• 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: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

Who did he rape?

Juanita Broaderick.

Others have their accusations on record, too, all prior to his contamination of the White House, and one from his time in England as a Rhodes' Scholar. You could try looking at his history, not his hagiography.
 
The goal in Iraq was plainly stated.

The goal in Afghanistan was plainly stated by Bush.

The Messiah's denial that a goal exists places 100% of the blame for failure on His Holy Shoulders, and His Holiness needs to decide to withdraw the troops if His Holiness can't figure out what He's got them in Afghanistan for.

It's that plain.

His Holiness has stated His condition of Perpetual Cluelessness extends to his persistence in keeping men in harm's way, so His Holiness is obligated to either get a damn plan, and that means by today, or issue orders withdrawing those men from conflict.

It is morally unconscionable for the Kenyan-in-Chief to have US troops in an armed conflict when he's so damn ignorant he can't even say why those troops are there.

And if the left-wing dominated media wasn't so ignorant, someone would have asked him when the troops are coming back home.

I was responding to your claim that the soldiers would question. They are. According to the sites they are fed-up with losing life and limb for private business to profiteer off their backs. Whether this is true or not, I do not know, but it is their claim.
 
Juanita Broaderick.

Others have their accusations on record, too, all prior to his contamination of the White House, and one from his time in England as a Rhodes' Scholar. You could try looking at his history, not his hagiography.

You are one angry mutha****a, aren't you man?!?!:lol:

I prefer the science talk guy. Let's go back to the Mars exploration thread.;)
 
But it's not hard at all.

Victory can be defined as the establishment of a stable constitutional democratic republic that recognizes and protects the basic human rights of the people in Afghanistan.

Bush managed to have that process almost complet in Iraq before he left office, something that, no doubt, the Messiah is going to try to take credit for.

It may be difficult to achieve that victory, but it wasn't hard to define. Took me all of thirty seconds to type it.

Failing that, victory could be defined as the complete sterilization of the geographical region known as Afghanistan, to the final salting of the croplands with strontium-90 and cobalt-60.

Depends on which way we need to go.

BUT...if the definition of victory is not provided, and since the Boy Wonder Messiah brought the issue up, he is indeed, as Kenyan-in-Chief Messiah, obligated to either define the goals or get the Americans the hell out of there. In either case the failure is not America's, but Kenya's.

That depends how established is established. Hence my example.
 
I was responding to your claim that the soldiers would question.

Don't bother.

You started by posting soldiers protesting operations in Iraq, which were to all intents and purposes complete except for the mopping up before Bush left office.

Thus the sources you're citing are biased and not focused on the fact that Bush administration has a goal, your Messiah does not.

They are. According to the sites they are fed-up with losing life and limb for private business to profiteer off their backs.

Not to mention this Code Pinko bs propaganda nonsense.

Try focusing on the fact that your Messiah just admitted that he doesn't have a clue but is continuing to have men in the field shot for his cluelessness.
 
That depends how established is established. Hence my example.

I know the Rapist President informed all his idiot followers that he thought he could get away with questioning the definition of "is", but the sane people in the country weren't fooled, and he got impeached anyway.

The Messiah admitted he doesn't know why he's continuing to have troops in Afghanistan.

His cluelessness isn't a good reason to get real Americans killed.
 
I know the men in uniform are intelligent enough to be asking "what the hell are we here dying for if there's no mission objective"?

"Victory" is not a mission objective. That was the problem of the last administration. You have to have clear goals and a clear mission....no just "Win" "Victory" or "Defeat the Terrrrrrrrrrists"
 
"Victory" is not a mission objective. That was the problem of the last administration. You have to have clear goals and a clear mission....no just "Win" "Victory" or "Defeat the Terrrrrrrrrrists"

Hello?

Read the posts, don't sit around and pretend the rest of us haven't bothered to analyze correctly the implications of what the words from the ignorant Messiah in the White House mean and where he went wrong already.

As the Holy One Stated, he doesn't have any goals in Afghanistan, and that means he needs to get some quick or get our men out of there.

BTW, I ****ing provided one definition of "victory" for that ignorant messianic fascist boob, you're free to provide another definition, if you want us to laugh.
 
I know the Rapist President informed all his idiot followers that he thought he could get away with questioning the definition of "is", but the sane people in the country weren't fooled, and he got impeached anyway.

The Messiah admitted he doesn't know why he's continuing to have troops in Afghanistan.

His cluelessness isn't a good reason to get real Americans killed.

............................................................................That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said
 
............................................................................That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said

Your post didn't have anything to do with what I said, so now you have a chance to be productive.
 
"Victory" is not a mission objective. That was the problem of the last administration. You have to have clear goals and a clear mission....no just "Win" "Victory" or "Defeat the Terrrrrrrrrrists"

This is the exact reason we have the metaphor used that we are not going to see some ceremonial surrender. There is no Caesarian Triumph to be found in this conflict. What we will see is a tempering of the ideology that dictates conflict with the U.S. You know, surprise surprise it seems to help if those potential enemy combatants start to see the U.S. not as an enemy, when they begin to view the U.S. more favorably, and when they begin to have more faith in a U.S. President than the leader of this Al-Qaeda movement.

The events of the past 8 years are of course too expansive to be put in one thread, but a simple summary of events that followed. Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S., George Bush pulled the very military assets we needed to fight Al-Qaeda and sent them to Iraq. Afghanistan was allowed to linger for 8 years. In turn we created chaos in Iraq that allowed a new terrorist organization to form and ally itself with Al-Qaeda proper, this named Al-Qaeda in Iraq which never existed prior to 2003. Look at just about any number of books, articles, and documentaries made over the past 8 years and they all come to the same conclusion; we did NOT have enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan. The whole strategy until NOW was to fight and die to win control over an area that would just be turned right back to Taliban control. So now for the first time we have the troops being sent to the one area where we have an enemy that is truly committed to attacking us, what a marvel idea. These are the stone cold facts of what has occurred the past 8 years. So I for one find it beyond shameful for those to make this argument that we are less safe. This coming from supporters who still have yet to answer why a President did NOTHING for 8 months, a President who ignored the August memo telling him exactly what was going to happen. Simply pathetic.
 
Juanita Broaderick.

Others have their accusations on record, too, all prior to his contamination of the White House, and one from his time in England as a Rhodes' Scholar. You could try looking at his history, not his hagiography.

So accusations equate to guilt? No where was Clinton found guilty of rape.

Also using terms like "Dear Leader", "The Messiah", etc do not validate your point and are quite childish for someone who claims to work at the Pentagon. Grow up.
 
Last edited:
You send troops out with a goal. That goal is "victory". If you cannot achieve Victory, you don't have troops out in the field. It's that simple.

What I read from this was, should O be Prez when bin Laden dies and or is captured, he'll pull the plug and send everyone home.

That's what I read from it. That and hes not very historically well versed...
 
The real question is... define "winning".

The Taliban is destroyed to the point that the word, "Taliban", is considered blasphamy in that part of the world and any group like it becomes illegal and immoral based on their Islamic beliefs.

That's how you define, "winning", in that part of the world.
 
Your post didn't have anything to do with what I said, so now you have a chance to be productive.

oh piss off:roll: I posted historical examples (having actually read the article) and you,ve just posted partisan filth.
 
Last edited:
So Obama doesn't like the word Victory in certain contexts. i guess we learned something new about his preference of words choice.

People who are bent on exploiting the ignorance of others always take a phrase or a word of someone with an opposing view and rip it out of context.
He Obviously Doesn't like using the word in the context of victory "over" Afghanistan as a independent country. That is something i don't think any American wants. But what we do want is victory over the Taliban and Al quada.
That was the purpose of the invasion, and in securing a victory over our enemies, we will also secure victory for the Afghan people and their country, Not "over" them.

But of course continue exploiting the ignorance of people who will only look at a word face Value.

Obama's a terrorist! and he is a Muslim, and he wasnt born here!!!!
give me a break people.
BTW i voted for MCcain
 
So accusations equate to guilt? No where was Clinton found guilty of rape.

Nowhere was the Rapsit charged with rape.

Then again, OJ wasn't guilty of double homicide, either.

Since I"m not a court of law, I'm able to impose my own judgements after reviewing the evidence.

Since your judgements are wrong, they don't matter.
 
Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan - Political News - FOXNews.com

I'm sorry, we're not there for victory, just to.. keep Al-quada from attacking us again...

Our President just admitted he doesn't want Victory, he's ashamed of defeating our enemies... What a freaking moron.

What? He never said he didn't want victory or he was ashamed of defeating our enemies. This is just another example of an over active hyper partisan gland effecting how you post.

:roll:
 
You send troops out with a goal. That goal is "victory". If you cannot achieve Victory, you don't have troops out in the field. It's that simple.

What I read from this was, should O be Prez when bin Laden dies and or is captured, he'll pull the plug and send everyone home.

That's what I read from it. That and hes not very historically well versed...

Then you need to reread the ****ing article.
 
Nowhere was the Rapsit charged with rape.

Then again, OJ wasn't guilty of double homicide, either.

Since I"m not a court of law, I'm able to impose my own judgements after reviewing the evidence.

Since your judgements are wrong, they don't matter.

So in other words, you have nothing factual to back up your lies, just the usually partisan hackery of calling someone a rapist that has not raped anyone, Got it. I thought you were against slander, after all the defending you did of Palin. So I guess you are quite ok with accusing someone of guilt when it hasn't been brought before trial.

You are right about one thing, you are not a court of law, so your OPINION and your Judgment means nothing to the real world.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
Then you need to reread the ****ing article.

I read the article, you're partisan lefty blinders keep you from seeing anything but leg tingling excrement dripping from the article.
 
"Victory" is not a mission objective. That was the problem of the last administration. You have to have clear goals and a clear mission....no just "Win" "Victory" or "Defeat the Terrrrrrrrrrists"
As noted before, and ignored by you, The Obama stole his words from GWB.
 
What? He never said he didn't want victory or he was ashamed of defeating our enemies. This is just another example of an over active hyper partisan gland effecting how you post.
:roll:
"Our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States".

That's how He defines our objective.
This was also part of GWB's stated objective, thought Bush's full objective was far broader.

Given that, I am not sure how or why it is The Obama supporters here feel the need to attack Bush.
 
Back
Top Bottom