• 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 vows to ‘finish the job’ in Afghanistan

another day, another declaration

from the ditherer
 
Does anyone think this can end well, or soon? I can't imagine a scenario that works.

No. I appear to be the only person on this forum capable of admitting an obviously glaring truth:

Afghanistan doesn't have a viable export that can be used to generate monies to provide opportunities to its people better then those the insurgents can. It's why Bush never dealt with it in 7 years. Because it doesn't exist. Replacing Bush with Obama does not change this core central fact. What bothers me is that the partisans here don't understand what should be a really, really, really simple concept. But apparently if Obama is now dealing with the same problem Bush never fixed, only Obama deserves criticism. Frankly, neither of them deserve criticism because the problem cannot be fixed.

Hyperpartisan hypocritical loonies are everywhere here.
 
I hope this means an immediate pull out of all combat troops, anything else is just a waste of lives, and treasure.
 
Does anyone think this can end well, or soon? I can't imagine a scenario that works.

Nope. The presence of allied forces is the only thing creating an artificial peace bubble. Once Western money stops flowing and troops are withdrawn, it will go back to the way it was before. Oh well, at least that juicy oil pipeline has now been constructed, and it won't take as much to defend it.
 
insoluble, it's obama's war

that's not partisan proclamation

it's obama's presidential campaign

and his many statements since inauguration, most notably his "comprehensive strategy" announcement of march 27
 
Translation: "I'll dither along until it someone else's responsibility. I intend to do...nothing."
 
No. I appear to be the only person on this forum capable of admitting an obviously glaring truth:

Afghanistan doesn't have a viable export that can be used to generate monies to provide opportunities to its people better then those the insurgents can. It's why Bush never dealt with it in 7 years. Because it doesn't exist. Replacing Bush with Obama does not change this core central fact. What bothers me is that the partisans here don't understand what should be a really, really, really simple concept. But apparently if Obama is now dealing with the same problem Bush never fixed, only Obama deserves criticism. Frankly, neither of them deserve criticism because the problem cannot be fixed.

Hyperpartisan hypocritical loonies are everywhere here.
certainly, the person who put us there deserves criticism. although, at the time, i thought bush did do the right thing. i was mistaken.
 
Translation: "I'll dither along until it someone else's responsibility. I intend to do...nothing."

He wouldn't be the first president or world leader to do that. Granted, at least he's not taking troops away from hunting down Bin Laden like a former president did.

For everyone that criticizes Obama on this, why have none of them actually addressed the real problem of lack of development that also existed under Bush?

Seems to me this is just another pathetic veiled partisan mode of attack.
 
certainly, the person who put us there deserves criticism. although, at the time, i thought bush did do the right thing. i was mistaken.

I still think Bush did the right thing. We could not allow Afghanistan to be used as a base for terror operations. That said, we probably should have known going in that it was going to be a mess. We probably should have flooded the region with troops and installed a relatively strong pro-US dictator. And they call me a liberal. :2wave:
 
certainly, the person who put us there deserves criticism. although, at the time, i thought bush did do the right thing. i was mistaken.

So what should we have done after 9/11?
 
Sorry...

At Obama - for upping actions that have proven to be failure in this particular fight.
he's between a rock and a hard place.....damned if he does.......


can you imagine the outcry if we pulled out completely right now?
 
So what should we have done after 9/11?
targeted attacks, i think. really gone after bin laden. bombed the **** out of the taliban, but no occupying forces.
 
I still think Bush did the right thing. We could not allow Afghanistan to be used as a base for terror operations. That said, we probably should have known going in that it was going to be a mess. We probably should have flooded the region with troops and installed a relatively strong pro-US dictator. And they call me a liberal. :2wave:
or, we could have bombed the crap out of them and not used ground forces.
 
targeted attacks, i think. really gone after bin laden. bombed the **** out of the taliban, but no occupying forces.

"Occupying" is a bit of a stretch. How does one occupy a virtual desert run by a glorified gang of drug smugglers with no rule of law?

It is a staging area for the long, arduous task of gradually weeding out terrorists where they used to find complete freedom to roam.
 
or, we could have bombed the crap out of them and not used ground forces.

Possibly, but that isn't land denial and we'd still need ground contacts for intel. Remember the point was to deny them the use of the land. Air and naval power have never been able to do that without turning that land into a complete wasteland.
 
sincerely i say to my friends on the other side---

i'm not primarily scoring political points

i'm stating simply that the prez has painted himself into an inescapable corner

let points accrue from that obvious reality where they will fall, if you must

sorry

afghanistan is killing this president, ask his base, and it's only gonna get worse

it is what it is

if you ask, what would i, The pompous Prof, do over there, or what i thought of bush's labors...

i'd answer, who cares

our opinions, yours and mine, don't really amount to much

it's all on the president

it's just the way it is

pray for our soldiers, our nation, our enemies (if you are as i inclined) and our poor, perplexed president
 
he's between a rock and a hard place.....damned if he does.......


can you imagine the outcry if we pulled out completely right now?

I'd be ****ing thrilled if we did.

But that's just me. . . .my husband's currently undeployable - what he does it take care of those who don't come back all in one piece (mentally, emotionally, etc). So any increase in troop activity ultimately leads to an increase in his work-related affairs, which leads to an increase in missions and aways, which leads to stress at home . . . and so on, so forth.
 
I'd be ****ing thrilled if we did.

But that's just me. . . .my husband's currently undeployable - what he does it take care of those who don't come back all in one piece (mentally, emotionally, etc). So any increase in troop activity ultimately leads to an increase in his work-related affairs, which leads to an increase in missions and aways, which leads to stress at home . . . and so on, so forth.

I would as well, we did what we came to do, our mission is over, we won.
 
Possibly, but that isn't land denial and we'd still need ground contacts for intel. Remember the point was to deny them the use of the land. Air and naval power have never been able to do that without turning that land into a complete wasteland.
unless we do control afghanistan completely and totally, for a very long period of time, nothing will change. and even if we do, we still run the risk of nothing changing.

so, maybe a wasteland wouldn't have been a bad idea.
 
I'd be ****ing thrilled if we did.

But that's just me. . . .my husband's currently undeployable - what he does it take care of those who don't come back all in one piece (mentally, emotionally, etc). So any increase in troop activity ultimately leads to an increase in his work-related affairs, which leads to an increase in missions and aways, which leads to stress at home . . . and so on, so forth.
:-(

i can't imagine what that's like.
 
Back
Top Bottom