossible 'defeat Al Qaeda'. No one can defeat a ideology.




Such a defeatist attitude, we are not the Soviets, and the soviets are not arming the other side.
 
There are two ways--and only two ways--to ensure that Al Qaeda can't use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack the US:

  1. Kill every Al Qaeda member, or at the very least every member of the leadership.
  2. Garrison troops in Afghanistan as a permanent occupying force from now until Judgment Day.
The tone of the article suggests Dear Leader is more willing to accept the second than to attempt the first. Which means once again Dear Leader has the wrong goal.

Endless defensive war is a poor substitute for victory which lets the troops come home. The goal in Afghanistan must be nothing less than exterminating Al Qaeda, exterminating the Taliban, so that matters can be turned over to the government in Kabul and that our troops can come home.

Since a "non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda" has no diplomatic standing from which to proffer surrender, the strategy must proceed from the realization that Al Qaeda, like any other tribe of terrorist thugs, is never hors de combat--they chose a fight to the death, and so our troops' mission is to make sure the dying is on them and not on us.


Didn't your dear leader already claim Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.....:lol:
 
Didn't your dear leader already claim Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.....:lol:
President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" when major military operations had removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq--which they had. What Bush failed to acknowledge and perhaps realize was the challenge of "winning the peace" that would follow.

Don't recall President Bush ever declaring "victory" in Afghanistan. Have you a link stating he did?
 
Back
Top Bottom