ptif219

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?

__________________
Me and my seven and half month old mastiff puppy

The Prof

"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!

Arch Enemy

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 ( )

Thank You, Please Enjoy Your Day

__________________
"I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

Ethereal

Okay...why are you telling me this?

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?

EpicDude86

ITT: Armchair Generals defending inaction

disneydude

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.

__________________
Thank you President Obama, for restoring honor and integrity to the whitehouse

Zyphlin

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"

__________________
Political buy outs, "my way or the highway" attitude, ignoring of rules and traditions because it suits your purpose...

Yep, gotta love the "Change from politics as usual" in this "post-partisan" era.

reefedjib

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.

__________________
The Modern Whig Party of Virginia

liblady

at this point i am starting to think the only right decision is to bail.

__________________
i'm only here for the booze
and especially for catz,
SOMETHING ANNOYING and colorful

apdst

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.

__________________
...you're the kind of man it's a pleasure to hang. If all you can talk is guff, you can talk it to the Devil. --Gus McRae