22 Soldiers Dead in 3 Days

[guido911]

Where is the freakin outrage from the media and the doves in this forum over the nearly 50 soldiers killed in Afghanistan since Gen. McCrystal asked for reinforcements two months ago? How about the outrage over Obama's dilatory "solemn" decision process over that request? I mean, it's "rush rush" over health care reform, but for our soldiers fighting for their lives, not so much.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I agree, Obama needs to provide more action.  1 troop increase wasn't enough there should probably be another.  Too bad Bush sat on his thumbs for 7 years.

[guido911]

I agree, Obama needs to provide more action.  1 troop increase wasn't enough there should probably be another.  Too bad Bush sat on his thumbs for 7 years.

So the soldiers dying today, ten months after Bush is gone, is Bush's fault. Got it. Lemme guess, the victory in the Iraq war is because of Obama. Right?

[cannon_fodder]

At risk of being a peace nick, perhaps it is wise to step back and attempt to frame exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan.  What constitutes success?  What is our plan for getting there?  What resources will benefit that plan?

Not everyone, even those in the know, are convinced that our current course of action has a shot at being successful.   I don't know, I'm not familiar enough with the situation to speak intelligently.  It appears that given our current course the military men say they need more troops - so the choice would be:  send more troops or change our course of action.

At least one man very close to the situation thinks sending more troops is entirely the wrong approach:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009102603447

[USRufnex]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/obama-defends-afghanistan-timetable/

"I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary,"

"And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt."

"While no words can ease the ache in their hearts today, may they find some comfort in knowing this: like all those who give their lives in service to America, they were doing their duty and they were doing this nation proud." 

"They were willing to risk their lives, in this case, to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda and its extremist allies."

"And while I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this — and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan,"

"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way."

-----Gweed calls President Obama a liar in 3 - 2 - 1.......

[Cats Cats Cats]

So the soldiers dying today, ten months after Bush is gone, is Bush's fault. Got it. Lemme guess, the victory in the Iraq war is because of Obama. Right?

What Victory?

[Hoss]

What Victory?

silly!

This one, of course.



..oh, wait a minute...

[Cats Cats Cats]

So the soldiers dying today, ten months after Bush is gone, is Bush's fault. Got it. Lemme guess, the victory in the Iraq war is because of Obama. Right?

I apologize, you are right.  The last 7 years have absolutely no effect on the last 10 months. 

[guido911]

I apologize, you are right.  The last 7 years have absolutely no effect on the last 10 months. 

Tell us, then, what exactly did Bush do in his 7 years of running the war that resulted in THIS MONTH, 10 months out of office, being the deadliest for our soldiers?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

According to the article, the second deadliest month was this past August.

[Townsend]

Tell us, then, what exactly did Bush do in his 7 years of running the war that resulted in THIS MONTH, 10 months out of office, being the deadliest for our soldiers?

Short answer?  We invaded.

[guido911]

What Victory?

By any objective standard, the U.S. and the coalition have succeeded both politically and militarily in Iraq. Here's an article from Michael Yon wherein he argues the war is won, and I agree with his analysis:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/iraq_new_dawn_QFOkcq5Dwt1j0MCsO6exuM

Now, are there sporadic acts of violence still occurring? Yep. Just as there was in Germany with the Werewolf Guerrilla Resistance in the years after WWII ended.  

[swake]

Tell us, then, what exactly did Bush do in his 7 years of running the war that resulted in THIS MONTH, 10 months out of office, being the deadliest for our soldiers?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

According to the article, the second deadliest month was this past August.

He didn't secure the country after we invaded. He failed to capture Bin Laden. He refused to send in enough troops to accomplish either goal. And by not accomplishing those goals, he let the Taliban fester until they had recovered. He allowed the drug trafficking to continue that largely funds the Taliban and Al Queda. Bush failed in every respect in Afghanistan because he only cared about Iraq.  This many years later it may well be too late to salvage Afghanistan short of sending in a couple of hundred thousand more troops. Which isn't doable, because funny thing, Bush wrecked the economy too.

If you don't believe me that Bush didn't care about Bin Laden and Afghanistan, here's a direct quote on the subject:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

[swake]

By any objective standard, the U.S. and the coalition have succeeded both politically and militarily in Iraq. Here's an article from Michael Yon wherein he argues the war is won, and I agree with his analysis:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/iraq_new_dawn_QFOkcq5Dwt1j0MCsO6exuM

Now, are there sporadic acts of violence still occurring? Yep. Just as there was in Germany with the Werewolf Guerrilla Resistance in the years after WWII ended.  

We have succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government. Really stand up job there, way to go.

It's worse than if Saddam was still in power. We have tipped the balance of power in the middle east to Iran. An anti-Iranian regime in Iraq was always a positive strategic counter balance to Iranian hegemoney. This is why Bush's father didn't topple Saddam. He was smart enough to know that the power that would fill the vacuum left by the Baath party would likely be filled by Shia pro-Iranian forces. And that is exactly what has happened.

Israel, Egypt and the Saudi's are correctly terrified.

[guido911]

Short answer?  We invaded.

Short Possibly dumbest answer?  We invaded.

Fixed that for ya.

We went into a country that harbored those who attacked this country and killed 3,000 Americans. What were we supposed to do? You should thank God you were not around between 1939-1945. I don't think you could have handled it, especially the fact that Japan attacked us and in one battle (Iwo Jima) as part of our response we lost as many soldiers as the entire Iraq war.  

[Townsend]

[
We went into a country that harbored those who attacked this country and killed 3,000 Americans. What were we supposed to do? You should thank God you were not around between 1939-1945. I don't think you could have handled it, especially the fact that Japan attacked us and in one battle (Iwo Jima) as part of our response we lost as many soldiers as the entire Iraq war.  

Woo...guido's gone to crazy town.