Meanwhile, Back In Afghanistan........

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I seem to remember Obama stating he would get us out of Afghanistan.
Maybe he meant during his third term........

Well ... his second term isn't up yet!

He should have the fighters from GITMO back in there by the end of next year!!!! Just in time for the NEXT GUY!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Straw man alert!!!

Conservatives have always supported the troops and the military. y.

Just how the fuck is not paying for a war ....supporting the troops and military?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by WTF

Just how the fuck is not paying for a war ....supporting the troops and military?

Just how is NOT supporting our troops going to win a war?

[IIFFOFRDB]

[WTF]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Just how is NOT supporting our troops going to win a war?


]

Not sending our troops off nation build , running up huge deficits is much more supporting our troops than your lunacy of nation building.

We should go after terrorist like the Israeli's did after Munich. Be way more cost effective.

Your notion that constant war , while crying about the national debt is idiotic.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Is there any particular reason you skipped Carter, Reagan, and Clinton?

Bandwidth? Not sure about Carter. And I don't think Reagan and Clinton are near as bad as Obama and Bush, but I'd be ok with putting them on trial. If you think I'm leaving people out, I'd include Nixon and LBJ, for sure. And others. Take your pick. Let's start with the current ones, and work our way back.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Not sure about Carter.

I am! It was called "Operation Cyclone"! Not only did he authorize training camps for terrorists in Afghanistan, but he authorized bringing them to the U.S. to "train-the-trainer" facilities in Virginia....not to mention providing them with arms, eg, "stinger" missiles...which were a problem when U.S. personnel went into Afghanistan shortly after 911 and beyond.

Clinton's contribution was "making nice" with the Taliban to get a pipeline right of way across Afghanistan to India for the Ken Lay bunch (the infamous Sugarland, Texas meeting between the Enron crowd (Ken Lay) and the Taliban). Remember the "hearing" testimony from members of the Clinton Administration regarding why they did not enter Afghanistan to get OBL and his band of assholes? The short version paraphrased: U.S. couldn't get "air space" rights to fly into Afghanistan!!!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Let's start with the current ones, and work our way back.

That's the preference of those who wish to avoid finding the cause and doing so results in repeating the same activity that began the infection or injury. A "focused investigation" into the source of a problem offers little in the way of avoiding a repeat of the problem and customarily ends with an incorrect diagnosis...or in this case "perpetrator."

And by the way: Reagan carried on the Carter created "Operation Cyclone" and Bush II carried on the Clinton Policies (and conclusions) in Iraq, which IMO were the result of Bush I* not finishing the job!

*If you recall Saddam was given a vague "politically correct" response with regard to Kuwait from "the diplomat" in Iraq, which lead Saddam to believe that he had a "green light" to attack Kuwait with impunity. Was that said: No! Could it have been "assumed" from the vagueness: Yes.

There are two things about "commands" ... #1 .. clarity .. #2 enforcement*.

* and before anyone goes down a rabbit trail: "enforcement" implies "lawfulness"!

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's the preference of those who wish to avoid finding the cause and doing so results in repeating the same activity that began the infection or injury. A "focused investigation" into the source of a problem offers little in the way of avoiding a repeat of the problem and customarily ends with an incorrect diagnosis...or in this case "perpetrator."

And by the way: Reagan carried on the Carter created "Operation Cyclone" and Bush II carried on the Clinton Policies (and conclusions) in Iraq, which IMO were the result of Bush I* not finishing the job!

*If you recall Saddam was given a vague "politically correct" response with regard to Kuwait from "the diplomat" in Iraq, which lead Saddam to believe that he had a "green light" to attack Kuwait with impunity. Was that said: No! Could it have been "assumed" from the vagueness: Yes.

There are two things about "commands" ... #1 .. clarity .. #2 enforcement*.

* and before anyone goes down a rabbit trail: "enforcement" implies "lawfulness"!

Sort of like "red lines in the sand".

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Sort of like "red lines in the sand".

Sort of like there is no solution for us in the Middle East. No matter what you do , history will prove you wrong. Perhaps the best option is to let them sort it out!....without our input.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by WTF

Sort of like there is no solution for us in the Middle East. No matter what you do , history will prove you wrong. Perhaps the best option is to let them sort it out!....without our input.

No argument here.

Muslims have been pretty good at killing each other over the years, trying to decide which faction follows the teachings of their war mongering, genocidal, pedophile prophet more correctly.

We should encourage this. Maybe the last two left will simultaneously shoot each other, much like in the ending of Resevior Dogs.

[JD Barleycorn]

Illegal war??? Sounds like a good sound bite but not the truth. Bush gave the House (democrats) a chance to vote it down but they didn't. It was completely though you may want to argue the wisdom.

The only reason that Obama got OBL (which took him time to make the big call) is the ground work laid by Bush. Also, if OBL was truly the master of our enemies then why are we still fighting, OBL is dead.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Bandwidth? Not sure about Carter. And I don't think Reagan and Clinton are near as bad as Obama and Bush, but I'd be ok with putting them on trial. If you think I'm leaving people out, I'd include Nixon and LBJ, for sure. And others. Take your pick. Let's start with the current ones, and work our way back.

I see that you're willing to indict people for doing something so I guess you'd be okay with a president that does nothing...

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WTF

Sort of like there is no solution for us in the Middle East. No matter what you do , history will prove you wrong. Perhaps the best option is to let them sort it out!....without our input.

Even though you are a misogynistic, racist, homophobic abuser of illegal aliens, when you are right - you are right!!

We need to leave the Middle East - the world now has enough oil but we don't need to shed anymore blood over there.

Excellent post, WTF.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I see that you're willing to indict people for doing something so I guess you'd be okay with a president that does nothing...

Now you're starting to get it JD. A president that chooses the option of doing nothing may very well have chosen the best option for the country. Despite your neoconic quest for nation building. That is hardly ever the best option.