Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

    Quote Originally Posted by goldendog View Post
    Curious...exactly how long have you been committed to doing the right job in Afghanistan and hunting the actual people down that were either support or where partially or totally responsible for 3000 American deaths?

    1-20-09?
    Would you have us invade Pakistan?

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    12-02-09 @ 05:13 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,695

    Re: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Would you have us invade Pakistan?
    I would have immediately parked as many troops as it would have taken along that border and demanded that the Paki Government cooperate and do what it would have taken to do as far as getting the job done properly and then after doing the job properly hanging a sign saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHIED" and not be lying about it.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

    Quote Originally Posted by goldendog View Post
    I would have immediately parked as many troops as it would have taken along that border and demanded that the Paki Government cooperate and do what it would have taken to do as far as getting the job done properly and then after doing the job properly hanging a sign saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHIED" and not be lying about it.
    It's not that easy.

    Of course, the "Mission Accomplished" sign referred to that aircraft carrier's mission. Not the invasion and regime building of Iraq as a whole. But it was implied. That was too bad - part of Bush's miscommunicating the objectives and progress. Of course, this is another thread.

  4. #34
    Sage
    Gibberish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,339

    Re: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Then Obama needs to get his skinny ****ing ass into a meeting NOW. Troops are dying over there, in no small part due to the new pussy ROE's that were recently implemented concerning the use of artillery and air support, so I'm getting pretty fed up with his dithering and his incessant need to mull things over.

    Obama is a pathetic Commander In Chief. Simply pathetic.
    From what I have read Gates is trying to get increased troop support from Allies before the US dedicates more US troops. As Gates said, Afghanistan is a "shared responsibility" and "that if General McChrystal has a set of needs, it should not be looked upon as exclusively the responsibility of the United States to respond".
    "Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."
    - Warren Buffett

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    From what I have read Gates is trying to get increased troop support from Allies before the US dedicates more US troops. As Gates said, Afghanistan is a "shared responsibility" and "that if General McChrystal has a set of needs, it should not be looked upon as exclusively the responsibility of the United States to respond".
    Well, good luck with that, guys....

  6. #36
    Sage
    Gibberish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,339

    Re: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Well, good luck with that, guys....
    If it works or not it should be attempted. It will tell us exactly who is willing to support this initiative.

    What ever happens from Gates meeting with our Allies, Obama should be prepared to make a decision quickly on the amount of additional support the US will dedicate.
    "Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."
    - Warren Buffett

  7. #37
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

    Re: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    If it works or not it should be attempted. It will tell us exactly who is willing to support this initiative.

    What ever happens from Gates meeting with our Allies, Obama should be prepared to make a decision quickly on the amount of additional support the US will dedicate.
    It should be attempted, but American troops already in theater shouldn't have to wait on that.
    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.

  8. #38
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

    patience?

    while soldiers die in record numbers?

    in mcchrystal's secret assessment of august 30, leaked to the public by the post's bob woodward on sept 21, the day after obama blitzed five sunday talks and said he was waiting for an assessment he was the next day revealed to be sitting on, when he lied by saying he had not yet been asked for more troops...

    in that secret assessment, obama's hand picked commander, mcchrystal, warned that delay in the mountains above the moon dooms us to defeat

    obama clearly does NOT want to commit to afghanistan

    even tho it was a prime plank of his campaign, pushed forward to convince the electorate he was not your traditional blame-america-first, anti military democrat

    aghanistan is obama's war

    on march 27, the prez announced his "new, comprehensive" strategy for afghanistan, and it was in total accord with mcchrystal's assessment

    in august he called it a "war of necessity," not one of "choice"

    it's the "right war," he's maintained up til the present

    domestically, he's gonna have to surrender on the public option, infuriating his base

    he can't afford to piss em off on the war front, as well

    that's what's going on here

    he now uses karzai's corruption as a fig leaf to cover his reversal

    he's so transparent

    he suddenly discovered the dictator's dishonest?

    shocked, shocked, shouted claude rains in curtiz' cinema classic, casablanca, maybe the greatest movie ever made

    gambling in rick's cafe!

    obama has totally estranged the cia, panetta's nonplussed

    when's the last time you heard mention of the prosecution?

    and now, the pentagon

    mcchrystal's gonna quit

    the military is mad as hell that the politicos went on stephy and mtp and john king this sunday and, without consulting them, announced this complete reworking of strategy

    petraeus, mcchrystal and gates feel sucker punched

    if karzai's too corrupt to send reinforcements, how is he decent enough for 68000 americans already there to fight for?

    here's lookin' at you, kid
    Last edited by The Prof; 10-20-09 at 11:49 PM.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    From what I have read Gates is trying to get increased troop support from Allies before the US dedicates more US troops. As Gates said, Afghanistan is a "shared responsibility" and "that if General McChrystal has a set of needs, it should not be looked upon as exclusively the responsibility of the United States to respond".
    Okay, how long are they willing to wait for NATO to decide? And if we don't get NATO to commit, then what!? Mission over? Pack up your bags? Or will we just get more dithering and indecisiveness while American troops die?

    The Commander In Chief needs to act now; he only has two sane choices:

    1. Send the troops and commit to winning this war.
    2. Declare defeat and withdraw the troops.

    The third option - the one he's currently employing - is to stick his thumb up his butt while troops die and generals wait for Washington to commit.

    He needs to drop everything he's doing and concentrate on the Afghan strategy. That means no more talk shows, no more health care propaganda, and certainly no more infantile bickering with Fox-****ing-News.

    Pull your head out of your ass, SIR! The troops needed a Commander In Chief yesterday...

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    12-02-09 @ 05:13 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,695

    Re: U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Okay, how long are they willing to wait for NATO to decide? And if we don't get NATO to commit, then what!? Mission over? Pack up your bags? Or will we just get more dithering and indecisiveness while American troops die?

    The Commander In Chief needs to act now; he only has two sane choices:

    1. Send the troops and commit to winning this war.
    2. Declare defeat and withdraw the troops.

    The third option - the one he's currently employing - is to stick his thumb up his butt while troops die and generals wait for Washington to commit.

    But of course dropping all of the nations interests and focusing on only his legacy is yet another option.




    He needs to drop everything he's doing and concentrate on the Afghan strategy. That means no more talk shows, no more health care propaganda, and certainly no more infantile bickering with Fox-****ing-News.

    Pull your head out of your ass, SIR! The troops needed a Commander In Chief yesterday...

    4. He could ignore the true realities in Afghanistan and divert all of our nations rescources and manpower into a totally unrelated war in a country who never had any connections to attacking us or connections to anybody who had those intentions. Lie to the citizens of his own country for political gain while ignoring all of the commanders on the ground that tell him to do the exact opposit of what he actually does...and fires them all. While all of his supporters are running around like a bunch of dimwits whining about Freedom fries and lame crap like that.

    Or he could be a true intelligent leader and be patient will getting advice and listening to all angles of knowledge reguarding the situation in the country that borders the country that is harboring the people that we need to rid the world of. Instead of running away from the true problems.

    Or he could drop all of the nations interests and only focus on political matters that relate to his legacy while troops die and rescources are wasted.
    Last edited by goldendog; 10-21-09 at 03:35 AM.

Page 4 of 6 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
  •