The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: More Confusion on Afgahnistan

  1. #31
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,735

    Default

    The NY Times reported today that Hillary is with Gates, opposing Biden's severe limited recommendations.

    Somewhere else I saw mention that McC really would like a whole lot more than 40,000 troops, but 40,000 is his lower end. He really would like double that, but knew that he would have little chance of getting the higher number. That might indicate that if they give him any less, chances of his counterterrorism plan succeeding would be low.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #32
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,101

    Default

    How is going to get any troups from the Nobel Peacekeeper?
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  3. #33
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    After all his bloviating about Iraq being Bush's "war of choice", and he was in favor of Afganistan because it was the "war of necessity". Many of us, like Ann Coulter, wonder if he's still so sure, or was that just another 'campaign' balloon?

    UB

    Natural-Born Losers
    by Ann Coulter

    10/14/2009


    The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point.
    What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a "war of necessity" while the war in Iraq was a "war of choice." (Oh, and as long as you're back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay "school safety" czar.)

    The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason.
    Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 -- or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over "regime change" in Iran in 1979. Both countries -- and others -- gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.


    As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. milita
    swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.

    By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot.
    It's always something with the Muslims. You either have mostly sane people governed by a crazy dictator -- Iraq, Iran and Syria (also California and Michigan) -- or a crazy people governed by relatively sane leaders -- Pakistan and Afghanistan, post-U.S. invasion (also Vermont and Minnesota). There are also insane people ruled by insane leaders (but enough about the House Democratic Caucus). Sane people with sane rulers has not been fully tried yet.

    Not only could regime change in Iraq work, but Iraq's countryside was susceptible to America's overwhelming air power. Also, Iraq has fabulous natural resources. Once the U.S. got control of Iraq's oil fields, the Shia, Sunni and Kurds could decide to either prosper together or starve together. (And it's not just oil: They're basically sitting on top of most of the world's proven reserves of cab drivers.)

    By contrast, there aren't a lot of sticks that can be used in a wasteland like Afghanistan, where the people live in caves and scratch out a living in the dirt. The only "carrot" we might be able to offer them would be actual carrots.

    But Democrats couldn't care less about military strategy -- at least any "strategy" that doesn't involve allowing soldiers to date one another. To the extent you can get liberals to focus on national security at all, you will find they are rooting against their own country.

    Liberals sneered at Bush's description of Iraq as the "central front of the war on terror" and a step toward the "democratization of the Middle East" -- as Mark Danner did in the Sept. 11, 2005, New York Times -- because sneering was all they could do. By design, Iraq was the central front in the war on terrorism.

    Any fanatic who hated the Great Satan, owned an overnight bag and was not already working for The New York Times was lured across the border into Iraq ... to be met by the awesome force of the U.S. military. Bush chose the battlefield that made the best flytrap for Islamic crazies and also that was most amenable to regime change.

    Now nearly all denizens of the Middle East want the U.S. to invade them, so they can live in democracy, too. As Thomas Friedman inadvertently admitted, Lebanese voters credit their recent free election, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah, to President Bush. (American liberals, naturally, gave the credit to Obama, who they also believe is responsible for the sun rising every morning.)

    Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq -- and then they stopped because of Obama's indifference. Sadly for them, America's foreign policy will now be based on a calculus of political correctness, not national security.
    During the campaign, Obama prattled on about Iraq being a "war of choice" and Afghanistan a "war of necessity" for no more thoughtful reason than a desire to win standing ovations from treasonous liberals.

    But lo and behold, those very liberals who were champing at the bit to fight in Afghanistan are suddenly full of objections to the war there, too. As Frank Rich points out: "Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention."

    Now they notice.

    Afghanistan is a brutal battlefield, largely invulnerable to modern warfare -- something the British and Russians learned. But as our military under Bush showed the world in 21 days, scimitar-wielding savages are no match for the voluntary civilian troops of a free people.

    Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.

    The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals' and certainly not Bush's. It was Obama's meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity" during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq -- a good battleground for the U.S. -- to Afghanistan -- a lousy battlefront for the U.S.

    And it was Obama's idea to treat war as if it's an ordinary drug bust, reading suspects their Miranda rights and taking care not to put civilians in harm's way.

    A Democrat is president and, once again, America finds itself in an "unwinnable war." I know Democrats will never learn, but I wish the voters would.
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  4. #34
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq -- and then they stopped because of Obama's indifference. .
    I assume they told you this at the last Iranian Studen Dissident group therapy dinner you hosted at your house? Or do you have anothe equally reliable source as to the inner thoughts of Iranian protesters?

    I actually agree with much of what was said in your post, with the above exception, and of course the last sentence!
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

Similar Threads

  1. Afgahnistan?
    By road kill in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 08-26-2009, 02:46 PM
  2. Novice Trainer Confusion
    By foresterpoole in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-27-2009, 01:34 PM
  3. Prefix and suffix confusion
    By Jersey in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 01:16 PM
  4. Confusion about the DOW this week
    By Shayne Mehringer in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 03-27-2009, 05:17 PM
  5. "no" confusion on blinds
    By K92line in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 03-15-2008, 10:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •