Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 66

Thread: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    How many shots has Obama heard? Your hypocracy is telling.
    First, it's spelled hypocrisy.

    Second, I'm not an Obama fan. I voted for McCain. At least J-mac is a Hawk that has been in combat and has a son in the service.

    Third, Obama isn't a Hawk (like Bush), in terms of FP/NS; although some decisions that he has made might say otherwise.

    Your simple-minded assumption that because I said something critical of Bush makes me an Obama worshipper is really intellectually amateur. Grow up.

    I hate all politicians equally.
    Last edited by kansaswhig; 10-09-09 at 01:53 PM.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    How is focusing on defeating Al-Q surrender? Weren't you just saying in another thread that we could in fact defeat Al-Q and that it's the people that call it surrender (like you are doing now) who are the problem?
    it's not...I've gone round and round with this guy. He hates Obama and doesn't really "get" what's going on in AFG.

  3. #33
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I'd rather kick both to the curb. Where's Goldwater when we need him? How about instead of spending a trillion on healthcare, we spend that to resurrect him and Eisenhower?
    Hold onto your hats, everybody. I'm going to agree with Obvious Child on something. (I'll be ok, I just need to sit down for a second)
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #34
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    How is focusing on defeating Al-Q surrender?
    Because AQ and the Taliban are on the same team. A win for one is a win for the other. Who do you think provided sanctuary for AQ when they were attacking us?

    Weren't you just saying in another thread that we could in fact defeat Al-Q and that it's the people that call it surrender (like you are doing now) who are the problem?
    No, what I said was, we can defeat AQ and the Taliban, in Afghanistan and the people who call for surrender are the problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Because AQ and the Taliban are on the same team. A win for one is a win for the other. Who do you think provided sanctuary for AQ when they were attacking us?
    Ah, it's more a marraige of convenience...both have different strategic goals. AQ is now in PAK, so the Taliban aren't too much help anymore. If we don't do COIN in AFG, the THEORY is that AQ will return for sanctuary; although that would be dumb b/c they know we are still targeting them. They are safe in PAK b/c we aren't getting help from the Pakistanis...and we probably aren't going in there overtly.

    No, what I said was, we can defeat AQ and the Taliban, in Afghanistan and the people who call for surrender are the problem.
    I don't think we can really ever "defeat" either organization and as I pointed out to you on another thread, dissenters are hardly the cause for military failures.

  6. #36
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Ah, it's more a marraige of convenience...both have different strategic goals. AQ is now in PAK, so the Taliban aren't too much help anymore. If we don't do COIN in AFG, the THEORY is that AQ will return for sanctuary; although that would be dumb b/c they know we are still targeting them. They are safe in PAK b/c we aren't getting help from the Pakistanis...and we probably aren't going in there overtly.
    Why would AQ stay in Pakistan, when they could have 100% protection in Afghanistan? The only reason that AQ is Pakistan, is because we are in Afghanistan.



    I don't think we can really ever "defeat" either organization and as I pointed out to you on another thread, dissenters are hardly the cause for military failures.

    Kill enough of them and you can. History has proven that. History also proves that Libbos have been responsible for American battlefield setbacks in the past. No reason why it can't happen again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Why would AQ stay in Pakistan, when they could have 100% protection in Afghanistan? The only reason that AQ is Pakistan, is because we are in Afghanistan.
    Yeah, but they know we would strike them in AFG...that's what a CT strategy is. Bush's plan to target AQ and TB Tgts of opportunity sent AQ into PAK...WITHOUT DOING A FULL FLEDGED COIN STRATEGY. I'm glad you agree with me.




    Kill enough of them and you can. History has proven that. History also proves that Libbos have been responsible for American battlefield setbacks in the past. No reason why it can't happen again.
    No that is exactly wrong. Petreaus said during the Surge: "we will never 'kill' our way out of this war or any counterinsurgency".

    Liberals are pacifists...oh except the ones that started Korea and Vietnam.

  8. #38
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Yeah, but they know we would strike them in AFG...that's what a CT strategy is. Bush's plan to target AQ and TB Tgts of opportunity sent AQ into PAK...WITHOUT DOING A FULL FLEDGED COIN STRATEGY. I'm glad you agree with me.
    We're not going to strike AQ in Afghanistan, if we cut a peace deal with the Tallies.






    No that is exactly wrong. Petreaus said during the Surge: "we will never 'kill' our way out of this war or any counterinsurgency".
    How many more kills did we score after the surge began? Hmm?

    Liberals are pacifists...oh except the ones that started Korea and Vietnam.
    Pacifism is a vehicle to get what they want. They're only anti-war as long as it serves their political purposes. Why, even Code Pink is changing it's position on Afghanistan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #39
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

    I don't think many of us (Americans) truly understand the complexities of the War on Terror where Afghanistan, Al-Quadia and the Taliban are concerned. And we make the mistake of comparing the War in Iraq w/the War on Terror. They share some similarities, but they aren't the same.

    For starters, we dismantled Iraq's military and local police forces. As such, it was the American military that put itself in the position of being peacekeepers and combat fighters. It's rather difficult to do both when you have no idea who the enemy is let alone where the enemy is coming from.

    Second, American troops had to win the trust of the people. Yes, most were glad that Saddam was no longer in power, but with no ruling government in power, the people didn't know who to trust. That left a power vacuum for insurgent to take root. Fortunately, the boots on the ground recognized this and realized that winning the trust of the people was the best way to turn the tide against the insurgents and ultimately reduce or halt the violence and bring about stability in that country. It also helped that the people were able to vote for a government they believe in and not one set in place by the U.S.

    Afghanistan is different.

    While Afghanistan also had a hostile government - the Taliban - it was a government most Afghan people respected because they allowed local warlords to run their little provinces their way to maintain order. It is these pockets of warlords that is causing problems for American and coalition forces. Each warlord kinda run their province alittle differently. So, what works in one area doesn't necessarily work in another.

    Also, most Afghan people don't see the American/coalition forces as liberators; they're viewed as occupiers. Yes, American troops had the same problem in the early goings of the War in Iraq, but this is different. The way most Afghan people see it, American's came over to disrupt Al-Quadia and capture Osama Bin Laden, not to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely...kinda the same w/Iraq, but the trust levels are alot lower. Had we stayed the course in the early stages of the War on Terror when we had both Al Quadia and the Taliban on the run, we could have done more to win the hearts of the Afghan people. But we didn't. As such, other warlords have just stepped in where one dies. And just as in Iraq, there's the big problem with insurgency. And the people won't step up because they consider themselves trapped in the middle between a divided government under the leadership of someone they don't think they can trust, the local warlords who continue to rule with iron fist but mostly fairly according to the people, and the Taliban who support the warlords and insurgent insurrection. All because we took our eyes of the prize...

    Frankly, I find it hard to believe that a people will willingly put their trust in their oppressor over their "liberator", but that seems to be a big part of the problem in Afghanistan right now. Bottom line, however, is we went over their with one mandate - to disrupt and destroy Al-Quadia and capture or kill Bin Laden - but have learned that you can't defeat Al-Quadia w/o defeating the Taliban, too. But the more you fight the Taliban, the more people from within Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to rally on their side.

    Oh, and Pakistan is another MAJOR part of the War on Terror problem. As long as the Pakistan government refuses to go into those pockets along the Afghan/Pakistan mountain boarder region and fight the Taliban/insurgents, American/coalition forces will never make any true headway in the War on Terror.

    This article provides a glimps into what options President Obama may have in dealing with this complex issue.

    One last thing: I agree with the Senate; I don't think it's necessary to bring McChrystal before Congress. What would be the point?
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 10-09-09 at 03:57 PM.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    We're not going to strike AQ in Afghanistan, if we cut a peace deal with the Tallies.
    Oh my God, man. YOU STARTED A THREAD CALLED "Obama going after AQ in Afghanistan, not Taliban". Don't you remember that? What is wrong with you? Do you know how many times you defeated your own argument in like five different threads? What peace treaty? Where did you hear that? Is that official? Guys like you that make **** up and distort facts for your own partisan satisfaction don't belong here. Get your **** straight and grow up.

    How many more kills did we score after the surge began? Hmm?
    The kinetics didn't really change that much, to be honest. There was a brief period of increased violence when we retook some battlespace that we had abandoned. How do you suppose I know this? Yep, that's right...it's first hand knowledge. I love destroying your arguments. It's so easy.

    Pacifism is a vehicle to get what they want. They're only anti-war as long as it serves their political purposes.
    Absolutely. All politicians are guilty of it. That's why they all suck.

    Why, even Code Pink is changing it's position on Afghanistan.
    Code Pink ranks up there with NAMBLA as one of the most pathetic organizations of all time.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •