Posted on 10/05/2009 3:30:08 AM PDT by DeusExMachina05
Should Obama send more soldiers to Afghanistan?
YES
NO
...well, at least we now know where Odumbo is getting his advice....WABI-TV
More troops? Nahhhh, change the ROE. Go wild.
Forget the poll, check out the rectum bomber video on the same site.
Better yet, do both and put this thing to bed.
88% YES
12% NO
What is wrong here? As usual the REMFs in DC seem to be more concerned with their jobs and political futures than they do about ending this war on a high note for the US. OZero said this was the main battle ground against Al Queda during the election, not Iraq, and he implemented the current policy designed to get ben Laden and his henchmen. If you want to see where OZero is going with this, note that Jones yesterday said he believes Al Queda in Afghanistan is very weak and he does not expect any resurgence...translation, McCrystal you are not getting any more troops and we are not supporting your idea of nation building.
Seems to me McCrystal’s approach may be the one that would have a lasting impression on that country. OZero’s will end up in a withdrawal as soon as he claims victory and the Media supports his claim. The real loser here are the troops who have fought flawlessly which ever way this gets decided.
McCrystal is right in noting the Russians could not “win” there even with unbridled use of power. I suspect he sees secure population centers and a “Phoenix” like program used in Vietnam to neutralize the villains. The problem with that approach is it takes a long time to achieve success as it requires the use of civil and social programs rather than what the military does best: Killing the enemy.
Vince
YES...IF! The ROE, rules of engagement, MUST be changed to OUR favor. Take out the enemy where ever they are. Shoot FIRST and ask questions later!
Voted yes. But send more troops only if you intend to win and are willing to employ the the ROE to accomplish that end, otherwise pull out. The war can be won but not without ruthlessly punishing the Taliban on sight, where they hide, and in their refuges in Pakistan. Would there be more civilian casualties? Yes. Would the Pakis be offended? Yes. Should that stop us? Fill in thr blank.
Pretty unreal how “71” so far say no. Don’t listen to the General’s in the field, what do they know?...the warmongers.
This POTUS, ala Kimmy Carter, is an extremly weak CIC, who doesn’t have the will to win. Take the troops out now before more are slaughtered for a lost cause.
The question is pointless. Whatever ZerO does is wrong. More troops for a war you are going to surrender for or less troops for a war you are going to lose?
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
Yes: but only to win the war. Our troops are not peacekeepers, cops or wet nurses.
Thank you for voting!
Yes 83% (368 votes)
No 17% (76 votes)
Total Votes: 444
Moonbats must still be asleep.... :)
Yes 83% (381 votes)
No 17% (79 votes)
Total Votes: 460
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.