• 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!

NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

goldendog said:
Yes right Red...I don't know that they took an entirely stand off policy for years reguard Afghanistan...I don't know that Bush had additional troop requests on his desk for the last eight months of his dismal tenure..I don't know that Cheney and his tooters are out attacking the President from day one accusing him of not acting fast enough.....

WAKE UP RED...
Click to expand...

Let me offer you a possible reason he might not have acted on the troop request those 8 months...he was on the way out and did not want to tie the hands of the next president. I have no clue if that is why he did it, but it is equally as likely. Complaining about it is no different than all those who are throwing a fit because Obama is studying the Afghanistan situation before sending even more troops. Sometimes it is best to let the other guys look bad, instead of rushing to do it ourselves.
 
bhkad said:
You are my favorite Liberal. ;)
Click to expand...

Should I be happy that I am some ones favorite, or embarrassed that conservatives like me?
 
Redress said:
Let me offer you a possible reason he might not have acted on the troop request those 8 months...he was on the way out and did not want to tie the hands of the next president. I have no clue if that is why he did it, but it is equally as likely. Complaining about it is no different than all those who are throwing a fit because Obama is studying the Afghanistan situation before sending even more troops. Sometimes it is best to let the other guys look bad, instead of rushing to do it ourselves.
Click to expand...

So you think that the best course of action is not to look at all?
 
Redress said:
Should I be happy that I am some ones favorite, or embarrassed that conservatives like me?
Click to expand...

Be happy and on good terms with all.
 
apdst said:
I would love to!

Petraeus Backs McChrystal on Afghan War
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting in the effort...:2wave:

So he said those thing almost a month ago...are things not fluid in Afghanistan? Possibly Election fraud and exposed Government corruption? That could very possibly alter our miltary objectives there?

Yes all of those thing could happen couldn't they?
 
Last edited:
goldendog said:
Thanks for putting in the effort...:2wave:

So he said those thing almost a month ago...are things not fluid in Afghanistan? Possibly Election fraud and exposed Government corruption? That could very possibly alter our miltary objectives there?

Yes all of those thing could happen couldn't they?
Click to expand...


The military objective of destroying the enemy will never go away, regardless of the political situation.
 
goldendog said:
So you think that the best course of action is not to look at all?
Click to expand...

Let's not put words in my mouth. I think it is best not to speculate on motives of people we do not know.
 
Redress said:
Let's not put words in my mouth. I think it is best not to speculate on motives of people we do not know.
Click to expand...

Sorry I do not agree with you on this fellow Lib....We know the exact level of morals and the politcal ambitions of the previous adminstration.

There is a reason Cheney hasn't faded away into retirement between surgeries...why do you think that is?
 
apdst said:
The military objective of destroying the enemy will never go away, regardless of the political situation.
Click to expand...

Who is the enemy? From what I have read there are no more than 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan,
 
Catawba said:
Who is the enemy? From what I have read there are no more than 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan,
Click to expand...

There's a ****load of Taliban over there. They're the enemy.
 
apdst said:
There's a ****load of Taliban over there. They're the enemy.
Click to expand...

Then why were they allowed to regain numbers and strength over the last 6 years? Why were the troops not sent as was requested 8 months prior to Bush leaving office?
 
bhkad said:
Linky, PLEASE!
Click to expand...

"In the first two of the sessions, which are taking place in the secure Situation Room in the White House basement, Obama kept returning to one question for his advisers: Who is our adversary, the official said.

The answer was al Qaeda, as it was back in March.

Amid changing circumstances in Afghanistan, the renewed determination has big implications for the current war debate.

There now are no more than 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Instead, the U.S. fight in Afghanistan is against the Taliban, now increasingly defined by the Obama team as distinct from al Qaeda. While still dangerous, the Taliban is seen as an indigenous movement with almost entirely local and territorial aims and far less of a threat to the U.S."
http://kdka.com/topstories/afghanistan.obama.taliban.2.1236889.html
 
apdst said:
There's a ****load of Taliban over there. They're the enemy.
Click to expand...

Estimates are between 10,000 and 15,000 Taliban. The declared purpose for us being there was to go after the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. See my post just above.
 
Catawba said:
Estimates are between 10,000 and 15,000 Taliban. The declared purpose for us being there was to go after the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. See my post just above.
Click to expand...

The objective is to destroy AQ and their allies that gave them sanctuary.
 
apdst said:
The objective is to destroy AQ and their allies that gave them sanctuary.
Click to expand...

You are referring to the failed Bush Objective for eight years? That objective is being reviewed by the new Commander-in-Chief.
 
Catawba said:
You are referring to the failed Bush Objective for eight years? That objective is being reviewed by the new Commander-in-Chief.
Click to expand...

As it should be...
 
Catawba said:
You are referring to the failed Bush Objective for eight years? That objective is being reviewed by the new Commander-in-Chief.
Click to expand...

Failed? Show us the failure.
 
apdst said:
Failed? Show us the failure.
Click to expand...

Has the Taliban been allowed to regain strength over the last several years?

Did Bush refuse to send the additional troops requested during an eight month period prior to his leaving office?

Has there been Puppet government corruption that led to the recent election fraud?
 
goldendog said:
Has the Taliban been allowed to regain strength over the last several years?

Did Bush refuse to send the additional troops requested during an eight month period prior to his leaving office?

Has there been Puppet government corruption that led to the recent election fraud?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.
 
apdst said:
Failed? Show us the failure.
Click to expand...

After 8 years of war, the Taliban have increased their presence in Afghanistan to now approximately 80% of the country, and terrorists have grown in numbers worldwide.

Was that the objective of the 8 year war? If not then the objective failed.
 
Catawba said:
After 8 years of war, the Taliban have increased their presence in Afghanistan to now approximately 80% of the country, and terrorists have grown in numbers worldwide.

Was that the objective of the 8 year war? If not then the objective failed.
Click to expand...

So, 8 years is the official time limit? Where's that written?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom