Posted on 08/19/2009 6:30:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Obama lied people died.
Actually, I supported this war initially as a campaign to capture and kill Bin Laden and his followers. I am on record here taking that stand from that period. I turned against the war when it became a nation-building crusade to prop up a corrupt government in Kabul. That government is now led in great part by druglords and Islamists (BTW did you know the Kabul government imposes the death penalty on Christians?).
Now.....seven years later, what do you think we do NOW?? Do you think we should follow our DEMOCRATIC maximum leader's effort to EXPAND this war with more blood or treasure? If your answer is you, you qualify far more than I do as Demcrat who "blindly" follows the president?
I don't blindly follow anybody nor do I see the world as I wish it were. The question posed was should we have gone to war in Afghanistan with the Taliban and Al Qaeda after the attacks of 9/11. Only an idiot, like you evidently, would sit idly by while they launched another attack. This isn't hard stuff. When America is attacked we respond. The amount of force we responded with is debatable, the fact that we should have responded should not be. You sure you're not a democrat?
Actually, I supported this war initially as a campaign to capture and kill Bin Laden and his followers. I am on record here taking that stand from that period. I turned against the war when it became a nation-building crusade to prop up a corrupt government in Kabul. That government is now led in great part by druglords and Islamists (BTW did you know the Kabul government imposes the death penalty on Christians?).
Now.....seven years later, what do you think we should do NOW?? Do you think we should follow our DEMOCRATIC maximum leader's effort to EXPAND this war with more blood or treasure? If your answer is you, you qualify far more than I do as a Democrat who "blindly" follows the president?
True and this administration is only interested in keeping the same status quo. We must support our troops more than ever before.
Wait a minute! Wasn’t this the ‘good war’, the one they thought that President Bush should have been concentrating on, instead of going after WMDs in Iraq? I guess they didn’t really mean that. No shock, there.
Which, according to your brilliant analysis makes you one of the stupid ones. Who am I to question that judgement?
I turned against the war when it became a nation-building crusade to prop up a corrupt government in Kabul. That government is now led in great part by druglords and Islamists (BTW did you know the Kabul government imposes the death penalty on Christians?).
That's a defensible position to take. I don't agree with it but it isn't from Looney Tunesville like your initial idiotic assertion.
Now.....seven years later, what do you think we do NOW?? Do you think we should follow our DEMOCRATIC maximum leader's effort to EXPAND this war with more blood or treasure? If your answer is you, you qualify far more than I do as Demcrat who "blindly" follows the president?
The name of the POTUS doesn't much concern me when we are at war with people who want to kill as many of us as they can. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are our enemies. My views are simple. Find them kill them. No Gitmo, no miranda and no lawyers.
Afghanistan is a tough nut as you seem to know because of it's geography. But Afghanistan is unlike Vietanm in that the insurgency there doesn't have a lot of popular support so while I'm not a big fan of President Obama or President Karzai I think we have more work to do there. We can do it now or go back and do it later when they have had plenty of time to plan and execute the next attack without GI's, Marines and US Air Power hunting and killing their sorry asses. I choose now, your mileage may vary.
The current war is futile without bombing the northern Pakistan villages to dust. Sending more troops won't yield an absolute victory. It's time to eliminate the enemy with bombers.
This is a WaPo poll. Anyone who believes it should be very suspect of their gulibility. I am not saying that a lot of dimwits don’t support the war, I do say the 7 out of 10 seems high. Plus, most conservatives I know do not support Bozo’s war policies, mainly because of his “don’t shoot back” orders. A10s can’t even shoot now, they have to “make a loud noise” and scare the poor little terrorists. Who in their right mind would want our troops engaging in a war in which they can’t shoot back if a civilian might be in the area?
Is any war “worth fighting for” for a democrat?
When will Obama tell us what his objective is? Is it to kill Taliban? Build a National gov’t in Afghanistan? What would we use as a benchmark(s) for deciding success?
You got me there. My original position was misguided or "stupid" if you prefer. I wrongly gambled that Bush would not to turn this into a nation-building operation and permanent occupation for the mere sake of occupation. In retrospect, I should have refused to compromise and backed a a targeted letter of Marque and Reprisal but then (like many) I was too influenced by the hysteria of the moment. Look what that that got us!!
the Taliban are our enemies. My views are simple. Find them kill them. No Gitmo, no miranda and no lawyers.
Who is "them?" The Taliban is a loose collection of different warlords, clans, tribal, and religious (mostly Pashtun) and elements. It is not a distinct entity. Defeating "them" is like nailing jelly to the wall. Ever since Alexander, it has been ever thus with Afghan insurgents.
Anyone who takes up arms against Karzai is pretty much lumped into that category both by the U.S. and Karzai but that doesn't mean such lumping reflects the realities.
Face it: the drain the swamp theory(so beloved by the hubris-ridden neocons who led us down this expensive merry path) ain't working, especially when the corrupt and unpopular Afghan govenrment is a swamp which breeds its own mosquitos on a daily basis.
Plenty of them. The Democrats were aptly described as "the party of war" in the twentieth century. Right now, the Democratic Obama (backed up by the Democratic leadership in both Houes) is pursuing an even more hawkish policy than Bush in Afghanistan.
Chicken in chief, you can drop the hawk part.
This was so wearingly predictable, as utterly tiresome as the retrospective idolatry of the Woodstock epiphany on its 40th anniversary.
It was obvious from the beginning that the pop-left’s nominal support for the Afghan campaign was simply misdirection, a false alternative put forward only so long as it was useful for undermining the struggle in Iraq. They intended all along to turn against the Afghanistan operation as soon as Iraq was out of the picture.
They never dreamed that success, rather than the failure for which they lusted, would be the outcome in Iraq but, one way or the other, they are now free to assert their true position on Afghanistan, their true “feelings.” This is simply a reversion to the position they held before the Iraq operation, when Chomsky screamed genocide, the Berkeley city council voted unanimously to condemn military action, and Robert Fisk blamed his richly deserved beating on the dire effects of American bombing.
The left profits from defeat, as dramatically demonstrated by their iconic victory in Vietnam. They own it. They will do whatever is in their power to bring it about, as reflexively and predictably as the sun rises in the east.
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.