• 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 to take weeks to study Afghanistan strategy

Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obviously the bills were all legitimately examined, or there wouldn't have been any opposition or support from anyone other than the bills' sponsors.

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

I am? The Senate is moving slowly because it's difficult to find a compromise that pleases 60 senators...not because they needed more time to examine the idea of universal health care.

Harshaw said:
Then what was Obama's hurry? Especially to pass a bill which wouldn't even take effect for four years?
Click to expand...

Presumably he wanted to pass it as soon as possible into his administration to maximize support. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Obviously the bills were all legitimately examined, or there wouldn't have been any opposition or support from anyone other than the bills' sponsors.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. Examining the bill and finding things to criticize and support is an ongoing process.

You know this. Don't pretend otherwise.


I am? The Senate is moving slowly because it's difficult to find a compromise that pleases 60 senators...not because they needed more time to examine the idea of universal health care.
Click to expand...

Here:

Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

A "healthy, ongoing debate" that if Obama had had his druthers wouldn't have happened.



Presumably he wanted to pass it as soon as possible into his administration to maximize support. :confused:
Click to expand...

What does that even mean?
 
The only reason why Obama isnt "rushing" health care anymore is because so many have opposed it for so long. Cant call a blitz a blitz if you get stopped at the wall.
 
Harshaw said:
That's ridiculous. Examining the bill and finding things to criticize and support is an ongoing process.

You know this. Don't pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's an ongoing process. But what makes you think there wasn't enough time? There have been legislative proposals in the works since before Obama even took office. And at no point during Obama's term did either house of Congress suddenly unveil a complete, 1000-page bill and vote on it the next day. Lots of ideas have been floated, publicly debated, and then found their way into one of the many bills (or not).

Harshaw said:
A "healthy, ongoing debate" that if Obama had had his druthers wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

Obama wanted to pass a bill with his priorities in it. That does not change the fact that the bill needs 60 votes in the Senate. What's your point?
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Sure, it's an ongoing process. But what makes you think there wasn't enough time? There have been legislative proposals in the works since before Obama even took office. And at no point during Obama's term did either house of Congress suddenly unveil a complete, 1000-page bill and vote on it the next day. Lots of ideas have been floated, publicly debated, and then found their way into one of the many bills (or not).

Obama wanted to pass a bill with his priorities in it. That does not change the fact that the bill needs 60 votes in the Senate. What's your point?
Click to expand...

OK. At this point, you're simply avoiding the point. Carry on. :2wave:
 
Harshaw said:
OK. At this point, you're simply avoiding the point. Carry on. :2wave:
Click to expand...

No sir! It does NOT require 60 votes. I merely requires a progressive caucus who are willing to fore go the constitution in favor of their socialist agenda.

Reid has no intention of voting on this bill in any legitimate fashion, because he and the princess both know there aren't enough socialist votes to get it through...

BTW: (just so I can say "I told you so") You can bet the farm that Card check will be tucked into WHATEVER they do manage to get through.. as to confirm their lack of responsibility to the people they supposedly represent and audacity of representing special interest groups in lieu thereof!

I PROMISE you this bill will go through and the Constitution and due process will both be ignored in favor of the progressive, social justice (I darn-well mean socialist) agenda!

Please don't be so ignorant as to claim I don't know what socialist is (again). that dog won't hunt! :2wave:
 
Obama lying before his potus feet even hit the ground.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM&feature=related"]YouTube - Barack Obama Makes Shocking confession!![/ame]


(Sorry on an Obama lie rant)
 
Last edited:
Oh, BTW ya'll. I guess we are no longer fighting a war against Jihad fanatics. But territory resistors.

Most insurgents in Afghanistan not religiously motivated, military reports say - The Boston Globe
WASHINGTON - Nearly all of the insurgents battling US and NATO troops in Afghanistan are not religiously motivated Taliban and Al Qaeda warriors, but a new generation of tribal fighters vying for control of territory, mineral wealth, and smuggling routes, according to summaries of new US intelligence reports.

“Ninety percent is a tribal, localized insurgency,’’ said one US intelligence official in Washington who helped draft the assessments. “Ten percent are hardcore ideologues fighting for the Taliban.’’

US commanders and politicians often loosely refer to the enemy as the Taliban or Al Qaeda, giving rise to the image of holy warriors seeking to spread a fundamentalist form of Islam. But the mostly ethnic Pashtun fighters are often deeply connected by family and social ties to the valleys and mountains where they are fighting, and they see themselves as opposing the United States be cause it is an occupying power, the officials and analysts said.
Click to expand...
 
[ame="http://woxy.com/boards/showthread.php?t=56829"]Record-Breaking Breasts[/ame]


I can see where dear leader is coming from on this issue. There are some things that require meticulous study.


sheyla-hershey-04.jpg
 
I think before he does anything he needs to return the prisoner of war status to those captured in our wars. We send them to odd juristictions and have there POW status subverted. That means that they are no longer protected from torture by the Geneva Conv. They have no defense other than once sided mercy.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war]Prisoner of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).

However, nations vary in their dedication to following these laws, and historically the treatment of POWs has varied greatly. During the 20th century, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were notorious for atrocities against prisoners during World War II. The German military used the Soviet Union's refusal to sign the Geneva Convention as a reason for not providing the necessities of life to Russian POWs. North Korean and North Vietnamese forces routinely killed or mistreated prisoners taken during those conflicts.
Click to expand...

We are a noble nation. Now let's act like it and not just say it please. What is the point in removing a prisoners protection from torture, then putting into place obtuse laws making it easy for individuals to torture. Then blasting the media over and over with "We don't torture?"
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
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?
Click to expand...

Didn't the elections happen, or am I confused?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Didn't the elections happen, or am I confused?
Click to expand...
why yes, they did......and karzai isn't exactly the flavor of the month.

i hate to say this, but that country has been a cluster**** for decades, and we can't change that. i think it's good to more carefully consider what our strategy should be. when we're out, they will continue to kill each other.
 
liblady said:
why yes, they did......and karzai isn't exactly the flavor of the month.

i hate to say this, but that country has been a cluster**** for centuries, and we can't change that. i think it's good to more carefully consider what our strategy should be. when we're out, they will continue to kill each other.
Click to expand...
There, I fixed it.
 
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...

He's been in office for 9 months and met with the McChrystal twice the 2nd meeting taking place only after he was shamed into it but yet still forced the General to fly to Copenhagen. I guess Obama felt that shilling for the DemocRAT Chicago political machine was more important than consulting with the top General in Afghanistan.
 
Redress said:
Link?

And again, Leno and the Olympics have nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

They have everything to do with it. Obama cares more about continuing his political campaign than he does about the lives of our troops. Can someone please tell this prick that he already won the election and he can stop campaigning now and start to lead?
 
winston53660 said:
I'll wait to see what the military leaders/strategists come up with before I jump to hasty conclusions.
Click to expand...

That will be quite difficult considering that Obama doesn't care about meeting the lead General in Afghanistan and the DemocRATs in the Senate voted party line to block him from speaking before them.
 
Agent Ferris said:
They have everything to do with it. Obama cares more about continuing his political campaign than he does about the lives of our troops. Can someone please tell this prick that he already won the election and he can stop campaigning now and start to lead?
Click to expand...

When is someone going to tell him that he won so he can stop campaigning?
 
Agent Ferris said:
They have everything to do with it. Obama cares more about continuing his political campaign than he does about the lives of our troops. Can someone please tell this prick that he already won the election and he can stop campaigning now and start to lead?
Click to expand...

Come on. It was one afternoon where he went to try to get the olympics to come to America, which would be very prestigious, and good economically. I think its shameful that you're trying to politicize the troops like this.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Come on. It was one afternoon where he went to try to get the olympics to come to America, which would be very prestigious, and good economically. I think its shameful that you're trying to politicize the troops like this.
Click to expand...

Every city that has hosted the Olypics has wound up millions in the hole after the games were over. How would it be good economically?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Every city ever, are you sure?
Click to expand...

Not many, if any, see a real profit.

Winners lose in Olympic competition - Jul. 7, 2005
Click to expand...

Do Olympic Host Cities Ever Win? - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

"There has never been an Olympic Games that has made a profit," says Robert Barney, director of the International Centre for Olympic Studies at the University of Western Ontario. Barney is also co-author of Selling the Five Rings: The International Olympic Committee and the Rise of Olympic Commercialism.

Olympic Caveats: Host Cities Risk Debt, Scandal : NPR
Click to expand...
 
the makeout hobo said:
Come on. It was one afternoon where he went to try to get the olympics to come to America, which would be very prestigious, and good economically. I think its shameful that you're trying to politicize the troops like this.
Click to expand...

I think it's shameful that Dear Leader cares more about shilling for the DNC Chicago political machine than he does about meeting with the top General in Afghanistan. I think it's shameful that Dear Leader cares more about guest appearances on Jay Leno than he does about the lives of our soldiers. Obama is a disgusting human being.
 
13. The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and
destroy its victim.
14. Therefore the good fighter will be terrible in his onset, and prompt in his decision.
15. Energy may be likened to the bending of a crossbow; decision, to the releasing of a trigger.
Click to expand...

SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR
 
This issue is exemplary of why liberals and the POTUS specifically are UNFIT for command and continue to demonstrate the fact now as in the past.

Their collective disdain for reality is a lethal attribute, and one that should NEVER be visited on our military or their families...

UNFIT for DUTY Sir!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom