Reply With Quote
thats the kind of break i need, micca.
thanks for caring.
Hard call there.
thats the kind of break i need, micca.
thanks for caring.
or a guy who sat in virtual silence for the last 7 years.
now that it's his puppy, he doesn't know anything else to do.
From the International Ins ute for Strategic Studies website:
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-i...tal-and-obama/
Also has a good article about how the general's remarks became controversial after NYT articles and the cables ran with it.
McChrystal’s London remarks, delivered at the U.K.’s premiere security think tank, the Ins ute for International and Strategic Studies, may have been delivered the day after Obama’s war cabinet met to debate Afghanistan, but they were the result of weeks’ worth of planning. “The IISS invited General McChrystal to address the Ins ute, having learnt of his intention to travel to the UK,” said Adam Ward, the director of the Ins ute’s studies, who added that the ins ute’s invitation had been extended “some weeks before he came.” Ward added that McChrystal appeared “very careful to appear not to be overstepping any boundaries,” noting that the general, far from rebuking the adminsitration, repeatedly declined to answer questions about troop levels ahead of Obama’s decision.
“From our perspective, we just wanted to hear him set out his thinking on Afghanistan,” Ward said.
Obama needs to do something now - not 6 or 8 weeks from now. He either needs to listen to his General and give him the additional troops, or he needs to man up and get our troops out of there. His wishy-washy position is costing lives every day.
one was enough. you're not good at managing your time.
you didn't say anything for years. what a .
one-liner with no punctuation or any meaningful content
Wow. That is easy.
That is the MOST OFFENSIVE thing you could call me.And all because you disagree with me? What a sad and immature little man you are.
The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that we were fighting to win in Iraq - and they are now a free country with democratic elections.
Obama is "uncomfortable" with the word victory and is showing he doesn't have a clue what to do in Afghanistan. If you're not fighting to win, then just bring our troops home and leave that hole to it's own devices. But be prepared for the consequences.
really? how many lives will be saved today if he makes a decision today?
I don't think that way..you're lying again..
Wishy-washy would be starting another war unnecessarily and keeping troops and material from being sent to Afghanistan for six years.
Obama already raised the troop levels once in Afghanistan. You probably didn't even know that.
You people are idiots.
Why didn't you tell the to Bush when he didn't send additional troops and material to Afghanistan?
Because you are a hypocrite.
I wouldn't be so quick to declare Iraq a "win" yet. There's a good chance that as soon as we leave, the country will collapse.
Odierno: May not be possible to declare victory in Iraq Story Highlights
U.S. Army Gen. Ray Odierno makes remark to reporters at Pentagon
About 123,000 U.S. troops in Iraq; could drop to 110,000 by January, he says
Odierno: Iraqi security forces recently seized caches of Iranian-made weapons
updated 11:00 p.m. EDT, Thu October 1, 2009Next Article in U.S. »
From Mike Mount
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It isn't clear whether the United States will ever be able to declare victory in Iraq, the top U.S. commander there said Thursday.
Army Gen. Ray Odierno speaks to reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday.
"I'm not sure we will ever see anyone declare victory in Iraq, because first off, I'm not sure we'll know for 10 years or five years," Army Gen. Ray Odierno told reporters at the Pentagon.
About 123,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now, and President Obama says all combat forces will be gone by the end of August 2010, leaving as many as 50,000 noncombat troops to advise and train Iraqi forces before leaving by the end of 2011.
Odierno has said he wants to draw down the U.S. forces at a faster rate than planned if the security situation allows it. On Thursday, he said he expected the number of U.S. troops to drop to 120,000 by the end of October, and to as few as 110,000 by the end of 2009.
"What we've done here is we're giving Iraq an opportunity in the long term to be a strategic partner of the United States, but more importantly, be a partner in providing regional stability inside of the Middle East," Odierno said.
"If you're training people ... in Iran to come back into Iraq, and you're providing them rockets and other things, I call that significant because it still enables people to conduct attacks not only on U.S. forces but on Iraqi civilians," Odierno said.
At a congressional hearing Wednesday, Odierno said the main threat to stability in Iraq are Arab-Kurd tensions, adding there has been difficulty bringing the two sides together for possible joint patrols.
"We've had some very good meetings," he said. "But we still have some ways to go on that."
doh.. nice job cs.
Its such a simple concept and you can not seem to grasp it, Darrin.
Explain it.
Also, McChrystal has given an almost identical speech in the past, but it didn't cause the uproar that it apparently has NOW. Why is that?
Anytime a general makes a speech of that nature he is advancing his agenda in a political way. The uproar or lack of an uproar is irrelevant.
I SAID we were fighting to win in Iraq - and that doesn't seem to be the case right now in Afghanistan. Also - RIGHT NOW - Iraq is a free country and they've held free elections. Whether or not they remain free after we leave is up to the Iraqis - but we gave them their freedom and made those elections possible. And yes, only time will tell how successful we were.doh.. nice job cs.
Wow...
I missed that. Can you please tell me what section of the cons ution that's in.
Why do you assume that generals who may have some empathy for their troops would seek to create a never ending war,and not the political class who recieve bundels and bundels of cash from defense contractors and who build their political lives on promoting a war.
Is it possible he's trying to simply kill as many of the enemy as possible and trying to save as many of his troops as he can, and he is not really interested in how the presidents poll numbers are doing.
Nah - that would make too much sense...
nah, you guys dropped the afghan ball a long time ago......and cheered.
whisteling past the graveyard.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
