Not enough resources and standing "don't fire" orders which cost the lives of troops. McCrystal appears to be unwilling to assist our traitor-in-chief with his political murder of American soldiers. Good for him.

Headline reads "of" instead of "if".

Headline reads "of" instead of "if".

Thanks. Fixed.

The White House wants to review the new strategy?

Bull!

This is no time for politics.

The lives of our soldiers are at stake, and more.
Obama needs to do something he is ill equiped to do; make a decision, not vote "present".

Is this "new strategy" in the same file as the new missile defense system that Obama is going to place in Central Europe?

With a president like this, who needs enemies?

So we'll lose the war in Afghanistan, which returns it to being a hotbed for terrorism and human misery. Then constant successful attacks against America require the President to declare martial law, which allows him to suspend free elections "until the crisis passes." Then he doesn't have to worry about pleasing the half of the country opposed to his plans, and he can usher in a new era of world peace for all mankind.

I don't think he's thought this through.

The Won claimed he already had a strategy when he ran for POTUS.

But he has already shown his contempt for the armed forces and its leaders when he refused to denounce the Petraeus/Betray Us ad from his buddies at MoveOn (A subsidiary of Soros Inc.)

"This is not a good sign for our troops."

Indecisive leadership's a morale killer - and it'll get our soliders killed as missions change, objectives change, and the Rules of Engagement are messed with, all to ... what? Appease people we shouldn't be appeasing? Make sure he appears 'sensitive' to the concerns of the 'global community'? Get the world to 'love' us?

He's trying to figure out military strategy based on his ego's concerns - so he'll 'look good' to the world. That's a recipe for disaster.

We can survive and learn from mistakes. We'd do better if he didn't make mistakes, but that's as may be. He DOES need to make decisions - and those decisions need to be based on reality, not 'reality-based' thinking.

From todays Wash Post:

IT WAS ONLY last March 27 that President Obama outlined in a major speech what he called "a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan" that, he added, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."

Given that his new strategy was rolled on in March, to much fanfare, it was be interesting how the Obamatards try to bleme this new strategy on Bush. As we all know, the one is always above blame.

"Appease people we shouldn't be appeasing? Make sure he appears 'sensitive' to the concerns of the 'global community'? Get the world to 'love' us?"

Sounds like He's kinda liberal.

I feel like I am in a bad Twilight Zone movie. How the hell this is POS win the presidency. I have zero respect for him.
Wrong is right, Right is wrong. Good is bad, Bad is good. Weakness is strength, Strength is weakness. America is bad, Every dictatorship is good. Jesus is bad, the Phophet is good. Our press is our enemy. Lying is widely accept and encouraged as long as you get the results you want. Selfishness is great, until you are against gov't health care or anything else the gov't wants to control. People like Ted Kennedy as considered hero's. It goes on and on.
What a fucked up world it has become.

I truly would like to know how many people voted for him and not regret it. I mean a real to honest number. That would probably be difficult to fine out.
The more I think of it, I think voter fraud got him in.

There's no reviewing of strategy going on. McChrystal's assessment got put on the backburner by Barry as soon as he got it--he was busy preparing for speeches and TV appearances. Now that the assessement's been leaked, Barry has to come up with something to cover up the fact that he has no idea what to do.

This is what happens when the amateurs are in charge of things. The real problem is that there are real US soldiers in harm's way waiting while Barry decides which shirt to wear.

But he supports the troops.

And don't you dare question his patriotism.

Thanks to the Iran/Russia appeasement, the tossing of Poland/Czech Republic under the bus, and the Honduras debacle, we're headed for another 9/11 as well as war in Europe and the Middle East--and perhaps even in South America.

Frightening.

I guess George Bush left shoes which were a bit too large for Obamas tiny feet to fill. For all those who voted for Obama believing what he campaigned on. Sorry, but when you go to a medicine show, do not buy the snake oil. The media is also responsible and will pay a price for their treachery

Our brave and devoted men & women in the military will pay dearly for Obama's waffling on this. If General McChrystal does resign it would force Obama to give the war in Afghanistan at least the same attention he gives misdemeanor disturbing the peace incidents involving his friends.

But after our brve military pays for this...WE will pay for this. We have real enemies, who mean us real harm. Obama's action are encouraging them...and they needed no encouragement.

Poor Barry. Has finally landed in a job where decision making cannot be covered by voting "PRESENT"!

But folks, this was foreseeable. The man HAS NO foreign policy experience (remember, this is why Joey Biden was allegedly added to the ticket - for his "gravitas"). Barry's whole shtick is the remaking of this country into a socialist society. Socialists don't think beyond their own border. Evidenced Barry's opening shot of a trade war with China over tires, just to protect the union workers in the steel industry. Barry's "Stragedy" is nothing more than "IGNORE IT AND HOPE IT WILL GO AWAY".

But...but...can't we just dialog with the Taliban?

Isn't World Peace in our own best interest?

Where is the UN?

Is violence America's only answer?

Isn't there a better way?

What if they gave a war and America didn't show up?

(sniffle)

Remember DJ's post yesterday where he mentions his wife thinks Barry works for Al-Qaida? Well, it seems he actually works for the Taliban.

Afganistan war should be ended.

"Remember DJ's post yesterday where he mentions his wife thinks Barry works for Al-Qaida? Well, it seems he actually works for the Taliban."

Yeah, He works for everybody accept whom He should be working for. And that be us.

I feel like I am in a bad Twilight Zone movie.
...
13. Posted by mag | September 22, 2009 11:10 AM.

Welcome to the world so many of us now live in.

I would have thought that the safety and security of the American people should be the number one priority of the POTUS: The care of our troops, security of our borders, and strenthening of our friends and allies.

Instead we get science that can't stand opposing views (no funding for climate warming doubters) resulting in cap and trade bills, appeasment of frenemies (Russia) with no quid pro quo, and endless lecturing on how the government knows best in how we should run our lives (health care).

Worst, worst, WORST president ever!

NEWSFLASH:

Sec of State Hillary! (yeah she's still around) has proclaimed that Gen McChrystal is WRONG!

I guess Generalissimo Hillary! has dipped into her vast military experience to come up with that.

I'm surprised McChrystal wasn't accused of being a "mindless terrorist", "mob", "Pentagon Stooge", "Nazi", etc.

Deja Vue all over again. This was precisely the same policy that cost us dearly in manpower and treasure in Vietnam. Only, the President was not in charge. It was Robert McNamara and his whiz kids in the Pentagon. If the Generals had been running things, the North would have surrendered after Tet, but no.

After five more costly years more, we finally got out. Then the Liberal chickenshits in Congress, cut all funding. This led to the massive genocide in the entire Indochina peninsula.

I am afraid that this same scenario will be played out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, when we leave there. Then when the Taliband and Al-Qeada have control again, watch for the declaration of total Jihad on the non-Islamic countries.

Oh, forgot to add:

Hillary! states that "others" say everything is fine and that additional troops are not needed.

TRANSLATION: Barry's playing UN Chief this week and can't be bothered. Stall for time. Generate 'debates'. Fuck the commander on the ground in-country, he doesn't know what he's talking about. STALL, this is Barry's week to shine. AND FIND OUT WHO LEAKED THAT MEMO! You know, priorities. THE ONE IS NOT TO BE DISTURBED.

Good heavens! Don't disturb the Jug-Eared Douche now - he's auditioning for his next gig as King of the World in front of the General Assembly.

The Won's definitely turning into a bigger brainless douchenozzle that Jimmuh Cahtah.

Not to worry.

Obama is probably trying to contact Jack Bauer as we speak.

Nice: From left blog Hullaballo:

"Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides (as) they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions at the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy."

(GET THAT? POLITICAL STRATEGY - NOT FOREIGN POLICY. Have the troops die so people will think that liberals have balls.)

"There have been many campaign promises "adjusted" since the election. There is no reason that the administration should feel any more bound to what they said about this than all the other committments it has blithely turned aside in the interest of "pragmatism."

(GOT THAT? Campaign promises have been "adjusted".) Glad to see we have a "pragmatist" in the White House. We do?

. This world will only get worse ... its time to PRAY ppl! God is our only hope!!!

Low-tech wars like this are very difficult for superpower armies to win. Look at the Soviet loss there, or the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, or the drawn-out Iraq mess. Who knows how to win unconventional wars of this type?

Throwing a lot of soldiers and weapons at these wars hasn't provided victory before, only slowed the enemy from eventual victory. How to win unconventional wars is a problem that no general has yet figured out. U.S. and Russian warfare was planned around a nuclear war that never happened, while it has been these little unconventional wars that have created battlefield losses for both armies.

Invective and name calling won't help. I think he is in a no win situation. If most people turn against this war how can he go on? Vox populi and all that.

BTW use of the term Obama-tard is offensive to people with cognitive limitations/disabilities and those who love them. Call him an asshole or an ignorant pile of worm poop or whatever. But please don't use terms that offend and hurt innocent bystanders.

"Low-tech wars like this are very difficult for superpower armies to win."

Difficult but not impossible. The vast majority of people just want to live and be left alone (stability). The minority thugs come in and claim they'll provide that stability. Only problem is, the populace soon find that "the law" is whatever is convenient for the thugs at any particular moment in time.

Why didn't the populace 'throw in with us'?
Who the hell would want Barry The Backstabber as a friend?

General Obama has an ace in the hole, his
ACORN ARMY. They can be unleashed upon the
foreign enemy....or, more likely, his domestic
"foes". They are more frightening than the
Taliban, and better-funded.

New strategy?

Maybe he plans on sending that American civilian force that's funded as large as the U.S. military he's advocated.

Hey all.

I'm a liberal and I voted for Obama (I am FOR the troop increase in Afghanistan, so please dont stop reading lol).
A lot of other people on this side claim that 'it hasn't been done before, nor will it ever'. They even -erroneously- cite Alexander the great as being unable to conquer them. He was actually able to conquer it and set up the city of Khandahar (sp? idk). The russians? yes. they DID fail. But they were an evil dictatorial nation that was also suffering from an economy much more dismal than anything we have ever had (including now). PLUS, we're the U.S. this may be arrogant -fine- but we are smarter, better equipped, and we seriously have some of the most courageous and honest men and women on our side.

My point is, that I honestly believe the Obama administration IS going to increase troop levels, but we have to understand that once the president is sworn in (no matter republican or democrat) is looking for re-election from day 1.

Is this frustrating? Yes. Maddening? Even more so. Does it conjure up feelings of being lied to, deceived, left behind by our candidate? Definitely. But I have come to learn that this is the ugly beast of politics, a slow and often indecisive beast that wields much power. Our founding fathers bred this beast this way, however.

I honestly believe that if we want anything done (whether you are a libertarian, democrat, republican, hippie, drill sgt., congressman, or hobo) we need to come to some common ground...that's what this GREAT country is about. No more bickering between party lines. Let's have a rational discussion with our friends to the left (of which I am), and convince them that we can save this from becoming vietnam II if we ACTUALLY COMMIT to saving it.

I always get upset when people describe our leader in vile & base terms (obama AND bush). He is our leader, and while we SHOULD criticize his actions and the actions of our congressmen whenever we think there is something awry...I think a meaningful dialogue with intelligent viewpoints gets farther than calling them a traitor or a fascist.
It IS your RIGHT to say your opinions and criticisms, but they can go further if either side of the aisle does not discount it as simple taunts.

God Bless America.

Oh don't be silly. Obama is just going to send over a division of community organizers to open a can of whoop ass on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Then those bastards will be sorry they thought of attacking us....

"Oh don't be silly. Obama is just going to send over a division of community organizers to open a can of whoop ass on the Taliban and Al Qaeda"

You're right!! That would be "Hell on earth" We should know.

"No more bickering between party lines. Let's have a rational discussion with our friends to the left (of which I am)"

Well there's your problem Mikey! Where you been the last 8 years? You know, 2000-2008? Support the President?

How about this Mikey, "AS YOU SOW, SO SHALL YOU REAP!" Got that Mikey?

Your Imperious Leader and Chief Narcissist is an empty suit. His agenda is the total revamping of the US as a socialist country. Take your fucking CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG shit and pack it in. Too late now, Mikey.

Oh, and have a great day!

Bush with Iraq was no better than Obama in Afghanistan. If anything Bush was worse with Iraq, him getting us there and how we were there. Obama has sent 10's of thousands of more soldiers to Afghanistan that Bush wouldn't send, and until recently had done everything the commanders on the ground had told him too. So if Obama loses Afghanistan, it won't just be because of how he executed the war - it'll be because of how he was set up there too. Bush should've won and finished that war in the first place, but he was more incompetent than Obama!

Quote of the Day:

"The Republicans have painted themselves into a political corner on this issue [whether or not to escalate the war in Afghanistan] and it's another lose/lose battle for them."

Sorry, Justin -

Bush DID win the war in Iraq - The Won's too stupid to learn from the playbook of the generals on the ground. Iraq was won on a surge that reinforced the principles of self-reliance for the Iraqi's - the build-up of police and military to defeat al Qaeda.

The Won has the chance to see the same effect in Afghanistan - where McChrystal is laying out the same strategy. If The Won says no to the surge, the defeat is all his, and death and mayhem to the Afghani's.

The is the same Dem douchenozzle play put into effect that killed millions in Cambodia, btw.

So what was the reason you used for the lack of troops in Afghanistan when Obama wasn't president? More troops there today than when he wasn't in office... Convenient logic though, good for you.

To apb...

Iraq had the least amount of Al-Qaeda infiltration of ANY of the countries of the middle east, mainly because Hussein killed anyone who opposed his viewpoints. Since the invasion, Iraq has become the #1 hotbed of al-Qaeda recruitment in the region. Your logic is simplistic and ideological, a tyrant has the least threat to the US, an unidentified and nameless enemy is far greater (e.g. N. Korea's threat vs. separatist cells).

"Iraq had the least amount of Al-Qaeda infiltration of ANY of the countries of the middle east,"

How the hell do You know? You work for them or something?

Iraq had the least amount of Al-Qaeda infiltration of ANY of the countries of the middle east, mainly because Hussein killed anyone who opposed his viewpoints. Since the invasion, Iraq has become the #1 hotbed of al-Qaeda recruitment in the region. Your logic is simplistic and ideological, a tyrant has the least threat to the US, an unidentified and nameless enemy is far greater (e.g. N. Korea's threat vs. separatist cells).

Find a new meme, Eire. That one belongs in 2004.

eire -

What happens when tyrants have nuclear capability?

The Dems are determined to have their Viet Nam and it really doesn't matter who's in the hot seat. Let's stop comparing OBI-WON to Carter and start with the LBJ thing......how many kids has he killed today? We know why those deaths are occuring....back then, no spine..now deliberate and terrifying unconcern.

eire -

What happens when US strategy is to intentionally bring al Qaeda to Iraq, and then kill them? You sound downright stupid to refer to a 'nameless' enemy that, well, is called 'al Qaeda'...

LBJ, while screwing up Vietnam, created a lot of great government programs that we benefit from today.

But y'all would prob call that socialist. You know, like medicare and retirement pensions. All of those evil despicable things that destroy America's fabric.

eire -

"So what was the reason you used for the lack of troops in Afghanistan when Obama wasn't president?"

That the US didn't want to fight an active war on two fronts?

Man, you progressives ARE pretty stupid...

"eire -

What happens when tyrants have nuclear capability?"

They disarm and show how foolishly goodhearted they are.

At least, thats what ours is doing.

"But y'all would prob call that socialist. You know, like medicare and retirement pensions. All of those evil despicable things that destroy America's fabric."

I know taxes get taken out to pay for these "great" programs that I dont use. So Screw You and your great society utopia.

"What happens when tyrants have nuclear capability?"

They disarm and show how foolishly goodhearted they are.

At least, thats what ours is doing."

Bwahahahaha!

Ah, the liberal rant "Bush went into Iraq". It is comments like that that convinces me that liberals do not know what they are talking about and do not understand government. GW Bush could no send or maintain troops anywhere. Congress has to. That is government 101

GW Bush constantly said to every reporter that interviewed him that he would do what the commanders on the ground say. They know what they need. Obama gets a report from a commander on the ground and he runs from it for political points. You get that. He is willing to have americans killed to earn temporary political points. That is the traditional liberal. Cares not for the troops. Johnson did the same thing. It's in their dna. Obama and any of your liberals who support this non action of Obama should be ashamed of yourselves.

I am glad Obama now knows what it is like to have memo's leaked. ww

"You know, like medicare and retirement pensions. All of those evil despicable things that destroy America's fabric."

Especially when it's not funded, and our kids and grand-kids are holding the bag. Just so you get yours, right comrade?

Hey guys guess what.

BARACK OBAMA WON!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA

you LOST!!! IN YOUR FACE!! hahahahaha

ANNNNDDD...he won LEGITIMATELY!!! none of that electoral college but no popular vote bull$hit!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A LIBERAL IS PRESIDENT!!! OHHH NOOOOO!! HEALTHCARE AND ECONOMIC REFORM WILL SURELY FOLLOW!!!! HAH

conservatives suck 8==D

note:

my chickenshit roomate posted that. not me.

Blown Gasket alert in aisle #58

This is what were dealing with NORMAL people out there. Above excluded. When confronted with too much reality, eire regresses to NAH NAH NA NAH NA! My wee wee's bigga den yo ours!

John - "But y'all would prob call that socialist. You know, like medicare and retirement pensions. All of those evil despicable things that destroy America's fabric."

Um no, they don't destroy America's fabric. What they do do is destroy the American economy as both programs have amassed trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

Yet the "progressive" nitwits, and many others think they can create like programs for the entire population, without it creating more debt!

Pure unadulterated hogwash.

"abe lincoln" - "BARACK OBAMA WON!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA"

Yeah he won, and would have even if Daffy Duck was the nominee. (Assuming he wasn't)

What you fail to see or understand your LUV interest who resides in the WH is losing popularity faster than Britney lost her virginity.

"note:

my chickenshit roomate posted that. not me."

I think its illegal to room with 6 year olds..

Are you all morons? The reason the troops are spread thin is because George Bush started a important war in Afghanistan and THEN a meaningless war in Iraq. The troops are spread too thin to begin with. The only plan for Afghanistan that Obama CAN follow in a lot of ways is the one set in front of him by Bush. It's been nine months since Obama took the Presidency...and 8 years since the invasion of Afghanistan. That means approximately 1/11th of this war has been on his watch, after the cards were dealt and played. We're on a trajectory set by the previous administration. Not to mention that the US is doing very little in the worst areas of Afghanistan anyway. Canada and Germany have taken the reigns on that. US troops have been focused primarily in Iraq and still are. Maybe because both countries are Middle Eastern you hicks didn't realize they were two separate theaters.

apb -

"That the US didn't want to fight an active war on two fronts?

Man, you progressives ARE pretty stupid..."

Um, I think it is clear that you are the moron in this scenario. You are aware there is as much of an active war in Iraq still today as there is in Afghanistan, yes?

apb -

Again, phenomenal.

"Bush DID win the war in Iraq - The Won's too stupid to learn from the playbook of the generals on the ground. Iraq was won on a surge that reinforced the principles of self-reliance for the Iraqi's - the build-up of police and military to defeat al Qaeda."

If you definition of a "win" in Iraq involves tearing down a statue of Hussein, then yeah, you're correct. The US won. If your definition of a "win" involves American troops still occupying a nation, constantly being shot at and regularly killed, fighting to take over lost territory and allowing a hotbed of terrorism to fester within the country's borders, then yeah, you're correct, the US won. But if you definition of a "win" is one you would find in any English-language dictionary, then no, the US has not won anything.

The war in Iraq is not even close to finished.

But drew! There are so many less deaths in Iraq than when WE INVADED. c'mon! we got to be doing something right! /sarcasm

Isn't it sad that these moron's define a victory in a needless war by not having AS MANY people die everyday then when they first invaded?

Mike-
I agree with you, and its nice to see someone with a more centered approach in this cesspool.

Everyone else-
Obama's gonna increase troops no matter what. Stop arguing like a bunch of babies. You all make me sick. You really don't care about winning the war, just making the other side look bad.

waaaah OH NO! The president wants to do research/build consensus before acting, it's the end of the world! Rapture!

Because, the terrorists win if we don't blindly splash resources all over the middle east, and ruin American image abroad in the process, while our cronies make a killing.

He is the leader of the free world because he has ideas. You waste your abundant free time here because you think you know everything.

Hopefully all things will end well because it would just add troubles if a war will erupt again.

"He is the leader of the free world because he has ideas. You waste your abundant free time here because you think you know everything."

Barry is the guy who had "a new strategy" announced in MARCH 2009. A new strategy that wasn't implimented until JUNE 2009. So now we're going to have "a new strategy" again?

Why don't you sockpuppets drag your multiple asses out of here and go suck your thumbs over at DK.

"I wonder how many conservative as$holes on this are poor white trash."

Other than the asshole who posted this, can't think of any offhand. Hey, didn't your Mistress Nancy say something about cooling the rethoric?

Hey iWonder. Pat yourself on the back. 1st inclination of a liberal "I'm superior to everyone else".

Got any more names you want to post under tonight. How 'bout dropping be the White House and giving Barry a BJ. He's feeling down, what with those poll results on Health Care. Or you could really get kinky and dig up Splash Kennedy.

Here is how Michael O'Hanlon, one of the nation's most prominent hawks, sees it.

"Here we are less than six months after that first strategy review was completed (of Afghanistnan and accepted by Obama and implemented with poor to middling results) and military commanders of Afghanistan are now saying that the exact same strategy they proposed back in March, they need... well above and beyond what they thought they needed," O'Hanlon said. "And so Mr. Obama is entitled to think twice about that. He is entitled to wonder just how precise this is this military arithmetic? Just how promising is this counter-insurgency strategy anyway?"

27th of March 2009: Obama in the White House flanked by his Secretaries of Defense and State, in which he said, "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." Obama said the strategy
"... marks the conclusion of a careful policy review". He said "My message to the terrorists who oppose us -- We will defeat
you,"

Count on Stevie Crickmore. It's NOT Obama's "policy", it's "the military commanders of Afghanistan" See? Obama NEVER FAILS. Other's fail. NEVER Obama.

Hey Stevie, if Obama's sooooooo freaking smart, why didn't he submit HIS PLAN for Afghanistan? You know, like HIS HEALTH PLAN...that no one has ever seen?

Or maybe that WAS Obama's policy and he told the commanders to 'stuff it, this is all you get'. You know, like Rumsfield did?

Does Barry want to win Stevie? Or, as with his other campaign promises, subject to "adjustment". I like that word Stevie. "Adjustment". No, Barry didn't LIE, Barry didn't BACK OFF, Barry didn't BAIT AND SWITCH. Barry didn't EQUIVOCATE. He "adjusted". Tell me Stevie, it that like Nixon's "That statement is no longer operable"?

Yo! Stevie my boy, You mean O'Hanlon, the tool who works at the Brookings Institution, and posts at the Huffington...both left of center arenas. You think he's a hawk... bullshit.

Steve:

"He is entitled to wonder just how precise this is this military arithmetic? Just how promising is this counter-insurgency strategy anyway?"

And the sad thing is - he has absolutely no experience in making such judgements, and has surrounded himself with people who wouldn't be able to figure it out themselves because their education and indoctrination literally can't LET them conclude that military power is actually USEFUL.

Decades of denigrating the military have left their toll in a political party that has no idea how to judge what's presented to them and come up with a rational answer in regards to military matters. Maybe Obama can actually break the conditioning, but I doubt it...

"Michael O'Hanlon specializes in U.S. national security policy. He is senior author of the Iraq Index. A former defense budget analyst who advised members of Congress on military spending, he specializes in Iraq, North Korea, homeland security, the use of military force and other defense issues."

"O'Hanlon earned an A.B. in 1982, M.S.E. in 1987, M.A. in 1988, and a Ph.D in 1991 all from Princeton University, and is now a visiting lecturer there. He served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Kinshasa in the 1980s."

Wow! Stevie you are right! THIS GUY IS A HAWK! Look at all that military experience. Shit! Look at all that LIFE experience. He was a freaking bean counter! Yep them HuffPo people can spot a HAWK! a mile away.

The mission can't be successful without the proper resources. But at the same time where do you draw the line?

"But at the same time where do you draw the line?"

As Sun Tzu observed, you are either in to win, or don't play the game.

I'd thought we learned that after Vietnam. Obviously our political leaders and the public have not.

"I wonder how many conservative as$holes on this are poor white trash."

Im poor and white... But shit for brains.. You're not qualified to carry My trash.

"The mission can't be successful without the proper resources. But at the same time where do you draw the line?"

Excellent question..?

Crickmore, the more pressing question is: Are you personally serving in Afghanisquagmire?

Because if you are not, you are a cowardly chickenhawk; correct?

Well, are you? bwack bwack

(tonight we're gonna party like it's 2-0-0-4)

To expand further:
Americans are an impatient lot. It's a double edge sword. We get a lot done quickly and efficiently, by the same token we also jump in quickly, often without thinking of the consequences. It's been said before: 'Others play Chess, Americans play checkers'.

Read more than once, that in mid-1945, American's were "war weary". HUH? We'd been 'at war' (and this was a "good" war) for almost 4 full years. Everyone else had been at war for 6. Many countries had their major cities bombed into rubble, been invaded by a foreign army and had TENS OF THOUSANDS of CIVILIANS killed. But Americans "were war weary".

We are 'at war' today with Islamic militants. Call 'em whatever you want, this is who they are. "Join us or die" is their motto. Cover their "grievances" with what ever you want, it comes down to their way or the highway. Give in and they'll negotiate. Negotiate further 'gives' on your part. They are not "Islam", just a small group of thugs.

The public will ultimately have to decide if they are willing to pay the cost. Doesn't matter who's in the White House or on Capitol Hill. The decision rests with the MAJORITY of the people.

Personal opinion, for those who want to give a pass and retreat, then they have no complaint of Islamic expansion in the future. You don't like the results, stick your head back in the sand and shut up. The country is attacked again, forget about it. It's the price of doing (nothing) business. You don't want to pay then don't complain when they extract the costs on their terms.

A better question than "But at the same time where do you draw the line?" would be. How long are you willing to fight for your continued freedom? Does it have an expiration date?

Crickmore - "Here is how Michael O'Hanlon, one of the nation's most prominent hawks, sees it."

Here's your O'Hanlon asswipe:

July 9, 2007, "Iraq is being ethnically segregated. Ethnic cleansing is on its way, it's happening, and at least a couple million people have been displaced. It's becoming Bosnia in some ways, he added"

3 weeks later on July 30, 2007:

"As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

Shows you how much he knew, or knows.

Drew - "Canada and Germany have taken the reigns on that. US troops have been focused primarily in Iraq and still are. Maybe because both countries are Middle Eastern you hicks didn't realize they were two separate theaters."

Yeah us "hicks," much better to be an elitist pole smoker right?

The only thing the German's have taken the reigns on in the Afgan theater is getting DRUNK as skunks.

Fact is they "drink and complain too much to fight Taleban."

Misinformed nitwit.

President Hope and Change.

I hope our soldiers don't get killed while Obama is changing his mind.

Hi...

The president wants to do research/build consensus before acting, it's the end of the world! Rapture!

Good heavens! Don't disturb the Jug-Eared Douche now - he's auditioning for his next gig as King of the World in front of the General Assembly.

Bo says - take a hike McChrtstal.

July 9, 2007, "Iraq is being ethnically segregated. Ethnic cleansing is on its way, it's happening, and at least a couple million people have been displaced. It's becoming Bosnia in some ways, he added

All that is needed to turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam is that '60s pot-smoking maggot-infested long-haired gutless cravenly-cowardly flat-Earth no-growth environazis over-run our schools, universities and minion media, effectively own operate and control all three branches of the feral gummint -- and treat the feral courts as their exclusively-reserved fiat fourth branch.

.... Um .....

.... Whoops .....

Brian Richard Allen
Lost Angels Calif0zerocated 90028
And the Far Abroad

Plan B? Did anyone actually see plan A?

The President and his entire cabinet has lost their minds. I am a Viet Nam Vet and know what it's like to be sold out by their government. Politicians should listen to the Generals in charge. We committed oursleves to winning the war in Afganastan. If more troops are needed "SUPPLY THEM". I am not a war monger but but surrender and retreat is a disgrace to those who have died. VIET NAM ALL OVER AGAIN.

Why doesn't McChrystal resign NOW. Same applies to EVERYONE in the military. Every single soldier in the military NEEDS to resign. These soldiers need to say NO to giving citizens the poison [soul condemning] swine flu shots and say NO to the NWO fags.

If people would just seriously WAKE THE HELL UP NOW, the NWO can be DEFEATED. There is STRENGTH in numbers.

Ever notice when the trolls come in and 'try' to write something they believe is 'right wing', they come off as idiots?

gee i wonder why...