Is Obama pulling out of Afghanistan?

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?

SANCTIONS DID WORK! That's the point! Saddam was isolated, he had no WMD (as we found out) and so the fuck what if he was using his "Oil for Food" money to put Gold-plated shitters in his palaces? Why should we care how he misspent his money?

The fact is we would all be better off if we hadn't invaded Iraq. We would have saved almost 5000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and not to mention the trillion or so we've committed to this boondoggle.

We had every right to go into Afghanistan, destroy al-Qaeda and whomever helped Osama (aka The Taliban). It's just Bush never thought about "what now" once it became apparent that Osama had slipped across to Pakistan.

Amassing an army in Afghanistan does nothing now. It's too late.

We have no reason to beat the Iran wardrum either. Talking to people we don't like is cheaper and more effective and more mature than just flashing guns and talking like John Wayne and Dirty Harry.
 

Kingfisher

Here Zombie, Zombie, Zombie...
This is real simple, now everyone pay attention...

1. No country has ever won Afghanistan. Ever.
2. It's a dirty little shit hole. That has nothing productive.
3. Democrats always pull out, hence the stain on the blue dress.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Obama's foreign policy is weak

Totally disagree. He's made almost every correct chess move that could be made so far. How is it weak? Because we're not threatening to blow everyone to kingdom come like Bush did? The Teddy Roosevelt method is definitely a more pragmatic course of action with the situation we have now.

There's a big difference between weak and wise. I think the Afghanistan gambit could go either way but I also think that Obama sees that theater as a key component in combating Al Qaeda.....unlike his predecessor who was simply hell-bent on revenge against "the guy who tried to kill my Dad" and foolishly wandered off on the great Iraqi expedition.
 

Legzman

what the fuck you lookin at?
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

Surprise! Obama has no fucking clue about war. Who didn't see this coming??? :dunno:
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Totally disagree. He's made almost every correct chess move that could be made so far. How is it weak? Because we're not threatening to blow everyone to kingdom come like Bush did? The Teddy Roosevelt method is definitely a more pragmatic course of action with the situation we have now.

There's a big difference between weak and wise. I think the Afghanistan gambit could go either way but I also think that Obama sees that theater as a key component in combating Al Qaeda.....unlike his predecessor who was simply hell-bent on revenge against "the guy who tried to kill my Dad" and foolishly wandered off on the great Iraqi expedition.

if thats true then why did clinton propose with heavy conviction and full intention of attacking iraq?
he actually started , bombed a few things then stop.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

and why did so many prominent democrats vote to go into iraq?
please dont say they were tricked.
i just cant blame only bush, because the system just doesnt work that way.
 
Bush's Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are surely an unnecessary waste of taxpayers $$$ and fiscally unconservative
 
Totally disagree. He's made almost every correct chess move that could be made so far. How is it weak? Because we're not threatening to blow everyone to kingdom come like Bush did? The Teddy Roosevelt method is definitely a more pragmatic course of action with the situation we have now.

There's a big difference between weak and wise. I think the Afghanistan gambit could go either way but I also think that Obama sees that theater as a key component in combating Al Qaeda.....unlike his predecessor who was simply hell-bent on revenge against "the guy who tried to kill my Dad" and foolishly wandered off on the great Iraqi expedition.



Iran test-fires short-range missiles

TEHRAN (AP) - Iran said it successfully test-fired short-range missiles during drills Sunday by the elite Revolutionary Guard, a show of force days after the U.S. and its allies condemned Tehran over a newly revealed underground nuclear facility that was being secretly constructed.

English-language Press TV reported the Fateh-110, Tondar-69 and Zelzal were test fired in a missile defense exercise, but did not give specifics on range or other details. All are short-range, surface-to-surface missiles.

Gen. Hossein Salami, head of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force, told reporters Iran tested a multiple missile launcher for the first time. Press TV showed pictures of at least two missiles being fired simultaneously and said they were from Sunday's drill in a desert in central Iran. In the clip, men could be heard shouting "Allahu Akbar" as the missiles were launched.

"The message of the war game for some arrogant countries which intend to intimidate is that we are able to give a proper, strong answer to their hostility quickly," the Web site of state television quoted Salami as saying. He said the missiles successfully hit their targets.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090927/D9AVJ0UG0.html


When you got the world's most evil people out there giving acolades to the president, when you got the Russians telling him how good his plan was to pull those misiles out of Eastern Europe...when you have Iran keep on doing what they want after he keeps extending them his hand...what else is there left for Obama to prove that his foreeign policy is weak? this guy is being bullied by the rest of the world, how's all that appologizing helps us so far? j(ust a lil stab at it) has it created any new jobs?

Like I said before he can come clean with Afghanistan he just needs to define what the fuck are we doing there or why the fuck should we be there for?

So far soldiers keep dying almost every day, and he's getting away with not establishing his position in that country! I am not giving him a "break" or benefit of the doubt, SOLDIERS are dying more than ever and no one is holding this man accountable as Commander in Chief.

What is it gonna be in Afghanistan??
 
Totally disagree. He's made almost every correct chess move that could be made so far. How is it weak? Because we're not threatening to blow everyone to kingdom come like Bush did? The Teddy Roosevelt method is definitely a more pragmatic course of action with the situation we have now.

There's a big difference between weak and wise. I think the Afghanistan gambit could go either way but I also think that Obama sees that theater as a key component in combating Al Qaeda.....unlike his predecessor who was simply hell-bent on revenge against "the guy who tried to kill my Dad" and foolishly wandered off on the great Iraqi expedition.

Agreed. Obama he's accomplishing quite a bit more than meets they eye because he's not out there selling everything his done or doing....He's just quietly getting tangible policy done behind the scenes.
 
Gates: Afghan exit timeline 'a mistake'

By Sean Lengell

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said it would be a "strategic mistake" to set a deadline to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, saying such a move would emboldened al Qaeda terrorist operations.

His comments are a blow to liberals and some Democrats, including Sens. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dianne Feinstein of California, who have been pushing for a schedule to wind down U.S. military activity in Afghanistan.

"The Taliban and al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, defeated one superpower," said Mr. Gates on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, referring to the 1980s U.S.-backed Muslim insurgency against the Soviet Union's invasion. "For them to be seen to defeat a second, I think, would have catastrophic consequences in terms of energizing the extremist movement, al Qaeda recruitment, operations, fundraising and so on. I think it would be a huge setback for the United States."

Mr. Gates' remarks came as President Obama re-examines his administration's strategy in Afghanistan and as the Pentagon sits on a request for additional troops from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

Mrs. Feinstein warned Sunday against a protracted U.S. presence in Afghanistan, saying the political support did not exist.

"I do not believe the American people want to be in Afghanistan for the next 10 years, effectively nation-building," she said on "Fox News Sunday."

But Mr. Gates rebutted warnings of that sort, denying that Afghanistan has become a "quagmire" for the U.S.

"I don't think so, and I think that with a general like McChrystal, it won't become one," Mr. Gates said. "I think that we are being very careful to look at this as we go along. We've put out metrics so that we can measure whether or not we're making progress. And if we're not making progress, then we're prepared to adjust our strategy."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also called it too early to plan a military exit from Afghanistan, saying that a troop surge approved last spring hasn't been completed.

"You don't get up and just deploy the 82nd Airborne and they get there the next day," Mrs. Clinton said on CBS' "Face the Nation."


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/gates-afghan-exit-timeline-a-mistake/
 
Agreed. Obama he's accomplishing quite a bit more than meets they eye because he's not out there selling everything his done or doing....He's just quietly getting tangible policy done behind the scenes.

So far soldiers keep dying almost every day, and he's getting away with not establishing his position in that country! I am not giving him a "break" or benefit of the doubt, SOLDIERS are dying more than ever and no one is holding this man accountable as Commander in Chief.

What is it gonna be in Afghanistan??

So he can keep doing his "thing" behind the scenes and soldiers can keep on dying and he's not going to be held accountable for....ic it just come down that you guys don't care as long as is "your guy" the one in power.

Will Obama stop the war?
Interview: Anthony Arnove

Obama also talks about the need to "refocus our attention on the broader Middle East" and "finishing the fight in Afghanistan." So we are likely to see some troops now in Iraq shifted toward the occupation of Afghanistan, and also toward possible new interventions in the region.

That is, we are likely to see an adjustment in the tactics of the war, perhaps even the strategy, but not an end to the war. Not an end to the politics of seeking to dominate and control the Middle East and Western and Central Asia, its people and its resources.

WHAT DO you say to people who want the war to end, but think that Obama's plan is acceptable?

I THINK that many people who hold this belief think that Obama, once elected, will move to the left--that he's not talking about a complete withdrawal because he can't do that and get elected (even though public opinion polls point in the other direction).

I think many of Obama's supporters would be surprised to learn that he's not for a complete withdrawal, and that he hasn't ruled out using more mercenaries in Iraq.

Either way, I think there's a degree of wishful thinking here. It's understandable. After eight years of Bush and eight years of Clinton, people are rightly desperate for some alternative--and hopeful that Obama will bring about a significant turn in U.S. foreign policy.

But in the absence of a large, independent antiwar movement putting pressure on Obama and the Democrats, I think we're likely to see the opposite: that Obama will govern to the right of the positions of his supporters.

That to me is the key question: Will there be that pressure on Obama if he's elected? Or will people in the antiwar movement succumb to the pressure to "give him time" and not to "rock the boat."

The experience after the 2006 mid-term elections is not encouraging. Democrats took over the House and Senate, yet continued to fund and prolong the occupation of Iraq. Many groups in the antiwar movement, rather than build large demonstrations to challenge the Democrats, have started to campaign for them for 2008. This is leading to an infinitely receding horizon of when the troops will ever leave.

OBAMA ARGUES that Iraq has been a distraction from the war the U.S. should be fighting. He supports a surge of U.S. troops to Afghanistan similar to what the Bush administration stands for. Should we look at the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan differently?

THE IDEA that Afghanistan is the "good" occupation or the "right fight" is completely misguided, in my view.

In Afghanistan, Washington claimed to be targeting terrorists who had attacked the United States, but instead, it targeted the civilian population of the country. The idea behind the U.S. invasion in 2001 was to make the people of Afghanistan suffer, hoping that would help bring down the Taliban regime, make an example of Afghanistan and pave the way for attacking Iraq.

Of course, there was also an element of seeking revenge--no matter that the people being killed by U.S. attacks had nothing to do with planning or carrying out the attacks of 9/11.

All of this has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, making the world safer or protecting people in the United States from attack. In fact, we have destabilized the region, made it more violent, killed thousands of civilians, escalated tensions between Afghanistan and its neighbors, and made the United States more isolated and hated, and therefore more likely to be the target of attacks.

for complete article:

http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/04/will-obama-stop-the-war
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
^ i caught that too.......
he only tried to sell the stimulus and now the healthcare change, he didnt try to sell van jones or lloyd
 
Gates: Afghan exit timeline 'a mistake'

"The Taliban and al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, defeated one superpower," said Mr. Gates on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, referring to the 1980s U.S.-backed Muslim insurgency against the Soviet Union's invasion. "For them to be seen to defeat a second, I think, would have catastrophic consequences in terms of energizing the extremist movement, al Qaeda recruitment, operations, fundraising and so on. I think it would be a huge setback for the United States."

Mr. Gates' remarks came as President Obama re-examines his administration's strategy in Afghanistan and as the Pentagon sits on a request for additional troops from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

"You don't get up and just deploy the 82nd Airborne and they get there the next day," Mrs. Clinton said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

No disagreement here. It is a fight that needs to be fought (finally). Being anti-war no matter the circumstances is just as dumb as being pro-war no matter the circumstance. It's unfortunate but Obama is going to have to deal with anti-war people in this country who only see bullets, bombs and blood but have no idea what we're doing in Afghanistan. AND pro-war people in this country who think war is a matter of dropping a couple of nukes on innocent people and it's all over with. The more daunting task is dealing with the mismanaged and neglected circumstance left there for him by the previous administration....damn near criminal negligence IMO. But now that we've put more personnel in place, we're getting out of Kabul and going into places where the Taliban has been allowed to set up strongholds....I guess some people don't understand when that happens casualties will increase.

So far soldiers keep dying almost every day, and he's getting away with not establishing his position in that country! I am not giving him a "break" or benefit of the doubt, SOLDIERS are dying more than ever and no one is holding this man accountable as Commander in Chief.

What is it gonna be in Afghanistan??

So he can keep doing his "thing" behind the scenes and soldiers can keep on dying and he's not going to be held accountable for....ic it just come down that you guys don't care as long as is "your guy" the one in power.

It's not just about "your guy". The man understood the differences in a war of necessity (Afghanistan) and one of choice (Iraq) and spelled it out during a speech in 2002 and in his subsequent campaigns for Senator and POTUS.

Obama also talks about the need to "refocus our attention on the broader Middle East" and "finishing the fight in Afghanistan." So we are likely to see some troops now in Iraq shifted toward the occupation of Afghanistan, and also toward possible new interventions in the region.

I'm not sure where the "new interventions" is coming from but we most certainly should dedicate resources to breaking the backs of AQ and their supporters in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
That is, we are likely to see an adjustment in the tactics of the war, perhaps even the strategy, but not an end to the war. Not an end to the politics of seeking to dominate and control the Middle East and Western and Central Asia, its people and its resources.

WHAT DO you say to people who want the war to end, but think that Obama's plan is acceptable?

I THINK that many people who hold this belief think that Obama, once elected, will move to the left--that he's not talking about a complete withdrawal because he can't do that and get elected (even though public opinion polls point in the other direction).

I think many of Obama's supporters would be surprised to learn that he's not for a complete withdrawal, and that he hasn't ruled out using more mercenaries in Iraq.

Either way, I think there's a degree of wishful thinking here. It's understandable. After eight years of Bush and eight years of Clinton, people are rightly desperate for some alternative--and hopeful that Obama will bring about a significant turn in U.S. foreign policy.

But in the absence of a large, independent antiwar movement putting pressure on Obama and the Democrats, I think we're likely to see the opposite: that Obama will govern to the right of the positions of his supporters.

That to me is the key question: Will there be that pressure on Obama if he's elected? Or will people in the antiwar movement succumb to the pressure to "give him time" and not to "rock the boat."

The experience after the 2006 mid-term elections is not encouraging. Democrats took over the House and Senate, yet continued to fund and prolong the occupation of Iraq. Many groups in the antiwar movement, rather than build large demonstrations to challenge the Democrats, have started to campaign for them for 2008. This is leading to an infinitely receding horizon of when the troops will ever leave.

Nothing but rank speculation in all of that bluster....

OBAMA ARGUES that Iraq has been a distraction from the war the U.S. should be fighting. He supports a surge of U.S. troops to Afghanistan similar to what the Bush administration stands for. Should we look at the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan differently?

THE IDEA that Afghanistan is the "good" occupation or the "right fight" is completely misguided, in my view.

In Afghanistan, Washington claimed to be targeting terrorists who had attacked the United States, but instead, it targeted the civilian population of the country. The idea behind the U.S. invasion in 2001 was to make the people of Afghanistan suffer, hoping that would help bring down the Taliban regime, make an example of Afghanistan and pave the way for attacking Iraq.

Of course, there was also an element of seeking revenge--no matter that the people being killed by U.S. attacks had nothing to do with planning or carrying out the attacks of 9/11.

All of this has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, making the world safer or protecting people in the United States from attack. In fact, we have destabilized the region, made it more violent, killed thousands of civilians, escalated tensions between Afghanistan and its neighbors, and made the United States more isolated and hated, and therefore more likely to be the target of attacks.

for complete article:

http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/04/will-obama-stop-the-war

Obama was right in my view. The Iraq war was a needless distraction to our security objectives. However, this writer is an anti-war symp IMO who believes the only reason we're in Afghanistan is to punish civilians. Again, as idiotic as pro-war idiots who believe we should be all over the middle east dropping nukes on innocent civilians just because they're Arabs.

*cough*healthcare*cough*

^ i caught that too.......
he only tried to sell the stimulus and now the healthcare change, he didnt try to sell van jones or lloyd

Actually I was referring to foreign policy...which is something you can do behind the scenes.

Pirates capture an American...you didn't see Obama at a podium everyday spouting off some bluster. He got on the phone, sent in the SEALS when it was time...approved the order to put bullets in the tangos and bring home the hotel. At the end of the Bush presidency...we were inching ever closer back to the cold war days. Which makes no sense since we need the enlistment of as many nations as possible to fight global terrorism (a war Obama opponents used to claim was the greatest war of our generation...I wonder if they still feel that way since it's not "their guy" leading the fight now) and keep pressure on Iran. Obama makes a foreign policy decision and we now have the Russians in word at least...taking a stand against Iran. We'll see if they match it in deed. An American is kidnapped by the Iranian government, charged and convicted of some crime...there's no long protracted standoff about it...then next thing you know..the girl is heading back home. He immediately allows Cuban Americans to go visit their families and help their families in Cuba. I don't give a shit what effect it has on some tiny island nation's internal politics who seem to be trying to hold on to a failed form of government. It ultimately helps Americans who have been needlessly disjointed from their families for too long. Obama and Clinton have convinced the Pakistanis to take the fight to the Taliban and AQ within their borders like never before. That's a win..as our efforts in Afghanistan don't mean shit if we can't apply pressure from Pakistan.

Lastly, what appears to be shaping up in Iran is the way is being paved for inspections by the Iranian leadership. Practically though, there are hardliners in Iran who tend to make it politically untenable for the Iranian leadership to cede ANYTHING to US demands even if they wanted to. That's a reality they have to deal with.

So Iran test fires some missiles ahead of some possible agreement for inspection....:dunno: These are the same short range missiles they've been test firing throughout the Bush administration. IMO just a show for the hardliners.

If in the end, there are inspectors in Iran...that's a win.

Bottom line....when it comes to foreign policy I personally don't want to know about the labor pains...I just want the baby. Obama has been all results and no talk...Instead of as previously, all talk and no results.
 

24788

☼LEGIT☼
What to do... that is the question.

In my opinion which is probably wrong, but I'll give it a go.

Obama's health care plan doesn't really stand a chance with people struggling to survive from day to day and probably fearing that if it's approved they won't be able to survive at all. It sounds dumb, but I've heard people say it.

Afghanistan and Iraq - why waste so much money for it to only fail again? Hopefully this will teach us future war strategies if it doesn't work. Technically speaking rebuilding Iraq though.

Iran - Most of the people probably don't want a war. Not just on the U.S. side. It's the fucking fear that inflicts us to think that both sides hate each other only burning the fire hotter. Does anyone even KNOW why we hate each other? I don't hate Germans nowadays, but I'm sure I would of hated Nazis back in the day. People can change and people will change. Give it time. The civil rights in America didn't happen in a day. Just because two governments HATE each other doesn't mean the people should. You can't just walk into Iran and be all huggy cheery though either. Peaceful resolutions are very hard.

Yes, America was built on war, but it was also built on isolationism. Both sides have their faults. If we would of waited to enter WW2 it may have turned out bad for the United States. The bombing of pearl harbor was a miracle in my eyes. Not because U.S. soldiers died, but it woke up the sleeping giant to realize that this may get out of hand at some point.

Just because the U.S. was right about entering WW2 doesn't mean we should just start wars every 5 minutes.

Bush was kind of sinister in my eyes. Obama is kind of sinister in my eyes. It's very hard to trust a politician.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
if thats true then why did clinton propose with heavy conviction and full intention of attacking iraq?
he actually started , bombed a few things then stop.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Excuse me MP but since when were we discussing Bill Clinton?

and why did so many prominent democrats vote to go into iraq?
please dont say they were tricked.
i just cant blame only bush, because the system just doesnt work that way.

They were tricked. :1orglaugh

No seriously I'm not defending those on both sides of the aisle who voted to go to war in Iraq (Obama was not one of them if you recall) but you cannot deny that it was the Bush administration that led the charge.
 
Excuse me MP but since when were we discussing Bill Clinton?



They were tricked. :1orglaugh

No seriously I'm not defending those on both sides of the aisle who voted to go to war in Iraq (Obama was not one of them if you recall) but you cannot deny that it was the Bush administration that led the charge.

True but he had to have support to make it happen
 

jasonk282

Banned
Iran is now test firing long range missles that have a rang of 1200 miles.



Iran has test-fired two long-range missiles which defence analysts say are capable of hitting Israel or US bases in the Gulf region.

Britain, France and the European Union all expressed their "concern" after the tests, which come just days before Tehran is due to meet the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, to discuss its nuclear programme

But Russia, which has repeatedly resisted attempts to increase sanctions against Iran over its nuclear enrichment work, urged calm from the negotiating powers.

"Now is not the time to succumb to emotions. It is necessary to calm down and, above all, to start up an effective negotiation process," the Interfax news agency quoted a Russian foreign ministry source as saying.

Iranian officials have said the Shahab 3, which was last tested in mid-2008, and Sejil can both travel about 2,000km.

"Iranian missiles are able to target any place that threatens Iran," Abdollah Araqi, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency


See more here
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/09/2009928125148138562.html

Interesting since Russia is saying to sat calm, when these missles can be used to fire at FOB's through Iraq and Afghinastan and easily able to target any city in Israel, yep no need to worry at all.
 
:wtf: is N Korea thinking?? Action/inaction. Dangerous times indeed.
 
Top