Is Obama pulling out of Afghanistan?

[don_equis]

The country seems not to know why are we still there, Obama's foreign policy is weak, Iran's been busted trying to make nuke bombs, He really can't define and lacks the leadership to say what is it that he wants to get from us being in Afghanistan, after all we really should be fighting the Al Queda and not the Taliban.

I think cut the loses and getting out of there is his most likely solution, I am just wondering how will he break it down? Maybe that our attention is more on Iran?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOsI6x5z.3b0

 

[busenbust]

...and into Iran.

 

[don_equis]

President Barack Obama warned Friday there were no "perfect answers" in Afghanistan, as he conducts a wide ranging review of strategy and contemplates whether to send more troops.
After the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, Obama said he understood that Americans and others were becoming discouraged by the war, on a day when NATO announced the deaths of five more US soliders in Afghanistan.

"This is not easy, and I would expect that the public would ask some very tough questions," said Obama, whose task in selling the war to Americans has been complicated by the disputed Afghan presidential election.

"That's exactly what I'm doing, is asking some very tough questions, and you know, we're not going to arrive at perfect answers.

"I think anybody who's looked at the situation recognizes that it's difficult and it's complicated.

"But my solemn obligation is to make sure that I get the best answers possible, particularly before I make decisions about sending additional troops into the theater."

Obama repeatedly said the US mission was to disrupt and dismantle Al-Qaeda, in the kind of language which some observers see as a possible sign of a narrowing of the broad counter-insurgency fight against the Taliban.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...7c3a97272781224d8.5d1&show_article=1&catnum=3

 

[don_equis]

...and into Iran.

I doubt it, he's a big time pacifist (nothing wrong with that) if anything air strikes will take care of Iran nuclear ambitions..

But don't be surprise if he pulls out very soon, I don't think he'll go to Congress and ask for more troops, he's to focussed on the failed dragging health care debate.

 

[busenbust]

^^True. Domestically occupied, if I can put it that way. I would rather see precision dedicated air strikes than sanctions and so called 'shock and awe' tactics.

 

[meesterperfect]

War with Iran?
Huge country.
Attack Iran and the what?
Theyll become a god loving capitalist chistian country?
It would be a big mistake.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

With the billions of dollars in oil money that Iran has made since we took out there only threat in the region, so they have been able to ratchet up their nuclear program because they no longer had a military threat to from the west.


With all that money, wouldn’t they build a nuclear facility that was deep enough and protected enough to be immune from bunker buster bombs?

 

[don_equis]

It could go either way and depending on how well Obama can articulate it and really sound convincing. Also it could help his leadership domestically since he can't really define why are we still in Afghanistan...or he can answer why do we need to stay in Afghanistan and thus increase the number of troops that the Generals have been asking about...or why is it good for us to leave now claim victory and just provide backup for their goverment.

It seems like Iran has taken center stage now and even with sanctions it would not be enough to stop them from making the nuke bomb...If he was to strike their facility I think the American people will be behind him and his job approval would go up.

 

[titsrock]

He should just pull out of Afghanistan. Osama is somewhere in Pakistan. We're not likely to ever get him there. Afghanistan and Iraq have been huge money pits. We have many more domestic needs to address. We can't and shouldn't try to "rebuild" 2 countries for which we really have no interest in.

The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will always be George W Bush's failures. Even the dumbest Republicans won't bother trying to call them Obama's wars. BUT, Obama risks turning Afghan into a deeper quagmire on his watch....

It's best to exit now. Things are moving positively with Iran anyways...I think Obama realizes negotiations are the way to get what you want in the Middle East. War is not the answer anymore.

 

[titsrock]

It seems like Iran has taken center stage now and even with sanctions it would not be enough to stop them from making the nuke bomb...If he was to strike their facility I think the American people will be behind him and his job approval would go up.

You really believe starting an unnecessary and unprovoked war would help Obama win support? I don't think he wants the support of clueless hillbillies or the "gun and god squad"...

He has Russia willing to "play ball" and negotiate with us and Iran. Why would he fuck that up with air strikes?

It's almost cartoonish to consider this course of action by Obama...

Maybe Obama could then order air attacks to take out Healthcare? That's one way to solve this problem and grow his approval ratings with the gun and god squad too

 

[Baill Inneraora]

It looks like China is close to supporting the west in snctions against Iran also. Who would have thunk it?

 

[don_equis]

You really believe starting an unnecessary and unprovoked war would help Obama win support? I don't think he wants the support of clueless hillbillies or the "gun and god squad"...

He has Russia willing to "play ball" and negotiate with us and Iran. Why would he fuck that up with air strikes?

It's almost cartoonish to consider this course of action by Obama...

Maybe Obama could then order air attacks to take out Healthcare? That's one way to solve this problem and grow his approval ratings with the gun and god squad too

Neither of my comments had any mentiong of "gun and god squad", so I don't know why you have to bring it up, if you have a personal thing against God then I don't think this was the the proper thread to vent it out.

SANCTIONS NEVER WORK! tell me when was the last time that another rogue country played nice because of international "sanctions"...so we wait for the them to keep playing Obama for a fool and make the bomb whic we know Israel will most likely take it out, which would be "cartoonish" to imagine this but due to our president's behavior he would probably stop Israel from defending itself....but it could happen.

So how is Iraq and Afghanistan a failure?

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Neither of my comments had any mentiong of "gun and god squad", so I don't know why you have to bring it up, if you have a personal thing against God then I don't think this was the the proper thread to vent it out.

SANCTIONS NEVER WORK! tell me when was the last time that another rogue country played nice because of international "sanctions"...so we wait for the them to keep playing Obama for a fool and make the bomb whic we know Israel will most likely take it out, which would be "cartoonish" to imagine this but due to our president's behavior he would probably stop Israel from defending itself....but it could happen.

So how is Iraq and Afghanistan a failure?

Huh? Sanctions against countries that rely on export profits almost always work.

Examples would be apartheid South Africa and post first Gulf War/ pre second U.S. led invasion Iraq.

Because of the sanctions, Iraq had serious economic ramifications therefore Saddam was unable to afford to develop nuclear weapons, continue his WMD programs and his military was in shambles by 2002 compared to the start of the first Gulf War.

Saddam was contained and not a threat to his neighbors, the west or the oil supply. The sanctions met every goal.

 

[meesterperfect]

With the billions of dollars in oil money that Iran has made since we took out there only threat in the region, so they have been able to ratchet up their nuclear program because they no longer had a military threat to from the west.


With all that money, wouldn’t they build a nuclear facility that was deep enough and protected enough to be immune from bunker buster bombs?

Transparent.
Be more direct.
What you are really saying is that its The US's fault, or Bushes fault that Iran may have nukes.
Blame your own for everything, the trained you well.
Fucked up mentality.

Very liberal attitude, dont blame the criminal, blame someone else.

Fuck I just dropped my mouse........Bushes fault.

 

[meesterperfect]

Huh? Sanctions against countries that rely on export profits almost always work.

Examples would be apartheid South Africa and post first Gulf War/ pre second U.S. led invasion Iraq.

Because of the sanctions, Iraq had serious economic ramifications therefore Saddam was unable to afford to develop nuclear weapons, continue his WMD programs and his military was in shambles by 2002 compared to the start of the first Gulf War.

Saddam was contained and not a threat to his neighbors, the west or the oil supply. The sanctions met every goal.

Wow you know alot.
So sanctions caused Saddam to not be able to get nukes or even heavy waeapons (I know you guys get off on the word WMD's) ?

Wow, you must have been a spy in Iraq and very close to Saddam to know that.

Dude, he had billions of dollars and access to even more, saying sanctons cause any trouble for this guy is ridiculous.

Also, I don't believe Bush either when he said Iraq had WMds
I believe Clinton instead when he got on TV and said it in Dec 1999.
he's got em, he's used em and mark my worrds, he'll use them again. Bill Clinton

iraq is simple, most of the dems voted to go in and then almost immediatly started saying " he lied to us" he played on our fears.. wah wah wah..........that was their strategy along with the media to regain the power.
they manipulated you people and you bought it.
it worked.

 

[don_equis]

Huh? Sanctions against countries that rely on export profits almost always work.

Examples would be apartheid South Africa and post first Gulf War/ pre second U.S. led invasion Iraq.

Because of the sanctions, Iraq had serious economic ramifications therefore Saddam was unable to afford to develop nuclear weapons, continue his WMD programs and his military was in shambles by 2002 compared to the start of the first Gulf War.

Saddam was contained and not a threat to his neighbors, the west or the oil supply. The sanctions met every goal.

Bro Iraq is one of the WORST examples you could bring up. In regimes sanctions work against the people (those are the ones to suffer the economics ramifications) of that country and not the people in power there are still nations who will do bussiness with them. Also don't forget we did have our jest pretty much controlling their airspace for a long time.

So if they worked so good why did we ended up invading them and at war with them?

Maybe we should put sanctions on the Taliban or Al Queda...

 

[Rekrul]

War with Iran?
Huge country.
Attack Iran and the what?
Theyll become a god loving capitalist chistian country?
It would be a big mistake.

Agreed. US military action against Iran will be akin to sticking one's hand in a nest of African killer bees, shaking it around, then running off and hoping the angry swarm doesn't catch up with you.

i.e. political, economical and military suicide.

 

[Rekrul]

I would rather see precision dedicated air strikes than sanctions and so called 'shock and awe' tactics.

A precision dedicated air strikes would be fruitless and absurd. Iran has some of the largest Uranium mines in the world. Bombing a nuclear plant would not move the mines to another place or make them any less of an asset to Iran.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Wow you know alot.
So sanctions caused Saddam to not be able to get nukes or even heavy waeapons (I know you guys get off on the word WMD's) ?

Wow, you must have been a spy in Iraq and very close to Saddam to know that.

Dude, he had billions of dollars and access to even more, saying sanctons cause any trouble for this guy is ridiculous.

Also, I don't believe Bush either when he said Iraq had WMds
I believe Clinton instead when he got on TV and said it in Dec 1999.
he's got em, he's used em and mark my worrds, he'll use them again. Bill Clinton

iraq is simple, most of the dems voted to go in and then almost immediatly started saying " he lied to us" he played on our fears.. wah wah wah..........that was their strategy along with the media to regain the power.
they manipulated you people and you bought it.
it worked.

Bro Iraq is one of the WORST examples you could bring up. In regimes sanctions work against the people (those are the ones to suffer the economics ramifications) of that country and not the people in power there are still nations who will do bussiness with them. Also don't forget we did have our jest pretty much controlling their airspace for a long time.

So if they worked so good why did we ended up invading them and at war with them?

Maybe we should put sanctions on the Taliban or Al Queda...

This has nothing do with what Dem or Repub votes to authorize force etc. The fact remains that because of sanctions; Iraq had to abandon its WMD programs, was not able to keep its military up to date and therefore was not a threat to its neighbors.

The only money his regime was getting was from the trickle of oil exports Saddam was able to sneak through Jordan.

How in the world can you say the Iraq invasion is proof that the Iraq invasion is proof that the sanctions worked? That is like saying that if a cop shoots an unarmed suspect because he thought he had a gun, the fact that he shot is proof that the suspect had a gun.


Asking why we don’t sanction the Taliban or Al Qaeda is just plain asinine. Iran is a sovereign country that lives off of oil. The current Iranian regime is holding on for dear life.

 

[busenbust]

A precision dedicated air strikes would be fruitless and absurd. Iran has some of the largest Uranium mines in the world. Bombing a nuclear plant would not move the mines to another place or make them any less of an asset to Iran.

And the alternative (to precision dedicated air strikes) would be a fucking massacre.