• 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

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.

I wasn't silent. I was beating the **** out of GB then, just like I'm beating the **** out of your guy Bozo now. Do you realize that Operation Torch (the Allied Invasion of North Africa in November 1942 took less time to plan than Bozo's decision on Afghanistan? Why is that the case? Do you have an answer or will you go silent? My bet is that you will go silent.
 
Do you guys all get the same talking points email?

Tell me anything to back up this lie?

Until Bush left office, Afghanistan was a "good" war, and had the complete support of Republicans. In fact it was Republicans who argued against leaving Iraq, insisting on a "victory" first. Where was your concern for the troops then? where was your concern when the troops themselves asked for improved armor and didn't get it? Suddenly, when Obama is in charge, Afghanistan is "his" war and he is responsible for the troop deaths. It is no lie that Republicans care only about demeaning Obama. Your disregard for the troops (they are volunteers after all) is well documented. Don't pretend to care for them now.
 
Until Bush left office, Afghanistan was a "good" war, and had the complete support of Republicans. In fact it was Republicans who argued against leaving Iraq, insisting on a "victory" first. Where was your concern for the troops then? where was your concern when the troops themselves asked for improved armor and didn't get it? Suddenly, when Obama is in charge, Afghanistan is "his" war and he is responsible for the troop deaths. It is no lie that Republicans care only about demeaning Obama. Your disregard for the troops (they are volunteers after all) is well documented. Don't pretend to care for them now.


My "disregard"?

Tell me will. I served my country. When and where did uou serve again? I find it ing gou are willing to feign outrage to attack the right.
 
Until Bush left office, Afghanistan was a "good" war, and had the complete support of Republicans. In fact it was Republicans who argued against leaving Iraq, insisting on a "victory" first. Where was your concern for the troops then? where was your concern when the troops themselves asked for improved armor and didn't get it? Suddenly, when Obama is in charge, Afghanistan is "his" war and he is responsible for the troop deaths. It is no lie that Republicans care only about demeaning Obama. Your disregard for the troops (they are volunteers after all) is well documented. Don't pretend to care for them now.

No we want a commander in chief that is capable of making decisions not avoiding them
 
Until Bush left office, Afghanistan was a "good" war, and had the complete support of Republicans. In fact it was Republicans who argued against leaving Iraq, insisting on a "victory" first. Where was your concern for the troops then? where was your concern when the troops themselves asked for improved armor and didn't get it? Suddenly, when Obama is in charge, Afghanistan is "his" war and he is responsible for the troop deaths. It is no lie that Republicans care only about demeaning Obama. Your disregard for the troops (they are volunteers after all) is well documented. Don't pretend to care for them now.

I still support the war effort.

Are you infatile enough to think that wanting our soldiers to emerge victorious that we don't care about their welfare?

I'll echo what the Rev said: what unit were you in?

I have an even better question: what have you done for our soldiers?
 
You mean the ones that did the surge while democrats said it was not working and Iraq is lost.
JC-ROFL.gif

Not the point. Bush took quite sometime to get that in order. I see you refuse to condemn him for taking his time. And you ignore the actual problems of Afghanistan. You seem to prescribe to the notion that more troops alone will solve the problem. Care to support a single instance in history that worked with just more troops that did not result in near mass exterminations?

Just because the Democrats are scum doesn't make you no longer a raging partisan hypocrite.
 
No we want a commander in chief that is capable of making decisions not avoiding them

Interesting you say that when the decision you are heckling Obama over was the same one that Bush never made.

Apparently if Obama takes a while to make a decision that Bush put off year after year, he deserves nothing but criticism. But Bush deserves none despite not ever making a decision.

The fundamental problem with Afghanistan is the lack of economic development. And as all COIN worth its salt argues, without development, there can be no success. Now, tell me, what has changed in that aspect from Bush to Obama? Bush never made any real decision regarding that in 7 years of the conflict. Now you expect Obama to make a decision about the same thing in less then a year?

Partisan Hypocrite I smell.
 
Sure we should make snap decisions on warfare just like Rummy/Bush did when planning the invasion of Iraq. Here is Rummys outline, comeing up with the commander's estimate to build the base of a new Iraq war plan.

< . In two pages the order said Rumsfeld wanted to know how Franks would conduct military operations to remove Saddam from power, eliminate the threat of any possible weapons of mass destruction, and choke off his suspected support of terrorism>

Yep Bunkie do all of that in two pages, and of course Franks had thirty days to come up with his estimate.

I can see where President Obama might be a bit reticent before making a hasty decision on troops.

Kinda easy for us computer warriors to set on our a**s and second guess battlefield decisions, as if our adeptness with google makes us second only to…well, hell, seeing as I’m a jarhead Chesty Puller in military planning.

OK, I’m done, lets hear the usual chorus of you don’t know s***.
 
Last edited:
just one more reason why this token will be a one termer
not to mention how congress will go grossly right in the next 2 elections

that is what happens when you elect to the highest office in the land, a person with ZERO executive experience. #ObamaFail
 
Sure we should make snap decisions on warfare just like Rummy/Bush did when planning the invasion of Iraq.

he has had a year since being elected and 10 months since being sworn in

this is hardly a new development

this is just another example of the Epic #ObamaFail
 
just one more reason why this token will be a one termer
not to mention how congress will go grossly right in the next 2 elections

that is what happens when you elect to the highest office in the land, a person with ZERO executive experience. #ObamaFail

Nah,the Dems will lose a couple of seats in the midterms and by the time of the next Presidential, if the economy is down to single digit unemployment, Obama will be reelected.
 
Not the point. Bush took quite sometime to get that in order. I see you refuse to condemn him for taking his time. And you ignore the actual problems of Afghanistan. You seem to prescribe to the notion that more troops alone will solve the problem. Care to support a single instance in history that worked with just more troops that did not result in near mass exterminations?

Just because the Democrats are scum doesn't make you no longer a raging partisan hypocrite.

He listened to his commanders and did not think he knew more than them. He was not an elitist like Obama
 
Interesting you say that when the decision you are heckling Obama over was the same one that Bush never made.

Apparently if Obama takes a while to make a decision that Bush put off year after year, he deserves nothing but criticism. But Bush deserves none despite not ever making a decision.

The fundamental problem with Afghanistan is the lack of economic development. And as all COIN worth its salt argues, without development, there can be no success. Now, tell me, what has changed in that aspect from Bush to Obama? Bush never made any real decision regarding that in 7 years of the conflict. Now you expect Obama to make a decision about the same thing in less then a year?

Partisan Hypocrite I smell.
When did Bush not send troops to Afghanistan when requested by the commanders on the ground?
 
Nah,the Dems will lose a couple of seats in the midterms and by the time of the next Presidential, if the economy is down to single digit unemployment, Obama will be reelected.

the country does not approve of the Healthcare reform

he failed epically on climate change as nothing will happen in copenhagen and Cap n Trade is dead

he has failed on his 2 main commitments. his opponents hate him, and his supporters, littel by little are seeing how incompetent he is


he is a one termer, and a failed one termer at that
best thing that could happen to Barry would be assassination
than like JFK everybody could lie about what an incredible president he was
short of that, he is a failure
 
Sure we should make snap decisions on warfare just like Rummy/Bush did when planning the invasion of Iraq. Here is Rummys outline, comeing up with the commander's estimate to build the base of a new Iraq war plan.

< . In two pages the order said Rumsfeld wanted to know how Franks would conduct military operations to remove Saddam from power, eliminate the threat of any possible weapons of mass destruction, and choke off his suspected support of terrorism>

Yep Bunkie do all of that in two pages, and of course Franks had thirty days to come up with his estimate.

I can see where President Obama might be a bit reticent before making a hasty decision on troops.

Kinda easy for us computer warriors to set on our a**s and second guess battlefield decisions, as if our adeptness with google makes us second only to…well, hell, seeing as I’m a jarhead Chesty Puller in military planning.

OK, I’m done, lets hear the usual chorus of you don’t know s***.

3 months is avoiding a decision not a snap decision
 
Nah,the Dems will lose a couple of seats in the midterms and by the time of the next Presidential, if the economy is down to single digit unemployment, Obama will be reelected.

What makes you think unemployment is coming down?
 
the country does not approve of the Healthcare reform

he failed epically on climate change as nothing will happen in copenhagen and Cap n Trade is dead

he has failed on his 2 main commitments. his opponents hate him, and his supporters, littel by little are seeing how incompetent he is


he is a one termer, and a failed one termer at that
best thing that could happen to Barry would be assassination
than like JFK everybody could lie about what an incredible president he was
short of that, he is a failure

holy ****..........:shock:
 
3 months is avoiding a decision not a snap decision

When you're putting troops lives on the line you want someone making the right decision, not someone saying you have thirty days to come up with a plan.

Look how Iraq panned out, the invasion went like clockwork, as a matter of fact we almost outran our supply line….but it wasn’t thought out what we would do when we overthru Saddam and defeated what was left of his so-called army. It was a great big capital WTF moment for awhile there.
 
Obama seems to be treaty the military like a married man treats a mistress "yea just a little while longer and i will leave her baby "
 
the country does not approve of the Healthcare reform

he failed epically on climate change as nothing will happen in copenhagen and Cap n Trade is dead

he has failed on his 2 main commitments. his opponents hate him, and his supporters, littel by little are seeing how incompetent he is


he is a one termer, and a failed one termer at that
best thing that could happen to Barry would be assassination
than like JFK everybody could lie about what an incredible president he was
short of that, he is a failure

You’re either nuts, or drunk, or possibly both. Get on a political discussion board a say( best thing that could happen to Barry would be assassination) so that there isn’t any doubt who reported your dumb ass it was me ****head.
 
You’re either nuts, or drunk, or possibly both. Get on a political discussion board a say( best thing that could happen to Barry would be assassination) so that there isn’t any doubt who reported your dumb ass it was me ****head.

are you disputing that JFK is only popular because he was assassinated?

are you saying JFKs presidency was so great he should be remembered as he is, than maybe you could enumerate his many accomplishmenst, aside from being a junkie and a whore of course
 
Moderator's Warning:
Under no circumstances will the assassination of a sitting President being suggested as "the best thing"-- for the President, the country, or for anyone else-- be tolerated.
 
Back
Top Bottom