~
A huge part of Obama's support must be foaming at the mouth over this one. *snicker*
~
More Than 17,000 Troops Headed to Afghanistan
President Obama will dispatch more than 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, the White House announced Tuesday.
"This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan," Obama said in a statement. "I recognize the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops and military families. I honor their service, and will give them the support they need."
~
22 comments:
Look at you. Relishing your precious troops being sent into harm's way to make political points. That's sickening.
And you people think liberals hate the troops?
Make sure and get the biggest yellow ribbon magnet you can find.
Jimbo,
I saw the local Code Pinko on TV last nights film at 11.
They understand that President BOHICA may have to increase the troops in order to gain stability in Afghanistan. Once that's achieved, he'll bring ALL the troops home.
This is the same one who marched and cried during the surge in Iraq.
Praise BOHICA, he can do no wrong!!!
Hey, HLT, I have two sons in the middle of this. We have members of this blog who have been over there too. We don't "relish" the possibility of ANYONE'S death, in any war, for political points.
Mother fucker you better hope I NEVER find out who you are. The others here are letting you pass. I'd kick your ass for two cents for comments like this!!!
Dickhead.
When he pulls out of Iraq, it will become the new hotbed of al Qaeda. If he goes back to Iraq, Afghanistan will. Not to mention Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tunisia, Yemen, etc. There is no end to it. Why in the hell won't he close our borders down and protect us from the next attack???
I thought Obama promised that he would talk to them to end the the war????
Lets see now, Since Obama is escalating the war I want to know:
what is his exit strategy?
what is his withdrawal strategy?
what is his plan to keep the peace after he withdraws the troops?
when will he have Afghanistan hold elections?
why is he sending troops to Afghanistan when Osama bin laden is in Pakistan?
etc.
C-bug,
there is an end to it. Just like the people did in Mosul, they'll stand up to the bad guys. They get tired of being killed and seeing their children killed.
They'll protect their own borders. The free Afghans had a war going with the Taliban the entire time they were in power.
Blue,
stop using logic and truth. It's not allowed by the new administration.
You must hate your sons if you relish sending them into harm to make political points.
That's exactly what this topic is doing.
Sick. Very sick people. Fascistic.
And save your threats. You're the one hoping for more carnage against your precious troops.
I know how you guys love to get involved in these complex issues. What to do in Afganastan. How to handle Pakastan. Iran. etc. But as some of you know, my preference is simplicity.
Is there a simple solution to the middle east? Of course there is. It's called carpet bombing, an effective tactic used in Viet Nam, and one that got "everybody's" attention. Of course, there will have to be some minor adjustments. Since the Mooselambs are far more dangerous than the gooks were, we'll have to use nuclear bombs instead of dumb bombs. This will not only save time, but will also be cost effective, since far fewer bombs will be needed.
Once the entire middle east has been returned to a lifeless desert, as it should be, we can then bring all our troops home for a much-needed rest and well-deserved honors. While we're enjoying the parades, our bombers will be refueling and reloading. When that's done, we'll simply tell them to vaporize everything south of Mexas. Everything!
Obviously, you're all thinking i am clearly qualified for some higher calling, such as Secretary of State, or Defense Secratary, or perhaps, the Oval Office. Please, don't start any campaigns as i'm rather busy at the moment, but thank you anyway.
In a perfect world, being a liberal would be a capital offense and deemed an affront to sane, rational people everywhere.
The problem of carpet bombing is lack of a concise target. We carpet bombed N. Viet Nam, not ALL of S.E. Asia.
And just as in S.E. Asia, we do have international "friends" there. Plus, if we attacked those countries that way, we'd doom Israel. It would give the radicals the final reason to all out attack of the Jews.
I've never been a fan of killing innocent people to make a point.
Even if that is the HLT, et al, concensus.
HLF said "You must hate your sons if you relish sending them into harm to make political points."
uh - dude- we are not sending anybody anywhere - Obama is escalating the war by sending more troops
he is doing exactly what all you liberals screamed about for 8 years - deploying troops with no clear objective, no exit plan, no peace plan, no nothing
he was elected on a promise to bring the troops home - his first action in this area is to send more troops into war.....
so much for meaningful dialog...
my sending more troops to war, Obama is admitting that Bush was right
Obama's war
Obama'a war
"I've never been a fan of killing innocent people to make a point."
Innocent of what?
Remember, no matter what happens in Afghanistan, it's a no-lose situation for Yomama, since he knows the MSM and his leftist supporters will still blame Bush for it.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
Will Rogers
When we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.
The Viet Cong and the NVA didn't follow us home when we pulled out. The followers of the religion of peace will most certainly follow us home. President Obama is doing exactly as he said he would during the general election campaign; committing American troops to "take out" Osama bin Laden. Trouble is, Osama and his crew are probably holed up on the Pakistan side of the border. If we attack another sovereign nation, even to kill a terrorist, that is an act of war. Don't forget, Pakistan is an honest to God nuclear power.
I don't think I've met very many people, conservative and liberal alike, that are against the Afghanistan war, other than out-and-out peaceniks who have convinced themselves that war of any sort, and for any reason, is totally unecessary. The left (and some from the right) have been against the Iraq war. Not Afghanistan.
You must hate your sons if you relish sending them into harm to make political points.
That's exactly what this topic is doing.
Sick. Very sick people. Fascistic.
And save your threats. You're the one hoping for more carnage against your precious troops.
That is probably the most ill reasoned and idiotic statement I have ever heard! Unfortunately, some military actions are necessary, as was the one in Afghanistan. Did civilians die? Absolutely! Unfortunately, these civilians had to pay the ultimate price for their leaders, the Taliban providing a haven for al Qaeda to plan, train and launch the 9/11/2001 attacks. They died because they allowed a savage junta to sieze power, institute a 12th century Islamic theocracy, destroy pre-Islamic idols and bring down upon Afghanistan the force of the U. S. military.
Did we take this action out of a sense of retribution? Yes, partially. Moreover, we were forced to invade and punish the Afghanis because if we did not do so, we would have given tacit permission by our acquiessence to every "freedom fighter" who had explosives and munitions to use them on us.
The anonynimity of the Internet has provided cowards the cover they need to hide and throw rocks at others without fear of retribution. These cravens routinely say things to people on blogs that they would never dream of saying in person lest they get punched in the mouth.
Since no one has responded to my earlier post, I'll say it again:
I do not remember meeting anyone, liberal or conservative, who is against our efforts in Afghanistan. Nor do I remember Obama saying that he would pull out of Afghanistan. In fact, I remember him saying once that he was against Iraq, because it took the focus off of afghanistan, thereby implying that Afghanistan is the correct, right, and just conflict.
I don't ever remember Obama claiming that he wanted to pull out of A-stan, nor do I recall that being an item on the liberal list of "things to do".
I don't think that this is a departure from his stated campaign goals, guys. He said he wanted to pull out of IRAQ, not A-Stan.
In fact, I remember him saying once that he was against Iraq, because it took the focus off of afghanistan, thereby implying that Afghanistan is the correct, right, and just conflict.
He said that at least once in a campaign speech and once in a debate with John McCain. I agreed with him on this issue. I could never determine why George W. Bush was hell bent to invade Iraq unless it was to avenge his father's defeat by Bill Clinton after he ended Desert Storm without killing Saddam.
What Bush 41 realized that Bush 43 did not was that he could not hold together the fragile coalition of nations that supported us in Desert Storm after we forced Iraq to comply with UN Resolutions 660, 662 and 678. Bush 41 had a lot more common sense than his son. He also had an infinitely better understanding of foreign policy and covert intelligence operations, having once served as director of the CIA.
Bush 43 didn't give a shit what nations he alienated. I don't have any use for the UN but political realities are political realities. Bush 43, with his monumental hubris isolated us from nearly every other nation in the world. He and Bill Clinton are very much alike in their hubris for very differentv reasons. Both could be characters in a Greek tragedy such as Oedipus the King or Antigone.
Post a Comment