• 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 "very close" to Afghan troop decision: TV report

danarhea said:
Hasn't Obama been close to a decision on Afghanistan for a few months now?

Like him or not, at least Bush was the decider. May have been the wrong decision sometimes, but at least he made one. Obama is more like Jimmy Carter on that score.
Click to expand...

Yes much better to make wrong decisions than to make considered ones. :mrgreen:
 
tjinta ibis said:
Yes much better to make wrong decisions than to make considered ones. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Or to make no decision at all, and it ends up killing our soldiers. Sheesh!!
 
disneydude said:
I'm very happy to see a Presdient who actually stands his principles and doesn't rush into a decision despite the fools who have come to expect that out of a leader. I'd much rather have someone that takes the time and makes a right decision than one who continually makes quick bad ones.
Click to expand...



yeah as long as your kid aint in harms way, take all the time in the world..... :doh:roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
I think there's a reasonable middle ground between immedietely and mindlessly just doing whatever a single general is asking for...
Click to expand...

What's mindless about listening to the top commander in Afghanistan? Who is in a better position than him to make such a determination? He says he needs the troops as soon as possible or we are likely to fail; really, what is there to think about?

Upon receiving the request Obama should have immediately convened his top military advisors and presented a plan in no less than seventy-two hours. Expecting your Commander in Chief to be decisive in a time of war is not unreasonable.
 
Actions speak louder than words.
He's been deploying troops left and right while he "delays" announcing his decision. That IS his decision. Sending more troops. My next door neighbor just got back from Iraq. When you get back from a deployment like that you're supposed to be stateside for a year (stabilization) but he's already on orders to go to Afghanistan in less than 6 months.
 
Ethereal said:
And what if "taking his time" jeopardizes the mission, or the troops' lives? What if it emboldens our enemies? Do you ever see a possible downside to anything Obama does?
Click to expand...

the troops are not standing in a field with nowhere to run. They will proceed with the current mission until the new mission is announced.
 
Ethereal said:
What's mindless about listening to the top commander in Afghanistan? Who is in a better position than him to make such a determination? He says he needs the troops as soon as possible or we are likely to fail; really, what is there to think about?

Upon receiving the request Obama should have immediately convened his top military advisors and presented a plan in no less than seventy-two hours. Expecting your Commander in Chief to be decisive in a time of war is not unreasonable.
Click to expand...

It is if all he has ever been is a street rabble rouser.
 
Re: Bush "rushing" his decision - only if you don't factor in the fact that Saddam had his men shooting at our planes over the no-fly zone.

I love how that always seems to get left out of discussions of Bush/Iraq. I was on debate boards when Saddam's men were actively shooting at our planes, and even while it was happening liberals didn't want to discuss the fact that it was happening. (They only wanted to discuss WOMD - ie. where were they? Um, duh, that was the whole point, Saddam, not Bush, had to produce them or evidence that they were destroyed since we feared Iraq had sold them off to terrorists or was moving them around, remember video footage showing them moving things around before inspectors showed up?) Anyway, firing at our airplanes interferred with their argument that Bush was rushing into things or that he was engaging in a "pre-emptive strike" :roll: History got re-written this decade but some of us remember the truth.
 
danarhea said:
Hasn't Obama been close to a decision on Afghanistan for a few months now?

Like him or not, at least Bush was the decider. May have been the wrong decision sometimes, but at least he made one. Obama is more like Jimmy Carter on that score.
Click to expand...

Sometimes? More like most of the time.

Anyone can make a wrong rash decision. It takes a leader to make a good one.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
yeah as long as your kid aint in harms way, take all the time in the world..... :doh:roll:
Click to expand...

Oh Please.....your words might have a little more credibility had you taken a stand for all the "kids" that were killed because of GWB's lies and bad decisions to get us into this mess.

If my "kid" were involved in this war....I would much rather have someone in charge that looks at the strategies and options and makes an informed decision than one who makes a quick one without weighing the consequences.
My "kid" is not a pawn to be used at the whim of the "commander in chief". I would hope that the "commander in chief" would understand and respect that.
 
Last edited:
Dix said:
Re: Bush "rushing" his decision - only if you don't factor in the fact that Saddam had his men shooting at our planes over the no-fly zone.

I love how that always seems to get left out of discussions of Bush/Iraq. I was on debate boards when Saddam's men were actively shooting at our planes, and even while it was happening liberals didn't want to discuss the fact that it was happening. (They only wanted to discuss WOMD - ie. where were they? Um, duh, that was the whole point, Saddam, not Bush, had to produce them or evidence that they were destroyed since we feared Iraq had sold them off to terrorists or was moving them around, remember video footage showing them moving things around before inspectors showed up?) Anyway, firing at our airplanes interferred with their argument that Bush was rushing into things or that he was engaging in a "pre-emptive strike" :roll: History got re-written this decade but some of us remember the truth.
Click to expand...

I do remember Bush Sr...and Dick Cheney making the decision not to take Saddam out when they had the chance in the first gulf war.
That is the sad truth.
 
Zyphlin said:
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"
Click to expand...

While our troops are left to die
 
disneydude said:
Sometimes? More like most of the time.

Anyone can make a wrong rash decision. It takes a leader to make a good one.
Click to expand...

You can't be a leader if you avoid making a decision like Obama has been doing here for months.
 
ptif219 said:
While our troops are left to die
Click to expand...

And if even more troops died to a quick, poor decision, you would be bitching about that. Face it, there isn't a single thing that Obama can do that the pathetic Obama haters out there won't criticize.

The truth is the Obama haters are more concerned about hurting Obama than they are about the troops.
 
Bingo. The anti-Obama crowd is all about how they can use the "troops" to push their agenda. Its so disengenuous.
 
TheNextEra said:
And if even more troops died to a quick, poor decision, you would be bitching about that. Face it, there isn't a single thing that Obama can do that the pathetic Obama haters out there won't criticize.

The truth is the Obama haters are more concerned about hurting Obama than they are about the troops.
Click to expand...

It shows Obama is not capable of making a decision and is not qualified to be commander in chief
 
ptif219 said:
It shows Obama is not capable of making a decision and is not qualified to be commander in chief
Click to expand...

No, what it shows is the Anti-Obama crowd couldn't give a **** about the troops. They only care about hurting Obama.
 
We know how Afghanistan will play out. There's no reason for Obama to not crack open a mother****ing history book and look at what the Goat herders did to the Soviets. Providing the Russians are funding and equipping them, we've still got to fight ****s that were armed and trained by Americans.
 
ptif219 said:
While our troops are left to die
Click to expand...

Did you say that about Bush and Rummy when they totally bungled Iraq and took years to get out of the way and let people who actually knew what they were doing get in the driver's seat?

I smell another hypocrite.

Bush took time to get with the tactical overhaul in Iraq. And history book after history book all show that unless you are willing to kill every man, woman and child, more troops without change in tactics will not work.

So are you okay with Genocide?
 
Why is it so damn hard for people to treat politicians the same for the same activities and behaviors?

The difference here is that there was an actual viable plan for Iraq based around development and oil. Guess who took forever to get that plan into action?

Can anyone name me something other then opium that Afghanistan can export and produce sufficent income to provide opportunities for its people? There is a reason I never gave Bush much (if any) flak over Afghanistan. There really isn't. Bush faced this. And now Obama has to. And the options they both had are the same and both suck. I can see why Obama is taking his time. If more troops worked by itself as the loonies here like to argue, the French would still hold IndoChina.
 
obvious Child said:
Why is it so damn hard for people to treat politicians the same for the same activities and behaviors?
Click to expand...

There's the answer to your question. There will be no treating of anyone the same as anyone else, especially if they're on the other side of the fence.
 
ptif219 said:
It shows Obama is not capable of making a decision and is not qualified to be commander in chief
Click to expand...

Oh....and I'm sure you thought the quick and poor decision making that got us involved in this mess is the first place was commendable, right?
 
TheNextEra said:
No, what it shows is the Anti-Obama crowd couldn't give a **** about the troops. They only care about hurting Obama.
Click to expand...

So it takes Obama 4 months and still no decision and you call that good or smart?
JC_CheckIt.gif
 
obvious Child said:
Did you say that about Bush and Rummy when they totally bungled Iraq and took years to get out of the way and let people who actually knew what they were doing get in the driver's seat?

I smell another hypocrite.

Bush took time to get with the tactical overhaul in Iraq. And history book after history book all show that unless you are willing to kill every man, woman and child, more troops without change in tactics will not work.

So are you okay with Genocide?
Click to expand...

You mean the ones that did the surge while democrats said it was not working and Iraq is lost.
JC-ROFL.gif
 
disneydude said:
Oh....and I'm sure you thought the quick and poor decision making that got us involved in this mess is the first place was commendable, right?
Click to expand...

You mean the way we moved to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom