Moderator: Andrew
Eric wrote:Wishy Washy much?
[
Surge now (but only partial)
Partial withdrawal for election year
Final withdrawal for next President to decide
Monker wrote:Eric wrote:Wishy Washy much?
[
Surge now (but only partial)
Oh, please, 30,000 is only a 'partial' surge. That's like saying Bush only dug himself a 'partial' hole in Iraq.
It may be 10,000 less then requested...But, 30,000 IS a large number of troops.Partial withdrawal for election year
Final withdrawal for next President to decide
He should have never mentioned this...it only give Republicans ammo. I think it's there because of things he said during the campaign and to appease members of his party.
Monker wrote: That's like saying Bush only dug himself a 'partial' hole in Iraq.
Eric wrote:The Generals must have asked for X amount for a reason.....a reason that they know better than him, you or I
Eric wrote:Monker wrote: That's like saying Bush only dug himself a 'partial' hole in Iraq.
You mean that unwinnable war that is won (and...those withdraw dates were Bush's, before you try to pretend Obama made that decision)? The war that drew Al Quada into a beatable situation and dealt them a body blow? That one? History will likely show WMD's were not counted on as the primary reason (I still think they assumed some would found), but successful it was, nonetheless. Whether you can say it was worth over 4k lives is not something that is arguable.....I couldn't make a decision to go to war, thats for damn sure, but time will tell whether trying to create a democracy in the middle of hell was a good idea or not.
Eric wrote:The Generals must have asked for X amount for a reason.....a reason that they know better than him, you or I
Yeah...it was made to appease his party...and THAT..is NOT a decision!
Eric wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote: For someone whose thirst to wage war at the expense of others seems boundless, you should be positively over the moon.
Back that up please..
slucero wrote:Don't be fooled... this is a deal....
The Republicans (and their best supporters the war industry) get their war in Afganistan.....
The Democrats will get their HealthCare Bill (tax) passed.....
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Eric wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote: For someone whose thirst to wage war at the expense of others seems boundless, you should be positively over the moon.
Back that up please..
Oh, I dunno...
Could it have something to do with you starting THIS thread to gripe about Obama not sending enough troops up in them there Pashtun hills?
Maybe I got the impression from your flawless track record of Iraq cheerleading, even in the face of mounting evidence that it was all a false flag bucket of shit?
Isn’t it self explanatory?
While there is no known cure for neocon megalomania, I’m hopeful such Washington impulses will be curbed in the months ahead, especially as Cindy Sheehan and her CODE pinktards descend on Washington chanting “Hey, Hey, Barack Obama, how many kids will you kill tommorah?!”
Between them, and the 9-12 Mutual Teabag Admiration Society, something’s sure to give.
Eric wrote:I think I complained about the wishy-washyness of his decision. "Send some troops, but not what was asked for...etc."
Eric wrote:Cheerleading? Example? I see the good and bad from Iraq - something a loony lib like you cannot. Its all W is bad, and nothing else.
Eric wrote:I've stated numerous times I wouldn't have the guts to ever be in any war if I were President./ Maybe pay a little better attention.
Ehwmatt wrote:....is there a sound decision this guy has made yet?
The_Noble_Cause wrote:The decision is to send less troops than McChrystal asked - your own quote above explicitly complains that not enough troops are being sent.
What kids of weasel word semantic bullshit are you trying to pull here, man?
Stop wasting my time.
The_Noble_Cause wrote: Don't deny it, you are the forum's resident Iraq War supporter.
When the going gets bad, you dig in your heels, and find new ways to defend the indefensible.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Funny how the "liberal media" has been titmouse silent about it.
Eric wrote:Obama's Afghan decision
Fact Finder wrote:http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/rumsfeld_responds.aspRumsfeld Responds
The statement from Rumsfeld:
“In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that ‘Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.’ Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense, deserves a response.”
“I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, ‘repeated’ or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.”
“In the interest of better understanding the President's announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”
This is true as far as I know and conforms with what Steve Hayes reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD in October:
Perhaps more infuriating for Bush veterans was the suggestion by [Robert] Gibbs that the Bush administration ignored requests for more troops. It's nonsense, they say. McKiernan wanted more troops--he asked for three additional brigades in the summer of 2008--but he understood that he could have them only when they became available. "McKiernan was making requests down the line," says a Pentagon official, "and late in 2008 we did have the ability to commit more forces. So we did." Indeed, Bush sent nearly 7,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before he left office, including one brigade that had been repurposed from Iraq.
One Bush veteran asks, "If it's true that the Bush administration sat on these troop requests for eight months, is the White House suggesting that the Pentagon was incompetent or negligent or both? That would be a good question to put to the defense secretary--and President Obama is in a position to make him talk."
I couldn't reach Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, but I did talk to a senior defense official who serves with him. This person stressed that Gates has gone to great lengths to avoid being dragged into political fights between administrations. Nonetheless, he offered a strong rebuke to the present White House political team.
"There was no request on anyone's desk for eight months," said the defense official. "There was not a request that went to the White House because we didn't have forces to commit. So on the facts, they're wrong."
Eric wrote:Try and read the whole post..or just stop reading my posts and responding. Please understand "WISHY-WASHY"
"Surge now (but only partial)
Partial withdrawal for election year
Final withdrawal for next President to decide"
Eric wrote:When the going gets bad? I simply have pointed out the positives that came from Iraq. Dictator dead, sons dead,
Eric wrote:other dictactor scared,
Eric wrote:Al Quada drawn in and defeated
Eric wrote:...and troops coming home victorious after our President said the war was unwinnable along with Majority leader Reid.
Eric wrote:Are you describing Climategate?
Donald Rumsfled wrote: “In the interest of better understanding the President's announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”
The_Noble_Cause wrote:I don't think you understand your own posts.
Your objection to Obama's Afghanistan strategy stems from him not sending enough troops.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Prove it.
Talks with Gaddafi pre-dated the Iraq War.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Al Qaeda wasn't even there to begin with.
So what you are citing as cold hard proof of the war’s necessity pretty much amounts to a beneficial side effect.
Eric wrote:For the fifth time Corky...I said it was WISHY-WASHY. Send more troops, but not as many as the Generals wanted. At the same time announcing exit dates that benefit him.
I'm not in favor of sending more troops, truth to be told, although I sweat to even think about the consequences either way. He didn't make a decision...he tried to make 4-5 decision in 1...and in effect made no decisions. What he did was completely illogical. You either end the fucker...or you ramp it up and say you're gonna succeed (like we did with Iraq...even though you can't admit you were wrong)
Eric wrote:Bullshit. Here's your proof fuckstick: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/inter ... &position=
He gave up his program 6 months AFTER the invasion and 1 week AFTER Saddam was caught in a goddamn hole. You'll lie like the last 20 times we argued about this and say that timing is merely a coincidence...but I have the facts on my side. You lie every time this is brought up. I don't know why you can't ever admit you are wrong. It is sad.
Eric wrote:Who said they were? It just seems to make sense to point out the successes...and there were some...from the Iraq war. Defeating Al Quada there is a GOOD thing. Removing dictators from power is a GOOD thing. Scaring other dictators is a GOOD thing. Promoting Democracy in hell is a GOOD thing. To just keep saying Bush lied to sum up Iraq is not productive. I've stated on numerous occasions that history will tell whether it was worth it or not.
Subject:
Do Your Job
To:
President Barack Obama
Rep. F. Allen Boyd
Sen. Bill Nelson
Sen. George LeMieux
November 20, 2009
Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country. One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can't figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean-spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you but I don't think you like America nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.
After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals." Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British ? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War ? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers,husbands,and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around because we stand for freedom. I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man. Shape up and start acting like an American.If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue .You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves. And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts who was putting up a fight ? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing.
I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.
Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes
McAlpin , FL
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Donald Rumsfled wrote: “In the interest of better understanding the President's announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”
Sounds like a waste of taxpayer money to me.
Besides, is there any Bush official with less credibility than this guy?
hoagiepete wrote:No comment on the strategy. I agree...he's damned if he does and damned if he don't...sounds like does and don't...so he'll really be damned.
I tried to watch his speech, but I got completely annoyed by how he kept looking back and forth between his teleprompters, never looking forward nor taking his eyes off the words he is reading. His speech pattern makes it hard to take as well, which I guess comes from reading 3-4 words per line...over and over again. They need to put line breaks in the teleprompter so he doesn't pause in the weirdest times.
It would be hilarious for someone to fast forward a video of him giving a speech.
Ok...who'll be the first to bring up GW??? Come on. You know you want to.
Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests