17,000 More Troops Afghanistan

[MTK]

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?

I was joking to a point but why demand time lines and dates and such from one president but not another. Isn't that a double standard? I just remember all the fuss when we had the troop build up in Iraq a year or so ago and isn't that what we are doing in Afghanistan?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I was joking to a point but why demand time lines and dates and such from one president but not another. Isn't that a double standard? I just remember all the fuss when we had the troop build up in Iraq a year or so ago and isn't that what we are doing in Afghanistan?

Nobody demanded time lines until Iraq was dragging out and we appeared to be spinning our wheels. If the same thing ends up happening in Afghanistan we can be pretty sure people will want the same kind of answers.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Nobody demanded time lines until Iraq was dragging out and we appeared to be spinning our wheels. If the same thing ends up happening in Afghanistan we can be pretty sure people will want the same kind of answers.

DefenseLink News Transcript: Secretary Rumsfeld Remarks on ABC "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
This interview was 2wks after the start of the war, I did a very quick google so there are probably others. The question of "How long" is always asked when troops are put into danger zones, although the answer is usually more to serve political needs than reality.

ANNOUNCER: This morning, as the war enters its second week, new questions about how long it might last.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: However long it takes. That's the answer to your question, and that's what you've got to know.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think we'll still be fighting in Iraq six months from now?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, goodness, you know, I've never -- we've never had a timetable. We've always said it could be days, weeks, or months and we don't know.

I showed both the question - to prove that it was asked from the start, and the answer, to show that Pres. Obama could answer as well without giving specifics.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Nobody demanded time lines until Iraq was dragging out and we appeared to be spinning our wheels. If the same thing ends up happening in Afghanistan we can be pretty sure people will want the same kind of answers.

No no no. Once Iraq turned around after we refocused our previously misguided efforts the rhetoric from the Obama campaign never changed. He never once said the surge worked and he simply played politics with it. Isn't that true?

I am simply trying to dispell this crazy notion that Obama is any different than any other politician and this idea of "change", a real tangible different way of our country being governed" is ever coming under him. He ahs already showsn signs of busniess as usual.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I was joking to a point but why demand time lines and dates and such from one president but not another. Isn't that a double standard? I just remember all the fuss when we had the troop build up in Iraq a year or so ago and isn't that what we are doing in Afghanistan?

Who are you referring to demanding time lines? There were years in Iraq before that got to even be a major focal point.

It's this petty shit that keeps people uninformed and sensationalized.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?

Seriously? The bullshit way in which Bush and his administration were treated just gets thrown out now? What a bunch of hypocrites the lefties are. Democrats spent years harping on everything and making political battles through disinformation and down right lying on many occasions (not to forget they were right on a lot of things too.) Now when righties start pointing stuff out it is "childish and unproductive" What a joke. I understand the tit for tat being seen negatively viewed but that doesn't mean the last administration, or the one before it was treated fairly. It is one of the biggest problems with Washington and Obama was sent to "change" it. Good luck Barack. That is if you actually have the stones to try and "change" it. Nothing so far indicates that you do.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Seriously? The bullshit way in which Bush and his administration were treated just gets thrown out now? What a bunch of hypocrites the lefties are. Democrats spent years harping on everything and making political battles through disinformation and down right lying on many occasions (not to forget they were right on a lot of things too.) Now when righties start pointing stuff out it is "childish and unproductive" What a joke. I understand the tit for tat being seen negatively viewed but that doesn't mean the last administration, or the one before it was treated fairly. It is one of the biggest problems with Washington and Obama was sent to "change" it. Good luck Barack. That is if you actually have the stones to try and "change" it. Nothing so far indicates that you do.

I'm talking more of what goes on here.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm talking more of what goes on here.

I do tend to agree there has been too much of the snarkyness in that regard.

[70Chip]

The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."

I'll agree with your first part if he does press release when he has had his 60 days to determine what actions he want to take. He really has not had alot of time to look over the entire thing in Afghanistan but after 60 days from then on is his.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."

We actually agree. The alternative to declaring victory where there is none is to tell people we're making progress where there is none. I prefer declaring victory and abandoning a hopeless and sinking ship. This Afgani venture will not end well...many have tried in the past and all have failed. To think we can succeeded is fantastic.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

We actually agree. The alternative to declaring victory where there is none is to tell people we're making progress where there is none. I prefer declaring victory and abandoning a hopeless and sinking ship. This Afgani venture will not end well...many have tried in the past and all have failed. To think we can succeeded is fantastic.

Not sure where you get your news but we have had great progress fighting the bad guys there. I think the real problem is the minute we let our guard down they come back and hunker down to fight again. I just don't think we can ignore them any longer and when we do they will strike us. I don't know if anyone knows the solution but doing nothing will some day lead them back here to attack us and another 9/11. Maybe its just a case of keeping them runing so they cannot organize like they once did. Remeber we have to get it right a 100% of the time and they only have to get it right once.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Not sure where you get your news but we have had great progress fighting the bad guys there. I think the real problem is the minute we let our guard down they come back and hunker down to fight again. I just don't think we can ignore them any longer and when we do they will strike us. I don't know if anyone knows the solution but doing nothing will some day lead them back here to attack us and another 9/11. Maybe its just a case of keeping them runing so they cannot organize like they once did. Remeber we have to get it right a 100% of the time and they only have to get it right once.

Riiiight....and I'm making progress in my training for the NFL.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?

I think you have to admit, objectively, that the media response to a given incident today compared to an identical event from, say, 2 years ago is downright hilarious.

Obama deserves every chance to try to correct our foreign affairs, but let's not act like he's going to get half the resistance that Bush would have on this move.