Reply With Quote
"goddamnit, that was a secret"
Is John McCain keeping still keeping his secret plan to get bin Laden to himself?
"goddamnit, that was a secret"
I beg your pardon? Was that in reference to my post?
He said he had a plan too. I'm just wondering if he ever said what it was -- you know, because he loves America and stuff and wouldn't just say something like that to get elected.
I have no idea if he had a plan or not or if he ever said what it was. I don't see how is that related to this Administration decisions. If you want to address the point of Obama's strategy to Afghanistan, feel free to.
You can't understand that politicians say they have plans when they may or may not have plans, or that those plans may change once they take office?
OK.
Bush said the Taliban no longer existed.
Was he lying?
If he said that, he was either lying or completely misinformed. I think that's obvious.
Tone down the aggressive mood, please.
So which was case with Obama? He lied when he said he had a plan? He changed his plan once he took office and has a new one? He still doesn't have a plan? He send thousands of soldiers and nominated a new general as part of a plan or not?
He said it.
No.Tone down the aggressive mood, please.
Eh, Bush was allowed to change strategies several times, and he should have changed his initial strategy in Iraq much earlier than he did. Furthermore, I see the surge at the beginning of the Obama administration as an extension of the policy Bush decided to adopt late in his term. Now the report of a general that has been on the job since June is being reviewed -- which doesn't seem terribly unreasonable at this time.So which was case with Obama? He lied when he said he had a plan? He changed his plan once he took office and has a new one? He still doesn't have a plan? He send thousands of soldiers and nominated a new general as part of a plan or not?
So, if his early strategy was to follow the former Administration policy he lied when he repeatedly said he had a new strategy, correct?
Not necessarily -- but then again, it really doesn't matter as it is his prerogative to change strategy, just as it was for Bush.
I'm not questioning his prerogative to change strategy. But if that happened, what was exactly his original strategy? Did he have a new one, different from the former administration one, as he claimed often, or not? This is a simple yes or not question.
He most likely had a strategy, but changed it once he got into office and was able to get specifics.
More likely, his STRATEGY probably remains the same. His tactics are what will change.
link please.
When was that shift announced? Was the deployment of more troops part of that strategy? In what was that strategy different from the former Administration one?
Remains the same means achieving total military defeat of the taliban?
I'll buy that. It took his predecessor over three years to change his own disastrous war strategy, so Obama at least isn't guilty of mulish devotion to his own mistakes, though copping to them does make him appear a bit foolish.
War is fluid and dynamic. It's a pity our leaders sometimes aren't.
It's not possible to kill them all, and eventually, if we wish to exit with honor, we'll have to make a deal with them, as Sen. Frist so precociously suggested in 2006. I see this conclusion as a probable political end of the current surge.I don't know which is worse. In any case, it's a tremendous failure for this administration - except if they keep on pursuing the strategy of total defeat of the Taliban.
The number of troops necessary to do what you're talking about weren't committed to begin with and will never be. There's just not the political will for it here in the USA. We don't care about Afghanistan that much, and in my mind rightly. What's the compelling national interest there?
What does the USA get from these wars that's worth the blood and treasure? I just don't see it.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-30-2009 at 10:28 PM. Reason: indefinite article substituted to soften the claim
He had new tactics that he took for a new strategy. This is another area in which he resembles GWB. The strategy is opaque and is still mired in meaningless pla udes about eliminating havens for terrorists and democratizing Afghanistan.
In a different kind of war, we had to recognize that we're not facing a nation; we're facing a group of people who have adopted an ideology of hatred and love to find places where they can hide. They're like parasites. They kind of leech on to a host and hope the host weakens over time so they can eventually become the host. That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained -- al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. In other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you're saying, and you better mean what you say. And I meant what I said.
-- George W, Bush, September 27, 2004
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...0040927-4.html
So do you think he meant what he said when he claimed the Taliban is no longer in existence?
Do you think the President is going to share EVERY strategy publicly? Do you feel he has to? Or can he just share a general strategy?
Did Obama say his overall strategy is the total military defeat of the Taliban? I'd have to see that quote somewhere. If he did, it's certainly stupid of him to say and was said in means of garnering votes.
Obama may only pretend to go full bore against the Taliban, so as to prolong the conflict and hand it off to his eventual successor, and thus avoid being the man who *lost* the war.
If that is his strategy, strategic wishy-washiness serves as a temporizing move. After some deliberation, a new course will be taken.
It will look a lot like the old course, I'm afraid.
Afghanistan is a hole....but Dubya/Cheney let it get that way by neglecting the Taliban/Wahabist in the tribal regions of Pakistan...You know, the guys who really did 9/11....The Bush Administration payed everyone off to not fight each other...now those same tribes are turning back to the Taliban so they won't get dead...and the GOP is blaming Obama for the money-death-pit they created...
Nobody ever responded to this. It's an important question. Is it too much to ask just what we're fighting for?The number of troops necessary to do what you're talking about weren't committed to begin with and will never be. There's just not the political will for it here in the USA. We don't care about Afghanistan that much, and in my mind rightly. What's the compelling national interest there?
What does the USA get from these wars that's worth the blood and treasure? I just don't see it.
WTF do we get?
Besides another failing, corrupt client-state and an open-ended state of war. Can somebody please tell me?
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-01-2009 at 01:16 AM.
There's a pipe-line going through Afghanistan...and the U.S. needs a foothold to fight the Pakistanis..can't let them come close to Pakistan's 300 or so (est.) nuclear weapons
For oil.
Of course.
And to fight the Pakistanis.
I thought they were our allies, Dan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
