Best parts of Obama's Afghanistan speech

[clambake]

I stated that BHO ties the militaries hand. Not that he doesn't increase the number of troops. The troops mean nothing if it is so he can get reelected. Mchrystle asked for an amount on troops with an amount of time. BHO gave him 30k and 18 months. What commander ever did that in america's history? What do you think the enemy is doing after hearing a timetable? Ill stay on point though. What I meant was that he is making Rules of Engagement (ROE) more difficult to hold terrorists. BHO has made it more difficult to hold and detain terrorists in a war zone.

how much support should we give a corrupt regime?

would you give your life for that?

[spursncowboys]

Is everyone who fights us in Afghanistan a terrorist?

Are you saying there are groups there fighting us that are not terrorists? Do you have proof or is it just that it is too absolute for you? Honestly these lawyer def are getting old. Time is spent on this little part of the post over and over. It seems to me to be a cop out for people who like to argue and not discuss.

[clambake]

Is everyone who fights us in Afghanistan a terrorist?

yes, you see, that way we can justify our actions. all of them.

[Winehole23]

Mchrystle asked for an amount on troops with an amount of time. BHO gave him 30k and 18 months. What commander ever did that in america's history?

Obama's deliberations didn't strike me as being dilatory or unreasonable. If the situation was so bad that the troops were needed immediately -- which I don't recall McChrystal saying -- perhaps Obama's predecessor left the US mission in Afghanistan (and the US forces already there) on the back burner too long. If between election day and this summer everything suddenly went to in Afghanistan, that could have something to do with the previous six years of inattention and neglect.

[Winehole23]

Are you saying there are groups there fighting us that are not terrorists?

I sure wouldn't rule it out.

[Winehole23]

We've been in Afghanistan for eight years now. We prop up a corrupt regime despised by Afghans, that is too weak to provide them with very much service, protection or help.

I'd say there's ample cause for legitimate resistance to our presence there. It's hardly unthinkable that a solid majority of Taliban fighters hate us being there far more than they love, or even like, OBL. They view us as occupiers and colonizers in their land. Are they very far wrong?

How long will do you think we will have to stay there to convince them we aren't?

[clambake]

it's not about who ignored afghanistan for years, it's about who's in office now.

why doesn't snc fight for this corrupt regime?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess since the previous administration rushed into a war now the dead enders want an impulsive commander in chief. It's peculiar timing because there has been dirthering that cost lives in the last 9 yrs but the dead enders only seemed concerned about it over the last 3 months...

that's weird..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Are you saying there are groups there fighting us that are not terrorists? Do you have proof or is it just that it is too absolute for you? Honestly these lawyer def are getting old. Time is spent on this little part of the post over and over. It seems to me to be a cop out for people who like to argue and not discuss.

your posts make less and less sense as we go along.

[clambake]

it's not weird at all. they don't care about the dead during their time.

i don't like this plan. it's dirty to help this regime.

just remember where it came from.

[lefty]

New Obama Military Rules of Engagement:, Don’t shoot back
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2384383/posts
Obama gives military's interrogation rules to CIA
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...ons/index.html

Taking 100days to decide to keep or not keep plan for afghanistan.

I don't have time to keep trying to find sources for this, so I ask you. What has BHO done to help the military fulfill it's missions? Anything specifically?

What mission?

Getting enough opium ?

[spursncowboys]

We've been in Afghanistan for eight years now. We prop up a corrupt regime despised by Afghans, that is too weak to provide them with very much service, protection or help.

I'd say there's ample cause for legitimate resistance to our presence there. It's hardly unthinkable that a solid majority of Taliban fighters hate us being there far more than they love, or even like, OBL. They view us as occupiers and colonizers in their land. Are they very far wrong?

How long will do you think we will have to stay there to convince them we aren't?

If I understand you, you are saying that people can join terrorist groups for reasons different, and that difference will make them non-terrorists. Once again I think you getting caught up in defintions in your attempt to argue with me instead of discuss the op. You do this alot.

Afghanistan has never had a central government. The fact that we are trying to create on and being unsuccessful doesn't mean we are failing. Also your provocative use of prop is wrong. We helped for elections to happen. It may have elected the wrong guy but so did AMerica, and not just once. We survived and with checks and balances so will Afghanistan. We didn't prop Karzi. He has been reelected. His opponent is not being killed or suppressed so I say it is pretty good news out of a bad situation. It wasn't long ago that the MSM were writing about how much Iraq would be more like Afghanistan, then we would be doing so much better in Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban have, coincidentally, gotten more powerful as the terrorists in Iraq have lost power. This is a worldwide connection of terrorist networks, regardless if you idealist, isolationist, naive, elitist libs are realistic to acknowledge it.

[spursncowboys]

Obama's deliberations didn't strike me as being dilatory or unreasonable. If the situation was so bad that the troops were needed immediately -- which I don't recall McChrystal saying -- perhaps Obama's predecessor left the US mission in Afghanistan (and the US forces already there) on the back burner too long. If between election day and this summer everything suddenly went to in Afghanistan, that could have something to do with the previous six years of inattention and neglect.

Doing the blame game again?? So that means Truman gets all the credit for WW2?
When the Dem's first attacked bush for Afghanistan to a year later-it was better than a year after BHO (who got elected on the stand that he would focus on Afgan)

[clambake]

Doing the blame game again??

you like to ignore creations from their origin....when it suits your agenda.

So that means Truman gets all the credit for WW2?

japan should get credit.

[Winehole23]

If the roles were reversed, SnC, and a superior Islamic state ousted our own government for giving succor to terrorists, and occupied the USA for a decade, would you bow to the puppet government supported by the Islamic occupiers, or would you be cheering the men trying to cut off their heads and blow them up?