Devil505
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,512
- Reaction score
- 315
- Location
- Masschusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I tossed that video in because the topic is about Cheney & the value of his military recommendations which contradict themselves depending on who's in power at the time.
Cheney is a politician & does things for political reasons....period. (my opinion...of course)
I think Cheney is wrong now for wanting to send more troops to Afghanistan. (he was right about Iraq....back in 1994)
And what makes you think they're only their for Afghanistan or al Qaeda or Iraq......and not for another classified purpose like Iran? What makes you think that if Israel strikes Iran, that we're not there for that?Only time Cheney was right was back in 1994.....(Watch the video above)
Clinton/carter broke this rule, and I am afraid, its gone forever... Plus Obama non stop blames EVERYTHING on Bush and Cheney.... Obama needs to govern now, not campaign for the past.
Including WJBC and Jimmy Carter?
Everyone is screaming for Obama to make a decision for the sake of our troops HE has in harms way.
The indecisive buffoon is "dithering" or fiddling while afghanistan burns....
He doesn't have to admit he cannot win. You have not a shred of evidence to the contrary. Cheney says otherwise, and passed along the very plan that Obama is contemplating.My biggest problem with this is that it is not in the interest of an American General to admit when we just cannot win. You don't become a General by playing cautious, or even realizing mortality-- go hard or go home. Instead, we see the rhetoric of needing more guns, ammo, or men.
I think we could flood Afghanistan with troops and we'll still be sitting ducks. We could hold an entire offensive against Waziristan, but as soon as we do we're going to realize that Osama has slipped by us again. Osama and top Taliban/AQ officials are more boogey men than actual leaders.
What makes you think that, even if this is true, it is relevant?My biggest problem with this is that it is not in the interest of an American General to admit when we just cannot win.
What makes you think that, even if this is true, it is relevant?
Lots of wars are like that.Because Afghanistan is a vacuum that sucks troops, money, and weapons.
He doesn't have to admit he cannot win. You have not a shred of evidence to the contrary. Cheney says otherwise, and passed along the very plan that Obama is contemplating.
Lots of wars are like that.
How does that mean we cannot win?
How does that mean we cannot win?The new reports suggest a tactic of sitting in areas and defending the population. Our reason for invading Afghanistan was not to liberate the people it was to destroy the launching pad that AQ has been using to launch terrorist attacks. If we are to truly beat AQ then we're gonna have to hunt their ideology down wherever it goes. We cannot begin to speculate the range of the ideology, heck we don't even know for sure where their "base" is.
We're going to have to hold a military presence in that area. While the AQ and Taliban goons attack and disappear. It's going to be costly, it's going to be dangerous.
How does that mean we cannot win?
So was National Socialism.Because the enemy is an ideology.
Because the enemy is an ideology.
...if the ideology is declared sufficiently unacceptable so as to commit the means necessary to defeat it.The enemy has an ideology but the enemy itself is not an ideology. The enemy are practitioners of an ideology. The enemy can be defeated...
THE question:This has to be the biggest hoot of the day, debating what a ("I had other priorities in the '60s than military service") Vice president has to say about a war, that he was second in command of the administration responsible for returning the talaban back into at least partial power when we had them on the run in 2003. :rofl
This has to be the biggest hoot of the day, debating what a ("I had other priorities in the '60s than military service") Vice president has to say about a war, that he was second in command of the administration responsible for returning the talaban back into at least partial power when we had them on the run in 2003. :rofl
.
Of course, Iraq is a success. Now.
I say bring them all home.
My biggest problem with this is that it is not in the interest of an American General to admit when we just cannot win. You don't become a General by playing cautious, or even realizing mortality-- go hard or go home. Instead, we see the rhetoric of needing more guns, ammo, or men.
I think we could flood Afghanistan with troops and we'll still be sitting ducks. We could hold an entire offensive against Waziristan, but as soon as we do we're going to realize that Osama has slipped by us again. Osama and top Taliban/AQ officials are more boogey men than actual leaders.
...if the ideology is declared sufficiently unacceptable so as to commit the means necessary to defeat it.
Its never "too hard" to defeat a foe that -must- be defeated. You might not win, but if he -must- be defeated, then you expend every resource you have in trying.
I am further and futher convinced that if the kinds of people we have today were around in 1939, we'd have lost WW2.
I actually agree, I do not trust that this pressident has our troops best inerests as a priority.