Obama to take weeks to study Afghanistan strategy

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Drudge is posting pics of flag draped coffins. I have seen no threads using them as we were treated to during the iraq war from several posters here.


btw, shame on drudge.

Click to expand...

Yes, shame on Drudge for that. I'm going to email them and tell them so.

Funny, you both in this very thread thanked a post by a person whose words read as nothing but someone putting forth faux outrage while at the same time being over joyed that they're being proven right by using the deaths of soldiers for political means. When this happened in years before conservatives were quick to point out that we were attacked and went into Afghanistan, not the other way around. They were quick to point out that its regrettable but people die during war. They were quick to point out that even in peace time people die in decent numbers in the military, its a dangerous job. Yet now the things on the other foot and we have conservatives waiting with baited breath going "huff huff huff another 8 died huff huff huff for shame obama for shame obama huff huff huff just wait till I can point out when MORE died huff huff huff".

I don't care what political party it is. Grandstanding and manipulating the death of our troops for political purposes is disgusting. Its disgusting, its low, its sleezy, and my respect for you particularly rev in thanking such a pathetic attempt regardless of the fact that he's on "your side" is lessened.

Zyphlin said:

Funny, you both in this very thread thanked a post by a person whose words read as nothing but someone putting forth faux outrage while at the same time being over joyed that they're being proven right by using the deaths of soldiers for political means. When this happened in years before conservatives were quick to point out that we were attacked and went into Afghanistan, not the other way around. They were quick to point out that its regrettable but people die during war. They were quick to point out that even in peace time people die in decent numbers in the military, its a dangerous job. Yet now the things on the other foot and we have conservatives waiting with baited breath going "huff huff huff another 8 died huff huff huff for shame obama for shame obama huff huff huff just wait till I can point out when MORE died huff huff huff".

I don't care what political party it is. Grandstanding and manipulating the death of our troops for political purposes is disgusting. Its disgusting, its low, its sleezy, and my respect for you particularly rev in thanking such a pathetic attempt regardless of the fact that he's on "your side" is lessened.

Click to expand...

Who did I thank? I am not looking through all the posts.


My concern, my only concern is a POTUS who is fiddling while my friends, brothers and sisters lives, who are taking fire with no mission direction.


If Bush did this, Id have the same position. Suggesting I am using the troops as fodder for debate, is incorrect and insulting. I have the scars to show how much I am willing to do for my brothers and sisters.

He did a "serious review" in March and announced a new "comprehensive strategy" then. He was still saying it was a must-win situation in July. Yet he's been at this waffling for over a month now.

What changed in 6-7 weeks which requires this level of review?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Who did I thank? I am not looking through all the posts.


My concern, my only concern is a POTUS who is fiddling while my friends, brothers and sisters lives, who are taking fire with no mission direction.


If Bush did this, Id have the same position. Suggesting I am using the troops as fodder for debate, is incorrect and insulting. I have the scars to show how much I am willing to do for my brothers and sisters.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I did have this same position when it was obvious that Bush needed to deploy more soldiers to Iraq.

Oh I see Conservabill's post. I thanked his position on Obama's incompetence, I didn't really pay attention to the rhetoric. I hold a similar position, though I am short on the hyperbole.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Oh I see Conservabill's post. I thanked his position on Obama's incompetence, I didn't really pay attention to the rhetoric. I hold a similar position, though I am short on the hyperbole.

Click to expand...

I have no big issue with his point content wise. Saying a Presidents actions makes him responsable for the well being of our troops is one thing. I don't have issue with it here. I didn't have issue with it when people were complaining about Bush starting the Iraq War, or not sending more troops to either venue, or not pulling out, etc.

My issue was with the huge hyperbole, talking about blood on the hands, tallying numbers of soldiers, and using their specific deaths and that death count to specifically attempt to crucify Obama. Its digusting, pathetic, over the top, INSULTING rhetoric that is unneeded and uncalled for by any side and is an utter and complete disrespect towards the troops, current or former, and is worthy of nothing but disdain. Its one thing coming from "the other side" as well, and that still definitely bothers me, but I get even more greatly fired up about it when I see conservatives doing it and conservatives seemingly supporting people doing it because traditionally conservatives are the ones that scream about OTHERS doing it the most. When I see it I see not only the disgusting insult to our troops but a ****ting upon conservative values the movement supposedly has expressed so "genuinely" over the past decades. I have zero respect for anyone that goes into such pathetic hyperbole and attempts to capitalize on soldiers deaths for political reasons and unlike some hypocrites I don't find reasons to rectify it in my mind when its my side doing it.

Thank you for clarifying what you were thanking, because without it it seems like you too were clearly using the death of troops for your political gains, and the fact you have those marks on your body is why it would've made me lose that much more respect for you if you turned around and supported doing that kind of BS.

Kandahar said:

You'd rather he make a rash decision without collecting evidence and consulting all of the relevant people? Once upon a time we had a president who tried that strategy. Our troops ended up in Iraq.

Click to expand...

This is, of course, silly.
The situation in Iraq had been 'evaluated' for 12 years. There's no support whatseover for the argument that GWB rushed into going to war or made a 'rash' decision to do so.

Having said that -- seems to me that during the campaign, The Obama made the war in Afghanistan a top priority. He's had over 8 monthts to 'collect evidence and consulting all of the relevant people'.

Why isnt 8 months long enough?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

70 days and two conversations with the general. His actions speak louder than words.

Click to expand...

I don't know Rev, his number of words might be equal to the number of visits. :mrgreen:

Goobieman said:

This is, of course, silly.
The situation in Iraq had been 'evaluated' for 12 years. There's no support whatseover for the argument that GWB rushed into going to war or made a 'rash' decision to do so.

Click to expand...

You'd think he would have gotten the intelligence right, and given the UN the chance to finish their inspections then. Hmm.

Goobieman said:

Having said that -- seems to me that during the campaign, The Obama made the war in Afghanistan a top priority. He's had over 8 monthts to 'collect evidence and consulting all of the relevant people'.

Why isnt 8 months long enough?

Click to expand...

The general just requested more troops a couple weeks ago.

It is interesting, though, that he needs to take this much time to decide if he wants to do the thing all of his military people say needs to be done if his own stated goals are to be achieved . . . why, because it's vitally important that we get it right . . .

But when it comes to the massive overhaul of the health care system, the consequences of which will be a massive, permanent fact of life, for always, no, the time for debate is over. If he had gotten what he wanted, it would have been voted on in July, before anyone even knew what it entailed.

Same for the "stimulus" package. NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW.

Harshaw said:

It is interesting, though, that he needs to take this much time to decide if he wants to do the thing all of his military people say needs to be done if his own stated goals are to be achieved . . . why, because it's vitally important that we get it right . . .

Click to expand...

There is some disagreement among the top military brass if this strategy is appropriate.

Harshaw said:

But when it comes to the massive overhaul of the health care system, the consequences of which will be a massive, permanent fact of life, for always, no, the time for debate is over.

Click to expand...

The debate is ongoing. The main debate was last fall...and the American people elected Barack Obama over John McCain, and congressional Democrats over congressional Republicans. Since then, there has been a healthy, ongoing debate among Democrats as to what kind of health care reform should be enacted. Republicans have mostly chosen to sit on the sidelines.

Harshaw said:

If he had gotten what he wanted, it would have been voted on in July, before anyone even knew what it entailed.

Same for the "stimulus" package. NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW.

Click to expand...

The stimulus package, by its nature, was something that needed to be implemented immediately. Afghanistan and health care will still be there, whether a decision is made this month or in 3 months.

The debate is indeed ongoing, but that's not what Obama wanted. "The time for debate is over" is what he said about it. He wanted this passed before the August recess.

So, why no need for such measured consideration necessary there?

A good gauge for Obama's intentions are his words to bring the troops home from Iraq. He word smithed lots of anti-war Americans and played on Americas heart strings. Keep your words simple (and interchangable to your true intentions) and purposely let people assume that you will use your powers for good.


It is like a parent tricking a kid into cleaning out a car for them by saying,

"Do all your chores and I will give you all the money in my pocket."



Then waiting for the child to finish. Then when he comes up to you and asks for your money you reply,

"Well..... I never said when I'd give it to you.... I don't think it would be safe for me to pay you right now. Got some bills comming up.... Maybe next year if my situation permits it."

Harshaw said:

The debate is indeed ongoing, but that's not what Obama wanted. "The time for debate is over" is what he said about it. He wanted this passed before the August recess.

So, why no need for such measured consideration necessary there?

Click to expand...

Because he already campaigned on this issue and won the election? And because unlike the state of health care in this country, the state of the economy and the conditions in Afghanistan have been rapidly evolving since Obama took office.

Kandahar said:

Because he already campaigned on this issue and won the election?

Click to expand...

What's that got to do with it?

Are you saying he won the election, therefore whatever bill he wants passed should be passed without debate?

If not, then what does the election have to do with debating specific pieces of legislation? 'Coz that's the "debate" he was talking about.

Kandahar said:

You'd think he would have gotten the intelligence right, and given the UN the chance to finish their inspections then. Hmm.

Click to expand...

No one, except GWB's political detractors, questioned the intel.
Not the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Russins, or the Israelis.

The general just requested more troops a couple weeks ago.

Click to expand...

And...?

Harshaw said:

What's that got to do with it?

Are you saying he won the election, therefore whatever bill he wants passed should be passed without debate?

Click to expand...

Not at all. Feel free to argue against his changes all you want, and do everything in your power to stop them if you don't agree with them. But let's not pretend like he's "rushing" health care. Obama campaigned on the issue and won, and this has been a major policy debate in the United States for 100 years. Whatever you think about the policies, they've hardly been rushed.

Afghanistan and the stimulus package, on the other hand, are constantly evolving issues.

Kandahar said:

Not at all. Feel free to argue against his changes all you want, and do everything in your power to stop them if you don't agree with them. But let's not pretend like he's "rushing"

Click to expand...

There's no pretending involved.

Goobieman said:

There's no pretending involved.

Click to expand...

Wonderful. A) I wasn't talking to you, B) I explained my point in the part which you conveniently snipped out of my response, C) Do you really think that responding to my post with "Nuh-uh" makes you look smart?

Kandahar said:

Not at all. Feel free to argue against his changes all you want, and do everything in your power to stop them if you don't agree with them. But let's not pretend like he's "rushing" health care. Obama campaigned on the issue and won, and this has been a major policy debate in the United States for 100 years. Whatever you think about the policies, they've hardly been rushed.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no thanks to him. He wanted it done months ago and declared the debate over. I think you're just ignoring that here, because you're just repeating yourself.

Kandahar said:

Wonderful. A) I wasn't talking to you

Click to expand...

1) Public message board
2) Free speech

B) I explained my point in the part which you conveniently snipped out of my response

Click to expand...

1) None of which changes the validity of my comment

C) Do you really think that responding to my post with "Nuh-uh" makes you look smart?

Click to expand...

1) Do you really think that your ad hom negates the validity of my comment?

Harshaw said:

Yeah, no thanks to him. He wanted it done months ago and declared the debate over. I think you're just ignoring that here, because you're just repeating yourself.

Click to expand...

Even if it had been implemented months ago, that would not have meant it was "rushed." This debate has been going on for 100 years. And unlike Afghanistan or the economy, the state of health care is pretty predictable. There are simple, demographic trends for health care...not game-changing events on a daily basis that characterize those other two issues.

Kandahar said:

Even if it had been implemented months ago, that would not have meant it was "rushed." This debate has been going on for 100 years.

Click to expand...

Wow. That's just sad.
Just plaiin sad.

Kandahar said:

Even if it had been implemented months ago, that would not have meant it was "rushed."

Click to expand...

Right. A thousand-page bill that no one had legitimately examined being shoved through in a couple of weeks isn't "rushed."

You're reaching here, man. Reaching.

Besides, you're claiming that it's being duly considered now, as it ought to be. Can't have it both ways.

This debate has been going on for 100 years. And unlike Afghanistan or the economy, the state of health care is pretty predictable. There are simple, demographic trends for health care...not game-changing events on a daily basis that characterize those other two issues.

Click to expand...

Then what was Obama's hurry? Especially to pass a bill which wouldn't even take effect for four years?