The AFGAN WAR: What is Obama's Goal?
ROME
the troops out if he so chooses, so this is now Obama's War. What a
mess!
Crossfire
Jim Sumner
What are you talking about? Your precious NeoCon radio has been
promoting this idea of a Global Islamic Conspiracy since 9-11. Obama
keeping the troops there is just doing what you flag-waving little
bitches have been demanding for 8 years.
Jim Sumner
You don't have a clue if you supported the war when Bush was in
office but now you don't, there's a word for a person like that...and
the word is SIMPLETON.
lorad
Simpletons - or duplicitous ankle-biting republicons.
They don't even realize that Obama is trying to make afgonistan save
for their masters' oil pipelines.
Generalisimo Franco
Obammy is trying to out-Bush BUSH!! Tonight he'll say: "You think Bush
in Iraq was dumb, watch grasshoper! I CAN be dumber in Afghanistan!! I
beez AFRO-BUSH!!!" He's gonna train Afghan forces..NO YOU CAN'T!!!
His only goal is to keep the Her-ron flowing to his homies in
Chi-town and DC....just follow the white lines and needle marks...
Frank
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Does Obama have a goal?
Yes.
>Is it to win?
No.
>Why are we there?
Irrelevant.
>Obama can pull
>the troops out if he so chooses, so this is now Obama's War.
Yep.
>What a mess!
Buckwheat's mess.
James Fenimore
GreyCloud
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:56:41 -0800 (PST), ROME <rom...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Does Obama have a goal?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Is it to win?
>
> No.
>
>> Why are we there?
>
> Irrelevant.
I'd say that our troops are there to guard the cocaine production.
A VFW
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> I'd say that our troops are there to guard the cocaine production.
I'd say they are there to protect the Oil production infrastructure .
And keep an eye on the Nuclear weapons.
GreyCloud
And that too. A few of the troops that have returned said that all they
did was keep an eye on the poppy population and that no one burned up a
field. They suspect that someone is making a bunch of money off these
kinds of crops.
But all in all, I really don't know what to make of all of this.
Nothing good will come of it.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:56:41 -0800 (PST), ROME <rom...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Does Obama have a goal?
>> Yes.
>>> Is it to win?
>> No.
>>> Why are we there?
>> Irrelevant.
>I'd say that our troops are there to guard the cocaine production.
Is it my fault you're a fool?
Patriot Games
wrote:
>In article <RIOdnbzwmd-2LIvW...@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> I'd say that our troops are there to guard the cocaine production.
>I'd say they are there to protect the Oil production infrastructure.
Afghanistan doesn't have one of those.
Try again.
>And keep an eye on the Nuclear weapons.
Afghanistan doesn't have any of those.
Try again.
GreyCloud
Maybe you should ask a returning soldier from Afghanistan about it.
--
Common sense is the collection of prejudices
aquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein
kee...@yahoo.com.invalid
> Does Obama have a goal?
I'd say he starting to find out why there's a war going on over there and that
wars aren't turned off and on like a water faucet. In this case the U.S. would
have to do something stupid like just up and leave the country, or Afghanistan
to capitulate that the U.S. is going to be there until every Taliban is either
dead or locked up. And quite possibly longer until they get Osama Bin Laden.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:25:46 -0700, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:56:41 -0800 (PST), ROME <rom...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Does Obama have a goal?
>>>> Yes.
>>>>> Is it to win?
>>>> No.
>>>>> Why are we there?
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>> I'd say that our troops are there to guard the cocaine production.
>> Is it my fault you're a fool?
>Maybe you should ask a returning soldier from Afghanistan about it.
I have, that's how I know YOU'RE A LIAR.
GreyCloud
Hah! Are you some kind of special stupid?
James Fenimore
-----------
"Down the wrong path in Afghanistan"
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, December 4, 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD HAVE DECLARED VICTORY in Afghanistan and begun
a withdrawal. His escalation of the war may achieve its goals, but at
too great a cost -- and without making our nation meaningfully safer
from the threat of terrorist attacks.
I hope I'm wrong. But my fundamental question about Obama's approach
was illustrated Thursday by events far from the war zone: In
Mogadishu, Somalia, a suicide bomber infiltrated a university
graduation ceremony and killed at least 19 people, including three
ministers of the Somali government.
I use the term "Somali government" ironically, because there hasn't
really been one since 1991. A long-running, multisided battle for
control among heavily armed clans and warlords remains unresolved. The
most important recent development in the civil war has been the
emergence of a religious-based insurgency, al-Shabab, which now
controls a large swath of the country -- and which was immediately
suspected in Thursday's bombing.
Where have we seen this movie before?
No, Somalia isn't a carbon copy of Afghanistan. But it shares the
distinction of being a failed state where the ideology of violent,
fundamentalist Islam has taken hold and the technique of suicide
"martyrdom" attacks is proving effective.
I doubt that Obama's "extended surge" of 30,000 additional U.S. troops
will be successful on its own terms, but let's assume that it is.
According to senior White House officials, this would mean that U.S.
and allied forces are able to "degrade" the Taliban to the point where
it poses no threat of taking power in Kabul and no longer controls
substantial areas of the countryside.
These benchmarks have to be met, the White House says, so that it's
impossible for al-Qaeda to return to Afghanistan, establish a base of
operations and plan new attacks against the United States and other
targets.
My belief is that if the Taliban begins losing ground, many of its
fighters will just melt back into the population and bide their time
until the president's July 2011 deadline arrives. At that point, will
the Afghan military really be able to stand alone against even a
latent Taliban threat? If not, Obama's deadline will be meaningless
and U.S. forces will be stuck in Afghanistan, in large numbers, for
the foreseeable future.
But even if the surge works, why wouldn't al-Qaeda -- or some like-
minded group -- simply set up shop in Somalia? Or in Yemen, another
failing state? Or in some other wretched corner of the world where
central government authority is weak and resentment of the West's
dominant power is high?
Afghanistan happened to be Osama bin Laden's choice for a
headquarters, but he and his top aides were driven out of the country
shortly after the Taliban government was toppled in 2001. Al-Qaeda is
believed to be based in Pakistan, with the freedom of movement of its
leadership severely restricted. The Pakistani government's obvious
reluctance to finish the job is problematic, but I think it's likely
that someday a missile from a Predator drone will find its mark.
The problem is that al-Qaeda's murderous philosophy, which is the real
enemy, has no physical base. It can erupt anywhere -- even, perhaps,
on a heavily guarded U.S. Army post in the middle of Texas.
Look at what's necessary for the surge in Afghanistan to succeed.
President Hamid Karzai has to forswear corruption -- which will
require more than a stern lecture from Obama. The Afghan military not
only has to be trained to fight but also must expand from its current
strength of 92,000 soldiers to as many as 260,000 -- a level that
Karzai's weak, cash-strapped government can scarcely afford. And a
nation known as the "graveyard of empires" for its legendary
resistance to foreign occupation would have to experience a sudden
change of heart.
In the end -- even if conditions in July 2011 are such that Obama can
order a real withdrawal, not a token one -- the larger threat of
terrorism will remain. The "drain the swamp" approach to fighting
terrorism doesn't work if the virulence can simply infect the next
swamp, and the next.
It never made sense to think of the fight against terrorism as a "war"
because it's not possible to defeat a technique or an idea by force of
arms. George W. Bush chose a path toward a more or less permanent
state of costly, deadly, low-level war. Barack Obama should have taken
a different course.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/03/AR2009120303606.html
Day Brown
pockets of misogynistic warlord jackasses that have been using drug and
oil money to fund terrorism trying to stop the liberation of their women
also. Its a messy process.
China is having the same problem with the Uyghers, who dont like Han
women coming in to educate their women and show them how to run
capitalistic business now that the Silk Road is opening up again.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:27:32 -0700, GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:25:46 -0700, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:56:41 -0800 (PST), ROME <rom...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Does Obama have a goal?
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>> Is it to win?
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> Why are we there?
>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>> I'd say that our troops are there to guard the cocaine production.
>>>> Is it my fault you're a fool?
>>> Maybe you should ask a returning soldier from Afghanistan about it.
>> I have, that's how I know YOU'RE A LIAR.
>Hah! Are you some kind of special stupid?
Still waiting for you to CITE your claim, ShitBird...
GreyCloud
Like you did? :D
serebel
and al queda.
GreyCloud
> Obama's goal is to lose , pull out, and then apologize to the talliban
> and al queda.
Along with the dismantling of this country.
Patriot Games
I stated OPINIONS.
Are you NOW claiming you made a WORTHLESS OPINION AND THEN tried to
PRETEND it was more by adding "Maybe you should ask a returning
soldier from Afghanistan about it?"