• 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

Apocalypse said:
You share the naivety of Western Europe's leaders during the raise of Hitler, Laila.
Click to expand...

The rise of Hitler occured because of many factors
One of the contributing factors was naturally the Treaty of Versailles. If it wasn't so harsh perhaps WW2 would never have occured but that is going off topic and doesn't matter. What has happened, happened.
 
tlmorg02 said:
You are a little extreme in your assertions sir. I am a Democrat and think that the soldiers are doing a superb job.
Click to expand...

What part of my assertions was specifically extreme? You're a Democrat, but my comments specifically were directed at Liberals regardless of their political affiliations.

It is a general assertion, but fits about 98.5% of the Liberals who spend a great deal of time ranting in a vacuum of the facts and realities; Disney dude makes my case.

tlmorg02 said:
However, I think your partisan painting of people's sentiment about Iraq failing has nothing to do with the soldiers abilities to win a ground war, but everything to do with whether the Iraqi people can maintain their freedom and withstand and overcome their own differences, as well as prevent terror groups from hijacking their country. To say that anyone who questions this, questions the U.S. military's abilities is false and strawman, as you well know.
Click to expand...

What portion of my comments was "partisan" specifically?

tlmorg02 said:
War is an evil necessary, and if I were needed I would go in a minute. This country is based on the principle that the people can preserve their own freedom and govern themselves.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that we are in agreement therefore it begs the question, what is the point of your response to my comments to Laila, a rabid uninformed Liberal who makes farcical comments in a vacuum of reality and the facts?

tlmorg02 said:
....and for Republicans to insinuate that they have such a thing cornered in ludicrous, at best.
Click to expand...

I would love to see where MY statements or any Republicans have made this claim. Of course you will not find it, but it apparently is your OPINION and your PERCEPTIONS which I assure you are false and not supported by facts.

:2wave:
 
Laila said:
I don't think we should be in there.
Do we need soldiers to build buildings? I thought we needed builders.
But now we are there, might as well fund schools
Click to expand...

Problem being the buildings wont be much good if those teaching in them will be skinned alive for teaching girls how to read.
 
Laila said:
The rise of Hitler occured because of many factors
One of the contributing factors was naturally the Treaty of Versailles. If it wasn't so harsh perhaps WW2 would never have occured but that is going off topic and doesn't matter. What has happened, happened.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask for the reasons for the rise of Hitler.
You have just demonstrated the same naivety that was coming from Western Europe's leaders during Hitler's time.
"That's okay, we're safe from him, it's Poland's problem not ours".
 
Red_Dave said:
Yeah but the buildings wont be much good if those teaching in them will be skinned alive for teaching girls how to read.
Click to expand...

They will be skinned alive and honor killed anyway. Whether our soldiers are there or not
You cannot change centuries of mentality and a thinking like that in a matter of years
 
Apocalypse said:
"That's okay, we're safe from him, it's Poland's problem not ours".
Click to expand...

Afghanistan did not harm us one bit. It harmed US. Difference. Very big difference.
UK got involved even tho it posed no direct threat to us. 7/7 occured after Iraq and Afghanistan before anyone jumps on that for a example and was homegrown not imported
 
Richard Nixon said:
Afghanistan's cultural, ethnic and tribal divides mean that it will never have a fully functional, accepted central government. They'd have to unite and defeat all the separate tribal forces and thats proved quite difficult, almost ridiculously so, in the past. Even if you DO beat them you have to comprehend the fact the most Afghans have tribal and not national loyalities. The PDPA tried and failed and they had waaaay more manpower.
Click to expand...

So the solution would be to do what? Ignore the issue and just pull out and run? How did that work for us while Clinton was in charge?

The fascinating thing about such arguments is that they presume that the ONLY solution is to retreat within our borders and mind our own business. It didn't work in WWI, it didn't work in WWII, it didn't work in Korea and it didn't work pre-911. So what historic facts suggest that it will work now?

The notion that the United States and her allies should not do anything to implement change in regimes that are a threat to our citizens for fanatical reasons is profoundly naive and will only lead to more innocent deaths.

This is where I was in 100% agreement with George Bush; I would rather have our military fighting these fanatical murderers in their own countries than try to prevent them from blowing up citizens here in our own country. And if the nations these fanatics reside in wont do anything with our help, then we should do it ourselves with regime change.

Obama's naive claims pre-election suggested that they will earn the worlds respect and by TALKING, deal with our enemies. So far Iran has laughed at Obama and claimed he was at fault for their recent protests and Hillary was called a school marm by North Korea.

Our enemies are laughing at us because they know that the Liberal Democrats currently in charge are spineless morons who have already declared they are not going to use force.

:2wave:
 
Laila said:
Afghanistan did not harm us one bit. It harmed US. Difference. Very big difference.
UK got involved even tho it posed no direct threat to us. 7/7 occured after Iraq and Afghanistan before anyone jumps on that for a example and was homegrown not imported
Click to expand...
The point that a lot of naive individuals just like you Laila do not understand is that terror spares nobody.
I'm afraid you just don't get it and that I'm speaking to the rocks and stones here, so I'll just be glad that the government of your nation takes the complete opposite stance from you on this subject.
 
Truth Detector said:
What part of my assertions was specifically extreme? You're a Democrat, but my comments specifically were directed at Liberals regardless of their political affiliations.

It is a general assertion, but fits about 98.5% of the Liberals who spend a great deal of time ranting in a vacuum of the facts and realities; Disney dude makes my case.



What portion of my comments was "partisan" specifically?



So what you are saying is that we are in agreement therefore it begs the question, what is the point of your response to my comments to Laila, a rabid uninformed Liberal who makes farcical comments in a vacuum of reality and the facts?



I would love to see where MY statements or any Republicans have made this claim. Of course you will not find it, but it apparently is your OPINION and your PERCEPTIONS which I assure you are false and not supported by facts.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

How can you possibly make a blanket assertion that 98.5% of Liberals fit your given description, without a shred of evidence, other than your opinion, and then act as if I offended you?

As to the last claim you make, did I say that it was claimed? No, I said that in reading the posts on this forum on the subject, most conservatives act as though they are the only ones who understand what is needed to protect this country, and that those on the other end of the political spectrum are naive, fairy people who would be lost if it were not for the conservatives protecting this country. I say that such assertions are mere partisan rhetoric with no proof whatsoever to back it up.

Regardless, I am not here to argue who is best fit to protect this nation. Whether it be with the sword or negotiation and alliances, I feel that all views of every side are relevant, as that is the only way in this nation we can percieve the full picture, rather than a view through colored lenses of one party over the other. Iraq is no exception. Many feel that it never should have happened, and I am sure you will even admit there were mistakes made that we should learn from. In the end we should all pull together and focus on how to ensure that this endeavor succeed, for nothing could fight terror better, than a functional democracy in a region rid with tyranny.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
The point that a lot of naive individuals just like you Laila do not understand is that terror spares nobody.
I'm afraid you just don't get it and that I'm speaking to the rocks and stones here, so I'll just be glad that the government of your nation takes the complete opposite stance from you on this subject.
Click to expand...

:rofl

.....

For now the Government does.
Brown will not always be in power and the polls show people already want the same thing i do. How long can a Government last against public opinion with a election in less than a year?

Terror spares Germany just fine, and France and the other 20 other European countries. Omg, it is just a coincidence those are the countries that are not in Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess it was just mere chance we get blown up by people quoting Iraq and foreign policy as the reason
 
Laila said:
:rofl

.....

For now the Government does.
Brown will not always be in power and the polls show people already want the same thing i do. How long can a Government last against public opinion with a election in less than a year?

Terror spares Germany just fine, and France and the other 20 other European countries. Omg, it is just a coincidence those are the countries that are not in Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess it was just mere chance we get blown up by people quoting Iraq and foreign policy as the reason
Click to expand...
Terror didn't spare Indonesia.
Is Indonesia fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Your logic is, pure and simple, screwed up.
Have a nice day.
 
Laila said:
They will be skinned alive and honor killed anyway. Whether our soldiers are there or not
You cannot change centuries of mentality and a thinking like that in a matter of years
Click to expand...

Thats if you confuse the mentality of the Taliban with the mentality of Afgans as a whole. Girls were educated under the Democratic Republic of Agfanistan (1978-1992) so its not as if these concepts are entirely foriegn to them. Its also worth bearing in mind that it was the Afgans that helped to overthrow [having been fighting against it since the mid 90s] the taliban and its the Afgans who voted for the government that we,re defending.

The fact that the Afgans voted for a government that has made extending education to girls a state policy would surgest that public opionion in Afganistan isnt as simple as many make it out to be.
 
disneydude said:
Then you obviously cannot or did not read.
Click to expand...
No, I ovviously did:

I obviously saw you make a claim;
I obviously asked you to support it;
I obviously saw you try to weasel out of doing so by saying 'look it up';
I obviously took that as you admitting that you could not support your claim.

And so, as you have conceded the point, the dicussion is over.
 
disneydude said:
I see that you are still caught up in the last administration catch phrases
Click to expand...
Given that The Obama said several of the same things that GWB did -- and you are supporing him doing so -- it appears that both you and He are "caught up in the last administration catch phrases" as well.
 
So, the Messiah refuses to define victory because that would require him to have a strategy to get there.

Since there is no definition of "victory" applied to this conflict, it's clear that under the Kenyan-in-Chief, all US forces should be withdrawn. If the K-in-C can't articulate the goals, he should not be placing men in harm's way to get shot at for no purpose.

Yet, the Messiah makes no mention of any plans for immediate withdrawal of the troops.

Until a definite "victory" is defined, all US deaths are murdered by the President.

Oh, and btw, Hirohito didn't sign the surrender documents. Duh. We're going to miss Jimmy Carter, the Idiot President, before this doltish Messiah is done hurting us.
 
Red_Dave said:
Well i think the point that hes making is that victory is difficult to define.
Click to expand...

But it's not hard at all.

Victory can be defined as the establishment of a stable constitutional democratic republic that recognizes and protects the basic human rights of the people in Afghanistan.

Bush managed to have that process almost complet in Iraq before he left office, something that, no doubt, the Messiah is going to try to take credit for.

It may be difficult to achieve that victory, but it wasn't hard to define. Took me all of thirty seconds to type it.

Failing that, victory could be defined as the complete sterilization of the geographical region known as Afghanistan, to the final salting of the croplands with strontium-90 and cobalt-60.

Depends on which way we need to go.

BUT...if the definition of victory is not provided, and since the Boy Wonder Messiah brought the issue up, he is indeed, as Kenyan-in-Chief Messiah, obligated to either define the goals or get the Americans the hell out of there. In either case the failure is not America's, but Kenya's.
 
Laila said:
our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States.
Click to expand...

What has the Messiah done to achieve that goal?

How can that goal be said to have been achieved when your Messiah, like the two liberal boobs before him, utterly refuses to close the damn border with Mexico, thus leaving a 1500 mile long back-door wide open to any terrorist thug seeking an opportunity?
 
disneydude said:
You really think the troops are that naive and stupid that they need false reassurances from their Dear Leader?
Click to expand...

I know the men in uniform are intelligent enough to be asking "what the hell are we here dying for if there's no mission objective"?
 
Laila said:
Oh yeah, get some blood thirsty conservatives in power.
Score!
That'll get us somewhere seeing it was them creeps that got us into this war :2wave:
Click to expand...

I didn't know Bill Clinton, Rapist and Perjurer, was a conservative.

When did that happen?
 
tlmorg02 said:
They are:

Ex-soldiers testify against the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan - OregonLive.com

Why we're against the war | Iraq Veterans Against the War
Click to expand...

The goal in Iraq was plainly stated.

The goal in Afghanistan was plainly stated by Bush.

The Messiah's denial that a goal exists places 100% of the blame for failure on His Holy Shoulders, and His Holiness needs to decide to withdraw the troops if His Holiness can't figure out what He's got them in Afghanistan for.

It's that plain.

His Holiness has stated His condition of Perpetual Cluelessness extends to his persistence in keeping men in harm's way, so His Holiness is obligated to either get a damn plan, and that means by today, or issue orders withdrawing those men from conflict.

It is morally unconscionable for the Kenyan-in-Chief to have US troops in an armed conflict when he's so damn ignorant he can't even say why those troops are there.

And if the left-wing dominated media wasn't so ignorant, someone would have asked him when the troops are coming back home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom