Debates
29 Aug 12
01 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWith an edict to withdraw generally, the generals decided the 2014 timing. My vote of when to withdraw doesn't count that much. McCain's doesn't either fortunately, as he thinks we should have a military presence in Afghanistan forever. No telling what etch-a-sketch would do as president.
Why wait until 2014?
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by moon1969Generals aren't the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces; the President is. The people want out and consider the war to have been a mistake.http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
With an edict to withdraw generally, the generals decided the 2014 timing. My vote of when to withdraw doesn't count that much. McCain's doesn't either fortunately, as he thinks we should have a military presence in Afghanistan forever. No telling what etch-a-sketch would do as president.
You'll have to explain to me why this President ignores what the public wants in this area. I don't expect anything from Romney (he didn't even mention the war in his RNC speech), but he's not President and hopefully won't be (I'd lose $50).
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree with everything you say. The President can delegate timing decisions to his generals based on an overall edict or policy, but the President as commander-in-chief is accountable. And my vote to withdraw immediately doesn't count much. I just think Afghanistan is a lost cause. Americans are dying. Money wasted. The US-backed Afghan government will never be able to control the country. There will always be terrorist training bases there in the foreseeable future, no matter how long we are there. Etc, etc. Withdraw immediately. Yet, not gonna happen. For those who disagree with the President on this decision, they can vote for flip-flop or third party.
Generals aren't the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces; the President is. The people want out and consider the war to have been a mistake.http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
You'll have to explain to me why this President ignores what the public wants in this area. I don't expect anything from Romney (he didn't even mention the war in his RNC speech), but he's not President and hopefully won't be (I'd lose $50).
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by moon1969Stop being such a whiny pessimist. We used Afghanistan to bitchslap Al Quaeda just like Al Quaeda used it as base to hit us from. It's Hotel Slaughter. Anybody can walk in, set up shop, take out who they need to, and leave, and the locals really aren't going to do anything about it as long as nobody tries to take over the country.
I agree with everything you say. The President can delegate timing decisions to his generals based on an overall edict or policy, but the President as commander-in-chief is accountable. And my vote to withdraw immediately doesn't count much. I just think Afghanistan is a lost cause. Americans are dying. Money wasted. The US-backed Afghan government wi ...[text shortened]... e who disagree with the President on this decision, they can vote for flip-flop or third party.
We (I mean those who kill in my name, not me, I'm sitting comfortably on my fat butt at home) did what "we" needed to do. If necessary, US forces can come back. But there's no need to sit there pissing off the locals indefinitely.
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by moon1969Well at least he closed down the prison at Gitmo like he promised in 2008.
I agree with everything you say. The President can delegate timing decisions to his generals based on an overall edict or policy, but the President as commander-in-chief is accountable. And my vote to withdraw immediately doesn't count much. I just think Afghanistan is a lost cause. Americans are dying. Money wasted. The US-backed Afghan government wi ...[text shortened]... e who disagree with the President on this decision, they can vote for flip-flop or third party.
Wait a minute ...................................................
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou're missing the BIG PICTURE. Oceania is ideologically committed to keep in power pro-Western plutocrats in the oil producing regions of the Middle East (and to a lesser extent everywhere else in the developing world except sub-Saharan Africa which we don't give a s**t about). Letting crazy theocratic Muslims run Afghanistan is bad for business.
Stop being such a whiny pessimist. We used Afghanistan to bitchslap Al Quaeda just like Al Quaeda used it as base to hit us from. It's Hotel Slaughter. Anybody can walk in, set up shop, take out who they need to, and leave, and the locals really aren't going to do anything about it as long as nobody tries to take over the country.
We (I mean tho ...[text shortened]... rces can come back. But there's no need to sit there pissing off the locals indefinitely.
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderLikely a political decision (for example, I don't think he wanted to be trying terrorists in federal court, especially in a big city like NY city, for instance), but Gitmo is not needed for national security, and also keeping it open an unethical immoral decision that weakens the US. It reminds me of something that Clinton would have continued for political reasons. Even with the incredible distaste for Gitmo by the electorate in the US, the President would have taken a big-time hammering for sending the terrorists through the normal judicial system and losing some of the intelligence gathering capability. In contrast as it is now, the independents and swing voters do not really question him on his capability in national security, which is commonly a weakness for the Democrat presidential candidate. But still Gitmo is a campaign promise he should have followed through with. For those who disagree with his decision to keep Gitmo open, they can vote for Romney or third party.
Well at least he closed down the prison at Gitmo like he promised in 2008.
Wait a minute ...................................................