Obama Is Getting Your Sons And Daughters Killed In Afghanistan

You might want to know your left from your right. LOL

lalith: About 50 thousand American sons were killed in NAM. I knew a few that were killed and I knew many that were lucky enough to come back home in one piece. That war was brought to the fore by a Democratic president (JFK) and was put in full motion by a Democratic president (LBJ). WWI and WWII, as well as the Korean War were all wars that started under a Democratic Administration.. A Democratic President issued the orders to drop both atomic bombs on Japan. Those are the facts . . . . And while I'm on the topic of facts, I sincerely believe that Obama is out in left field with a hockey stick. In other words, I don't believe that Obama has a clue when it comes to fighting a war--or much else for that matter . . . .

@albertacowpoke: Don't forget that while he was sitting on the fence, BHO kept hammering home the message that Afghanistan is where we should be fighting.

Excellent take, cowboy.

Say, you don't play the fiddle by any chance, do you?

Cynic, perhaps we need to look at the whole region as a whole and see how Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the greater middle east fit together. 

Since we.re not insiders, only those that made the decision to invade Iraq can answer the question why it was done.  My judgment is still out.  We must remember that the U.S. Congress supported this invasion initially.  It is also noteworthy that the Clinton Administration came up with the Regime Change policy for Iraq.

My point about the war in Afghanistan was that Obama embraced this war during his primaries and the actual campaign for President. 

He appointed General McChrystal and, with great fanfare, in March of this year announced the new strategy for Afghanistan.

The fact is that President Obama had put Afghanistan on the backburner in favour of domestic policies.  The trouble is, even with domestic policies, he let the Congress take the lead.  That.s why there is now such a mess in Health Care Reform, which most Americans see as a necessary evil.  Americans want Health Care Reform but not the mess Congress came up with.  I think the blame game needs to stop and leadership demonstrated. 

I also wish that the very-left, as you call yourself ,would have remembered during the Chretien years that the deficit in Canada was reduced because of the previous conservative governments introduction of the GST and the ratification of the Free Trade agreement with the U.S.  In this case, however, the Liberals are quick to point out how wonderful and entitled to govern they are.

OHhhh!  Now we get  it!  LOL  This is truly hilarious...

Is that a reply to me. Roy?

If so it would be nice if you hit reply, if not I apologise.

Though - the nukes that Pakistan has, I would hazard a bet they are safer than you think. 

The Taleban are fighting a defensive battle against the Pakistan army - and they are no slouches, they have, on a couple of occasions, had a stand off with the Indian Army/forces. And they are in an area that they know much more that either the US or UK know.

Add to that, if you really, which I know you don't deep down, think that the Taleban had to the chance to hit the US; the US would take them out in a New York minute. 

On the international game there is only one country that loses nukes like there is no tomorrow, and that is the US herself - next to that Russia. Time to get rid of nukes as a whole?

The Taleban are no match for the Pakistan forces - they know it and so do the US. And, more importantly, so do Pakistan. Visit Lahore - you will see that Pakistan is not such a backward nation as Fox keeps telling you that it is.

nanute: what exactly is your definition of  circular logic by the way? How much more specific and explicit do I have to be here?

I'll say it again: Yes! I honestly believe that Obama's policies (or lack thereof) and indecisiveness are getting America's sons and daughters killed in Afghanistan. Obama--just like Bush and other presidents before him-- is the guy that has the power to pull the troops out of the region with one fell swoop of his pen, isn't he? The troops just can't pick up and leave of their own accord--can they? And what kind of logic is it when you imply that the more troops that are sent to Afghanistan the more of them will be killed? Talk about circular logic! If we follow that logic to its conclusion, we end up with this: There is a direct and positive relationship between the number of troops that are sent to Afghanistan and the number of troops that get killed..e.g.,  if there's a ten-fold increase in the amount of troops sent to Afghanistan, then there will be a corresponding ten-fold increase in the amount of troops killed. Therefore no matter how many troops we send to Afghanistan--even if it's a million--the percentage of troops that will be killed is an unwavering constant number which necessarily implies that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will invariably respond to any American troop increase by proportionally increasing their numbers.  I completely get the fact that many Americans are  ideologues and died-in-the-wool "progressive" Democrats that are convinced  that Obama is the second coming. Moreover no one will ever convince them that both American political parties share the blame when it comes to many of the nation's ills.Their motto might as well be: Democrats good! Republicans bad! 

The Afghanistan  war is Obama's war. Indeed, Obama and member's of his Democratic Party told us, in essence, and vis a vis their constant criticism of Bush, that Afghanistan should have been the focus right from the get-go. And ostensibly, to those ends, Obama selected a highly experienced and respected general (Stanley McChrystal) to head up operations in Afghanistan. But instead of putting faith and confidence in General McChrystal's analysis and conclusions in regard to how the Afghanistan war should be fought, and honoring General McChrystal's on-going requests for additional troops, Obama is holding the equivalent of focus sessions that are attended by many that wouldn't know one end of a gun from the other let alone how to fight and win a war.

It's painfully obvious that the Obama administration has either its own definition of war, or that it views the situation in Afghanistan as something other than a war. And if Obama views the Afghanistan situation as something other than a war, then he needs to come clean with the American people and tell them what's on his mind. What's also  painfully obvious is that Obama can't make up his mind about what to do in Afghanistan,.owing, in large part, to pure and unadulterated ideological politics and fear of alienating his hard-left/progressive political base. Meanwhile, American and NATO troops continue to be KIA in Afghanistan in increasing numbers. My solution to the problem ( in answer to your question  "what policies of Obama in regard to Afghanistan you would support".) is simply this: If Obama believes that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are terrorists and enemies of America then he needs to allow Gen. McChrystal and the military to do the job. In other words, give our troops whatever they need and the green light to flush out and kill as many terrorists as they can just like the Marines were given the green light in places such as Iwo Jima and the Army was given in Normandy during WWII. On the other hand, if Obama believes that the situation in Afghanistan is something other than a war, then he needs to immediately bring the American troops home and incorporate other methods to achieve  his desired outcome--whatever that desired outcome may be . . . .

No, Obama chose to make it 'his' war, much as Nixon (that comparison again) made Viet Nam, his war.

Thanks mudricky! Sincerely appreciated!

QueensHart: Thanks so much for your comment! Call me a "broken record"!   I more often than not take advantage of any opportunity to assert my sincere belief that ideologues--no matter what side of the American political spectrum  they're on--muck up the works for the rest of us and stifle any progress in the attainment of a better America. If Bush were in office, I'd have a lot of negative things to say about him too! But at this point in time, Obama, as Commander in Chief, happens to be it! And as many of us know, the ideologues, in spite of the facts, will always cheer-lead for their team because, to them, the ends always justify the means . . . .