• 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 "very close" to Afghan troop decision: TV report

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Sorry but weeks is not close days is close. He is still far away and hurting our troops if it is weeks away.


Obama "very close" to Afghan troop decision: TV report - Yahoo! News

U.S. President Barack Obama said in an interview with CNN on Wednesday he is "very close" to a decision on boosting troop levels in Afghanistan and would make an announcement "in the next several weeks."
 
After all this time it had better be one hell of an announcement
 
You know,

After all this time if he doesn't commit, then there's going to be an International middle finger pointed toward the Obamaer administration.

We lobbied Europe for their own surge into Afghanistan. We bantered Pakistan into taking a stand.

If we forget our project right now, then good luck trying to form a coalition anytime soon.
 
Obama said he did not want his successor as president to inherit the Afghan conflict, adding that a "multi-year occupation" would not serve the interests of the United States.

It does sound like a tepid decision is coming.
 
I'm very happy to see a Presdient who actually stands his principles and doesn't rush into a decision despite the fools who have come to expect that out of a leader. I'd much rather have someone that takes the time and makes a right decision than one who continually makes quick bad ones.
 
I'm very happy to see a Presdient who actually stands his principles and doesn't rush into a decision despite the fools who have come to expect that out of a leader. I'd much rather have someone that takes the time and makes a right decision than one who continually makes quick bad ones.

And what if "taking his time" jeopardizes the mission, or the troops' lives? What if it emboldens our enemies? Do you ever see a possible downside to anything Obama does?
 
I'm very happy to see a Presdient who actually stands his principles and doesn't rush into a decision despite the fools who have come to expect that out of a leader. I'd much rather have someone that takes the time and makes a right decision than one who continually makes quick bad ones.

He's had 10 months; that's a bit more than enough time.


There is no reason to continue stalling (and letting troops die in the process).
 
I'm very happy to see a Presdient who actually stands his principles and doesn't rush into a decision despite the fools who have come to expect that out of a leader. I'd much rather have someone that takes the time and makes a right decision than one who continually makes quick bad ones.

This is not taking time this is avoiding a decision because you don't know what to do.
 
And what if "taking his time" jeopardizes the mission, or the troops' lives? What if it emboldens our enemies? Do you ever see a possible downside to anything Obama does?

Maybe if Bush would have taken longer to make a decision, Iraq wouldn't have seen as many U.S. troops killed. I'd rather him take time then rush and get even MORE troops killed by a dumb decision like Bush did.

Do you ever see a possible upside to anything Obama does?
 
Maybe if Bush would have taken longer to make a decision, Iraq wouldn't have seen as many U.S. troops killed. I'd rather him take time then rush and get even MORE troops killed by a dumb decision like Bush did.

Do you ever see a possible upside to anything Obama does?

Not so far. The stimulus is bad healthcare is bad the deficit tripled is bad. The economy still sucks and unemployment is still increasing a half a million a month. What has he done that is helping this country?
 
"obama very close to decision"

how many times have we heard this

today, obama threw a tantrum over leaks about his afghanistan "policy"

A firing offense? - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

the weird thing is---most of the leaks (except for woodward's and mcchrystal's) have come from within the white house

by all accounts, his asia trip was a disaster

his pretty speech about free expression and the first amendment was censured so no one outside shanghai heard it

his mandarin town hall was prepacked with apparatchiks

how could he even bring up civil rights in china in the first place after refusing to meet the dalai lama in dc

his attempts to elicit cooperation on sanctioning iran were kicked down

hu howled at the president's climate crap, killing it

hu lectured obama on the evils of communistic spending, intimated he (hu) can't afford obamacare

obama today is suddenly telling major garrett that too much debt could lead to a double dip recession

Obama: Too much debt could fuel double-dip recession | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

hu's a good teacher

the president's attempt to negotiate a currency deal to facilitate US exports fell flat

obama got squat

china totally stiffed him

iran is making a monkey out of him, too

afghanistan is killing him, as well as our heroic soldiers, and it will only get worse

obama's on the wrong side of fort hood

he's way on the wrong side of ksm

obama's an extremist, an amateur and a poser

trouble is---everyone now knows

palin has been interviewing circles around him, she has improved tremendously, quick, decisive, communicative, informed, knowledgable, plain speaking, normal, human

he's gone backasswards

he actually tried to justify moving ksm to manhattan by preconvicting the madman

why, ksm's just about been already executed, asserts the harvard law's star pupil

and holder, today, before leahy's judiciary...

LOL!

graham asked holder to name ONE enemy combatant tried in an american civilian court

10 seconds of excrutiating, embarrassing silence ensued

then the AG mumbled something about having to look stuff up

you'd'a thought katie couric was asking him what newspapers he reads

LOL!
 
Disclaimer: Arch Enemy's Anarchism Rant Begins

I can see both sides of the argument.
1) We need to increase the troop amount to give the active Generals the levels they need in order to conduct their strategies.

2) We do not need to increase the troop amount because we are losing the war, and putting more soldiers in harm's way is amoral.


The only benefit I could see from surging the troop levels is for one final year of offense. Actually take the Powell Doctrine and used the prescribed troop surge to overwhelm the enemy forces.
- Cap any beard-wielding Muslim within 10 feet of an AK 47.
- Double tap any one who looks even remotely like an A.Q. operative.
- Grab Osama Bin Laden and other top A.Q. and Jamiat compatriots.
- Get the **** out of dodge before the tribes grow annoyed
- Begin a strategic withdraw using Drones, Warbirds, Contractors, and Afghani militia to play with the now pissed off tribesmen in and around Waziristan.

But to put it bluntly, the American military forces are stuck pigs; our piggy banks are running desperately low.

This altercation between one of the final frontiers of trans-nationalism (or Globalism) makes the most powerful militaries in the world need reinforcements.

It's not economically sound to keep a surged troop presence in Afghanistan; it costs the United States $1 Million to field a single soldier; it takes Taliban/A.Q. forces an estimated $200 - $500 and the United States is in need of reinforcements.

This proves once again that spending an absurd amount of your nation's wealth on guns, and bombs does not insure that your nation will be able to win. And I don't think the Capitalistic marketing of weaponry (which assured that Smart Bombs were Smart, even though Shock and Awe target accuracy reports otherwise) is proving bountiful anymore now that "backwards" nation-states can get weapons much cheaper from different business partners.

The decision is whether or not this symbolic political point (as Senator Graham is an example of the politics already assessing what if Osama were to be capture, and how to make it into a partisan issue) of capturing the elusive Osama Bin Houdini and eliminating other Savages* is worth Purse and Blood that is is going to take.

I for one, would rather have Osama Bin Laden at large, than our military playing the defense for poppy and wheat fields that benefits our enemies.

*By Savages I mean in the Walt Disney sense ([ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSu4hOLYrXk"]YouTube- Pocahontas - Savages - Full Version[/ame])

Thank You, Please Enjoy Your Day
 
Maybe if Bush would have taken longer to make a decision, Iraq wouldn't have seen as many U.S. troops killed. I'd rather him take time then rush and get even MORE troops killed by a dumb decision like Bush did.

Okay...why are you telling me this?

Do you ever see a possible upside to anything Obama does?

Yes.

The first wave of troops he sent to Afghanistan was good.

His re-prioritization of Federal drug enforcement was good.

Revoking Executive Order 13233 was good.

His family is good.

He seems like a cool guy.

Sooooo, are we ready to discuss the thread topic or are you going to go off on another strange tangent?
 
He's had 10 months; that's a bit more than enough time.


There is no reason to continue stalling (and letting troops die in the process).

Please....the troops have been dying in GWB's process for years....yet all the people who are complaining about rushing a decision were remarkably quiet during that time.
 
Hyper Partisan Liberal: Of course, taking months upon months to make decisions on a generals recommendation is great. That's what we want, not some yahoo that makes snap judgements

Hyper Partisan Republican: Waiting months is going to kill troops, we need someone to act immedietely upon recommendation of a generals recommendations no matter what they are or how it affects the nation as a whole or the war effort as a whole.

Normal People: Seriously, is there not a middle ground here between "Wooo lets invade everything!" and "I need to make a decision, contact me in 2013 when I don't have re-election to deal with"
 
Normal People: Seriously, is there not a middle ground here between "Wooo lets invade everything!" and "I need to make a decision, contact me in 2013 when I don't have re-election to deal with"

Yeah, especially when they can't get their first forces in until Feb 2010 and they have to wait for troops to cycle out of Iraq before other troops can cycle into Afghanistan. Especially when you need time to consult with NATO allies, with Pakistan, with China over possible supply routes, with you Command so that the strategy is sound.

Where it worries me is when he says he wants all the troops out before he leaves office. That isn't much of a long-term commitment, the kind needed for a comprehensive counterinsurgency. But I am willing to wait for his announcement.
 
I'm very happy to see a Presdient who actually stands his principles and doesn't rush into a decision despite the fools who have come to expect that out of a leader. I'd much rather have someone that takes the time and makes a right decision than one who continually makes quick bad ones.
at this point i am starting to think the only right decision is to bail.
 
Normal People: Seriously, is there not a middle ground here between "Wooo lets invade everything!" and "I need to make a decision, contact me in 2013 when I don't have re-election to deal with"

The only thing wrong with that is that we've already invaded Afghanistan.

The Right Wing stand on this issue, is that the longer he takes to make a decision, the longer before we can bring the war to a close. Retreat is not an option.
 
Hyper Partisan Liberal: Of course, taking months upon months to make decisions on a generals recommendation is great. That's what we want, not some yahoo that makes snap judgements

Hyper Partisan Republican: Waiting months is going to kill troops, we need someone to act immedietely upon recommendation of a generals recommendations no matter what they are or how it affects the nation as a whole or the war effort as a whole.

Normal People: Seriously, is there not a middle ground here between "Wooo lets invade everything!" and "I need to make a decision, contact me in 2013 when I don't have re-election to deal with"

I don't even get an honorable mention.
 
Hyper Partisan Liberal: Of course, taking months upon months to make decisions on a generals recommendation is great. That's what we want, not some yahoo that makes snap judgements

Hyper Partisan Republican: Waiting months is going to kill troops, we need someone to act immedietely upon recommendation of a generals recommendations no matter what they are or how it affects the nation as a whole or the war effort as a whole.

Normal People: Seriously, is there not a middle ground here between "Wooo lets invade everything!" and "I need to make a decision, contact me in 2013 when I don't have re-election to deal with"

So, sending needed troops to a war of necessity = "Woooo let's invade everything!"?
 
So, sending needed troops to a war of necessity = "Woooo let's invade everything!"?

:doh

You realize the last two lines were purposefully exaggerations? Or do you seriously think that the liberal side (I see you failed to comment on that one) really believes "lets wait until 2013 to make a decision"?

I think there's a reasonable middle ground between immedietely and mindlessly just doing whatever a single general is asking for and taking months upon months to make a decision on something that you should've at least in a cursory way been thinking of prior to the general even making a recommendation.

I think Bush made a number of military strategy mistakes, I believe in part due to his eagerness to rush into the situation and over confidence without taking the time to truly understand what they were up against and the situation at hand. Likewise I think Obama has fumbled this badly and taken far to long to make a decision on something he campaigned on and, if it was as important as he made it out to be, should've been thinking of since the time he came into office.

The hyper partisans on the left are all unquestionably defending Obama as if he's a genius for what he's doing with no wrong in sight while completely slamming Bush. Hyper partisans on the right are reacting by ignorantly making it out as if Bush was some kind of war genius that could do no wrong and Obama is actively hoping troops will die and he just doens't give a ****. Neither side wants to admit any fault to theirs, or will admit it in a glossing over way to quickly get back to insulting the other side, while painting the other sides actions even in a general way as being an afront of mankind as a whole.
 
Hasn't Obama been close to a decision on Afghanistan for a few months now?

Like him or not, at least Bush was the decider. May have been the wrong decision sometimes, but at least he made one. Obama is more like Jimmy Carter on that score.
 
He's had 10 months; that's a bit more than enough time.

You do remember that Obama has sent 47,000 more troops to Afghanistan since he came to office? Don't you?


There is no reason to continue stalling (and letting troops die in the process).
The idea that troops are dying due to his considered decision making is ludicrous fear mongering, and craven lying of the war lovers.
 
Back
Top Bottom