• 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!

Afghan War Debate Endangers U.S. Troops - Veterans

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: you see the difference here? Bush was actively perusing solution. Obama is fiddling in indecision.
Click to expand...

The need for active invasion was not as cut and dry, in regards to national security, as some would like to believe.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
When did he say that? What date?
Click to expand...

October 19, 2009

[Gates] pointed out that further high-level deliberations would need to wait for the return of cabinet members from foreign travels through part of next week.

"It's just a matter now of getting the time with the president when we can sort through these options and then tee them up for him to make a decision," Gates said.
Click to expand...

He also goes on to say that we should confront NATO about additional troop support before America dedicates more troops.

Gates said he did not need to wait for a U.S. decision on troops to speak to NATO allies about McChrystal's resource request, saying "the reality is that this is an alliance issue."

"We ought to do this in a way that if General McChrystal has a set of needs, it should not be looked upon as exclusively the responsibility of the United States to respond," he said.

"So I think that having a discussion of that and the fact that this is a continuing shared responsibility makes it entirely appropriate to have that conversation in Bratislava, before decisions are made by the United States."
Click to expand...
U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates | Reuters
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The need for active invasion was not as cut and dry, in regards to national security, as some would like to believe.
Click to expand...




My point is as the head of the VFW, and many of us vets are saying here and now is Obama's indecisiveness is putting troops lives in jeaopardy. We can argue whether or not Bush had a similar situation but I find that pointless. Obama needs to make a decision. NOW.
 
Gibberish said:
Obama isn't deciding to pull our or continue. He's deciding on whether to change the primary objective towards Al-Q rather then the Taliban.


While commanders in Iraq sit and wait for a request for 20,000 troop increase to be granted by Bush. Bush says "I'm not going to be rushed On Iraq" strategy.
Bush: I'm Not Going To Be Rushed On Iraq - CBS News
Click to expand...

I don't know what Bush has to do with this thread, but he was wrong for fiddle ****ing around, too.
 
Bush took 6 years to finally get a working strategy in Iraq, and we could say he wasted 8 years and never had a good strategy in Afghanistan.

The facts are Obama already okayed a new strategy when he placed McChrystal in charge and gave him 21k new troops in June.

Now McCrystal wants a whole new strategy of placing troops inside cities and towns to "protect civilians". No soldiers are "in danger" while the choices are being decided.

Not wanting the President to heavily weigh this decision smells of partisan hyperbole. Why don't they simply advocate which plan they would prefer?

One thing we do know is that the far-right will trash whichever decision is made.
 
Joe1991 said:
Bush took 6 years to finally get a working strategy in Iraq, and we could say he wasted 8 years and never had a good strategy in Afghanistan.

The facts are Obama already okayed a new strategy when he placed McChrystal in charge and gave him 21k new troops in June.

Now McCrystal wants a whole new strategy of placing troops inside cities and towns to "protect civilians". No soldiers are "in danger" while the choices are being decided.

Not wanting the President to heavily weigh this decision smells of partisan hyperbole. Why don't they simply advocate which plan they would prefer?

One thing we do know is that the far-right will trash whichever decision is made.
Click to expand...





Really? No soldiers are in danger in afghanistan right now or over the past 70+ days?

REALLY?
 
Joe1991 said:
Bush took 6 years to finally get a working strategy in Iraq, and we could say he wasted 8 years and never had a good strategy in Afghanistan.

The facts are Obama already okayed a new strategy when he placed McChrystal in charge and gave him 21k new troops in June.

Now McCrystal wants a whole new strategy of placing troops inside cities and towns to "protect civilians". No soldiers are "in danger" while the choices are being decided.

Not wanting the President to heavily weigh this decision smells of partisan hyperbole. Why don't they simply advocate which plan they would prefer?

One thing we do know is that the far-right will trash whichever decision is made.
Click to expand...


6 years? Where did that number magically come from? Daily KOS?

But, again, what does Bush have to do with this conversation?
 
Joe1991 said:
Not because of Obama's choice of a new strategy.
Click to expand...




Pathetic.... simply pathetic.



Obama has not *MADE* a choice. they sit there waiting under fire, while obama fiddles with music festivals at the white house.
 
I agree with the tone of the post, not the specific nuclear attack. You'll figure out that kinda stuff when you grow up.
Click to expand...

The "tone" of the post was a over-compensating internet tough guy trying to show how badass he is. Do you agree with the tone because you hold a similar mindset?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So how long should troops sit and wait in harms way before your concern grows. Just so I know where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion is a decision should be made once we know the commitment, or lack thereof, we can get from Allies. I also don't deny that Obama should have made a decision months ago when the request was first made.

How are troops in harms way now but not after a decision is made? Is the fighting going to miraculously stop with the addition of troops?
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
I would assume nothing since Gates hasn't met with NATO yet...
Click to expand...


NATO has failed to achieve their mission, Obama made this his central fight against terror when he proclaimed that Afghanistan was the battle that mattered. Now he waffles.....What a leader.


j-mac
 
apdst said:
6 years? Where did that number magically come from? Daily KOS?
Click to expand...

From the time we went into Iraq until the "Surge" strategy was decided on.

apdst said:
But, again, what does Bush have to do with this conversation?
Click to expand...

He's the bumbling idiot that got us into these messes, so get used to his name being brought up a lot in these conversations.
 
Joe1991 said:
From the time we went into Iraq until the "Surge" strategy was decided on.
Click to expand...


So there was a request for a surge on day one? :confused:



He's the bumbling idiot that got us into these messes, so get used to his name being brought up a lot in these conversations.
Click to expand...



And you are excuse making for the bumbling idiot who said he'd get us out. :shrug:
 
Gibberish said:
My personal opinion is a decision should be made once we know the commitment, or lack thereof, we can get from Allies.

How are troops in harms way now but not after a decision is made? Is the fighting going to miraculously stop with the addition of troops?
Click to expand...


The allies? Is that what you said? Wait for the allies? hell, they don't want ANY troops there to begin with.....

This is a weak strategy.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
The allies? Is that what you said? Wait for the allies? hell, they don't want ANY troops there to begin with.....

This is a weak strategy.
Click to expand...

I didn't say wait I said ask and make a decision based on their immediate response. It is in the best interest of foreign diplomacy to make the fight in Afghanistan as multi-national as possible. If that doesn't happen though then so be it and put just American troops in there.
 
Gibberish said:
I didn't say wait I said ask and make a decision based on their immediate response. It is in the best interest of foreign diplomacy to make the fight in Afghanistan as multi-national as possible. If that doesn't happen though then so be it and put just American troops in there.
Click to expand...


Meanwhile Obama has removed the ability to return fire until a command authority is given. Hell, how long should we wait for the decision?

I say if this is how Obama plans on running things, just pull em'


j-mac
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So how long should troops sit and wait in harms way before your concern grows. Just so I know where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

Nobody is sitting and waiting.

McCrystals new plan involves putting 40k troops inside of cities, so any troops fighting now would still be fighting.

Troops in Iraq or Afg are by their very nature "in harm's way", so unless you are for complete withdrawal, they are carrying out the same mission McChrystal laid out in June.

Your disingenuous posts are the reason normal conservatives ignore these rants. ...You can do better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom