Bush Can't But Its OK for this Obama Guy???

[Hot Mega]

(Now Former) U.S. president George Bush was considered a cowboy, and an all-around asshole for invading Iraq.
But people, have you been paying attention to this Non-Experienced, incoming "winner" Barrack Obama pledge his DETERMINATION on making Afghanistan HIS focus?!!!

"The Afghan government needs to do more [Exactly, Asshole!]. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism," Obama said

jeez....and everybody's running around yelling "change" and buying t-shirts with this guys mug on it, mwahaahaahaaaaaa

yes, yes, I know we're already over there in force (Afghanistan)... the point is, its not any different. Just a new puppet on the stage.

With respect to "change", does it matter to you that Obama ran on increasing troops in Afghanistan and defeating AQ and the Taliban??

Obama never said he wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of AQ...he said he wouldn't have invaded Iraq. He's said time and time again since 2003 that invading Iraq caused us to lose focus on the war we should be trying to win in Afghanistan.

Where is the inconsistency??

 

[rabid_2250]

I can hear Bush's thoughts as the troops landed in Afganistan... "right next door is the country that made daddy look like an ineffectual tool, time for payback"
The entire war on terror is one giant gray area that's compounded by the fact that most of the governments in the middle east are in power because of support from the USA and formerly the USSR. If these governments had minded their own business in the 60's 70's and 80's the current problem would not exist (a different problem maybe but not this one).
So, as seems to be the common way of solving problems, rather than solve the source of the problem (internal meddling) lets make the problem worse by invading a foreign country (and in the end under Bush not even the one that attacked us).
IMO Obama has got the raw end of the deal where he has to try and clean up someone elses mess, and achieve the initial objective of the operation.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

When I was in the Persian Gulf about a million years ago most of the guys in my unit wondered why we stopped when we did. We could have broken Hussein's back then and still have most of the coalition stand behind the decision. After four days of fucking shit up we were told to turn around. At the time it made no sense and in retrospect it makes even less considering all the dissension Iraqi Freedom has caused. I guess that would've provoked some of the more militant regimes in the region but it would have saved more than a few lives in the long run. But that's just one grunt's perspective.

Despite my reservations about Barry O'bama I feel his reasoning in this instance is correct.

 

[Nester6]

the safety of the us soil was one of Bush's priorities. During the Clinton administration during three attacks: 1st WTC bombing in 1993, bombing of the American embassy in Kenya in 1997 and bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, the terrorists weren't caught at time. The forces that were sent to Somalia in Mogadisciu had to withdraw because they were outnumbered by the rebels. Let's see what Obama will do.

Also,being preoccupied with impeachment and "I did not have sex with that woman!" Clinton's response to those terroist attacks was to do nothing.
Perhaps this response of weakness allowed terrorists to complete their 9/11 attack.

 

[Hot Mega]

When I was in the Persian Gulf about a million years ago most of the guys in my unit wondered why we stopped when we did. We could have broken Hussein's back then and still have most of the coalition stand behind the decision. After four days of fucking shit up we were told to turn around. At the time it made no sense and in retrospect it makes even less considering all the dissension Iraqi Freedom has caused. I guess that would've provoked some of the more militant regimes in the region but it would have saved more than a few lives in the long run. But that's just one grunt's perspective.

Despite my reservations about Barry O'bama I feel his reasoning in this instance is correct.

What you're asking presupposes there was a urgent necessity to go in there in 2003. There wasn't hindsight, foresight or any "sight"...

To your question though, who said this?

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

There's your answer.:2 cents:

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Also,being preoccupied with impeachment and "I did not have sex with that woman!" Clinton's response to those terroist attacks was to do nothing.
Perhaps this response of weakness allowed terrorists to complete their 9/11 attack.

It wasn't that he did nothing. The retaliatory strikes he ordered whenever something went bang were imprecise and seemingly indecisive. We (and by we I mean me and the Marines I was with) were just itching to go into Mogadishu and fuck up some warlords. But the call never came and that indecision or non-decision encouraged further terrorist attacks. I would have stayed in the Corps had it not been for Clinton's meek foreign policies. We should have been projecting power not trying to understand their motivations for terrorism.

 

[Nester6]

It wasn't that he did nothing. The retaliatory strikes he ordered whenever something went bang were imprecise and seemingly indecisive. We (and by we I mean me and the Marines I was with) were just itching to go into Mogadishu and fuck up some warlords. But the call never came and that indecision or non-decision encouraged further terrorist attacks. I would have stayed in the Corps had it not been for Clinton's meek foreign policies. We should have been projecting power not trying to understand their motivations for terrorism.

My point exactly. Also, thank you for your service and dedication in the Marines.

 

[Hot Mega]

Also,being preoccupied with impeachment and "I did not have sex with that woman!" Clinton's response to those terroist attacks was to do nothing.
Perhaps this response of weakness allowed terrorists to complete their 9/11 attack.

Untrue. It was the republican congress who spent the money to investigate and find nothing with Whitewater but ultimately a married POTUS who somewhat denied a sexual encounter with someone who wasn't his wife. Wow.

Then they took the extraordinary step of seeking impeachment over it...I guess they felt they hadn't spent enough of the people's time and money on a dick story but oh well.

But here's the juicy part; These are the very same republicans who accused Clinton of "overreacting" to terrorism, wagging the dog and bombing a children's medicine factory...I guess they were feeling a little guilty after 9/11 and needed to take out their frustrations on somebody like Saddam.

 

[Hot Mega]

It wasn't that he did nothing. The retaliatory strikes he ordered whenever something went bang were imprecise and seemingly indecisive. We (and by we I mean me and the Marines I was with) were just itching to go into Mogadishu and fuck up some warlords. But the call never came and that indecision or non-decision encouraged further terrorist attacks. I would have stayed in the Corps had it not been for Clinton's meek foreign policies. We should have been projecting power not trying to understand their motivations for terrorism.

What would have been the strategic national security objective with sending Marines into Mogadishu??

Also you forget, there was no will, domestic support or international support to undertake a full scale invasion of places AQ were held up as they were in several different countries at the time and weren't collected in one place at the largess of a government.

You don't invade a country to take out a couple of camps...that's what special operators are for. While we didn't have military special ops. in Afghanistan for obvious reasons, we did have OGAs there working against AQ covertly.

 

[Facial_King]

I think some folks on the right are seriously underestimating the ability and the will of many liberals and lefties to critique Obama and to critique him very vocally.

I honestly didn't have grand expectations, super-high hopes from the guy, but I have found him to be rather worse than I expected.

That said, I'm sure things would be even worse if we'd been so collectively idiotic as to elect McCain.