• 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

oh piss off:roll: I posted historical examples (having actually read the article) and you,ve just posted partisan filth.

Yes, you defended your Messiah, and made no discernable comment on the fact that if your Messiah doesn't want to define victory, he must not want victory, and thus why the **** are the troops still in Afghanistan?
 
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:

So, in other words, you have no comment to make about the historical ignorance of your Messiah and his teleprompter puppeteers. Your Messiah refused to define what "victory" was, yet you're perfectly happy that he has continued to put troops in the field to not secure victory.
 
So, in other words, you have no comment to make about the historical ignorance of your Messiah and his teleprompter puppeteers. Your Messiah refused to define what "victory" was, yet you're perfectly happy that he has continued to put troops in the field to not secure victory.

His goal is the same as it has been, to ensure Afghanistan has a stable government and is providing assistance to that.

Your pathetic and childish use of "your messiah" crap has left your comments without substance and your partisan hatred for Obama has left you blind and incapable of not being able to use partisan attacks when people disagree with you.

You are dismissed. :2wave:
 
Lots of dead Americans, something the left was eager to see under Bush, but now they're going to ignore them since their Messiah is saving them for a non-victory.

The majority on the left was not eager to see soldiers die, but don't let facts get in the way of your pathetic and childish partisan attacks.
 
The majority on the left was not eager to see soldiers die, but don't let facts get in the way of your pathetic and childish partisan attacks.

Sure you are.

I remember the celebrations you people had commemorating the 3000th dead soldier in Iraq, and then the 4000th.

But I bet you don't say a ****in' word about the soldiers "Don't Want No Victory" Obama gets killed.
 
"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.
""We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development ... those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical,"

Sounds to me like The Obama is proceeding with the same goals and the methods to achieve them as GWB.
 
His goal is the same as it has been, to ensure Afghanistan has a stable government and is providing assistance to that.

No, that would be "victory", and your messiah just stated he doesn't want to define victory.
 
""We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development ... those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical,"

Sounds to me like The Obama is proceeding with the same goals and the methods to achieve them as GWB.

Sounds to me like the Messiah is afraid of use a manly word like "victory", and he wants to have americans fight and die for no victory.
 
Last edited:
This is all so very simple I don't know why it's taken up 15+ pages of posts.

Obama and his supporters will never declare 'victory' since the use of the word would tend to provide a sense of legitimacy to a military effort, and more importantly, an administration they opposed virulently for eight years.

Therefore he and his friends will be left equivocating and splitting hairs and talking out of both sides of their mouths. The new administration's policies, no doubt, will be dubbed 'effective,' 'wise,' 'thoughtful,' and 'impressive' by both Obama and his supporters.

But they won't consider the possibility of a 'victory' in a battle they are determined to portray as illegitimate in the first place.

Ironically, Obama's election ensured that they can no longer talk of defeat. A very frustrating position for many on the liberal boards.

..
 
Last edited:
Sure you are.

I remember the celebrations you people had commemorating the 3000th dead soldier in Iraq, and then the 4000th.

But I bet you don't say a ****in' word about the soldiers "Don't Want No Victory" Obama gets killed.

Nobody ever "celebrated" the death of a serviceman. As usual you are so far off the fringe your comments cannot be taken seriously.
 
Sounds to me like the Messiah is afraid of use a manly word like "victory", and he wants to have americans fight and die for no victory.

this is not a freaking game, if you wan't "victories" and "manly words" go back to your Halo mission, the Commander is calling you.
 
this is not a freaking game, if you wan't "victories" and "manly words" go back to your Halo mission, the Commander is calling you.

When my nation puts men in the field where they can be shot at, you can bet your sorry liberal whiny ass that I want the term "victory" defined and plans in place to secure that victory with the least possible risk to my side.

I just love the way whiny ass liberals who've never served in the military want to avoid the word "victory" merely because it's making their messiah look foolish.
 
this is not a freaking game, if you wan't "victories" and "manly words" go back to your Halo mission, the Commander is calling you.
No, this is war.
And in war, you do everything you can do to win, as quickly as you can.
If you arent willing to do everything you can do to win, then you get out.
Anything else causes unnecessary loss of life and property.
 
Last edited:
No, this is war.
And in war, you do everything you can do to win.
If you arent willing to do everything you can do to win, then you get out.
Anything else causes unnecessary loss of life and property.

How exactly are we to determine victory? What is the criteria? Who or what will sign the surrender? Do you expect an entity to actually sign surrender documents? Do you at least acknowledge that we are not fighting a state, but an idea? How long do people actually expect to be in Afghanistan? How long do people honestly think a mission could go on long after public support has ended?

I agree it seems that some want to just throw "manly words" around without any context.
 
Sure you are.

I remember the celebrations you people had commemorating the 3000th dead soldier in Iraq, and then the 4000th.

But I bet you don't say a ****in' word about the soldiers "Don't Want No Victory" Obama gets killed.

First of all they weren't celebrations, but hey don't let facts get in the way of your pathetic and childish comments and lies.

Secondly, as you were already proven wrong, the goals of Afghanistan are quite available, ready, and able. Anything more than that is your pathetic and childish comments to try and do a partisan attack.
 
No, that would be "victory", and your messiah just stated he doesn't want to define victory.

It's the same goals as GWB was in Afghanistan. Grow up, your "messiah" comments are childish for someone who supposedly works at the Pentagon which I seriously doubt.
 
How exactly are we to determine victory? What is the criteria?
The Obama defined this as when we are "sure they can't attack the United States."

Who or what will sign the surrender? Do you expect an entity to actually sign surrender documents?
I believe The Obama covered this, when he plagarized GWB in saying that there would be no surrender on a battleship.

Do you at least acknowledge that we are not fighting a state, but an idea?
No - as The Obama said, "we're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies".

How long do people actually expect to be in Afghanistan? How long do people honestly think a mission could go on long after public support has ended?
You need to ask The Obama.
 
When my nation puts men in the field where they can be shot at, you can bet your sorry liberal whiny ass that I want the term "victory" defined and plans in place to secure that victory with the least possible risk to my side.

I just love the way whiny ass liberals who've never served in the military want to avoid the word "victory" merely because it's making their messiah look foolish.

Your nation, led by irresponsible, privileged rich boys who never served in the military, put Americans at risk in Iraq with no plan for "victory" and no hope of resolution. So don't talk to me about "whiny liberals" or your manly Republican patriotism. You started a war in Afghanistan that you walked away from , then started another in Iraq which cannot be "won". Your side blew it...again....leaving the rest of us to clean up your mess. Next time you feel like acting manly, go watch a Rambo movie.
 
Your nation, led by irresponsible, privileged rich boys who never served in the military, put Americans at risk in Iraq with no plan for "victory" and no hope of resolution. So don't talk to me about "whiny liberals" or your manly Republican patriotism. You started a war in Afghanistan that you walked away from , then started another in Iraq which cannot be "won". Your side blew it...again....leaving the rest of us to clean up your mess. Next time you feel like acting manly, go watch a Rambo movie.




So can you please tell us, what "non-victory" is and what it entails? :doh




so nothing? :lol:
 
Your nation, led by irresponsible, privileged rich boys who never served in the military, put Americans at risk in Iraq with no plan for "victory" and no hope of resolution.
Psst... this in July of 2009, not January of 2006.
Try to keep up with current events.

You started a war in Afghanistan that you walked away from...
... so then you disagree with The Obama and his continuance of GWB's means, methods and goals in Afghanistan?
Odd, that I haven't seen a single note of disagreement from you.

then started another in Iraq which cannot be "won".
Again...this in July of 2009, not January of 2006.
Try to keep up with current events.

Your side blew it...again....leaving the rest of us to clean up your mess.
Cleaning it up... by doing exactly the same thing that GWB was doing.

If there was ever any more clear proof of your partisan bigotry, it is this post.
Well done.
 
Your nation, led by irresponsible, privileged rich boys who never served in the military, put Americans at risk in Iraq with no plan for "victory" and no hope of resolution.

Hello?

The goal in Iraq was always precisely stated: The replacement of a socialist totatitarian regime with a constitutional representative democratic republic. That's been done. Because of damn fools like the Messiah and the tards that voted for him, they're going to rush the necessary period of occupation and risk losing the victory earned in a lame attempt to "bring the troops home" before the assurances that to goal is firmly in hand are established.

So don't talk to me about "whiny liberals"

My nation has freedom of speech as it's very first guaranteed right, buddy.

or your manly Republican patriotism.

Wouldn't know about that. I'm just a patriot, not a Republican.

You wouldn't know about either, either.

You started a war in Afghanistan that you walked away from,

No.

Afghanistan started a war with the United States on September 11, 2001.

You've chosen to forget.

I never will.

then started another in Iraq which cannot be "won". Your side blew it...again....leaving the rest of us to clean up your mess. Next time you feel like acting manly, go watch a Rambo movie.

The war in Iraq was won.

Remember the "mission accomplished" show on the carrier deck? That was the end of the war in Iraq.

The occupation has been won also, unless the Messiah throws it away, which he's perfectly capable of, being the ignorant buffoon that he is.
 
Afghanistan started a war with the United States on September 11, 2001.

You've chosen to forget.

I never will.

You've chosen to re-write history. The country of Afghanistan didn't fly planes into buildings, that was Al-Qaeda.

The only reason we invaded Afghanistna was to get to Al-Q, whom the Taliban were harboring.

Had they given us Al-Q we wouldn't have invaded them. Learn your history instead of trying to re-write it.
 
Back
Top Bottom