8 US Troops Die; New Deadliest Month in Afghan War

stormtracker · 10-29-2009, 12:42 PM

Other than the terrific conquest of Grenada, has the United States won a war in the last 50 years? Was there EVER any question that we had the mightiest military forces in the world? Of course not. So, why this miserable track record? Politics, plain and simple. And, just who's been in charge this whole time? That's right-- republicans AND democrats. Obviously, nothing is about to change... I am no subversive, or militant, but I suggest to you that our STYLE of government is at flaw, not the people in it...

bobson · 10-30-2009, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by stormtracker

Other than the terrific conquest of Grenada, has the United States won a war in the last 50 years? Was there EVER any question that we had the mightiest military forces in the world? Of course not. So, why this miserable track record? Politics, plain and simple. And, just who's been in charge this whole time? That's right-- republicans AND democrats. Obviously, nothing is about to change... I am no subversive, or militant, but I suggest to you that our STYLE of government is at flaw, not the people in it...

We brought down the Wall, without a single shot fired.

stormtracker · 10-30-2009, 01:13 PM

Yes, the Wall did come down. Many stalwart political walls have come down-- worldwide. So, in that context, when are we coming down? Are these winds of change just a zephyr, or a building storm?

armydad · 11-01-2009, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Barney

8 US troops die; new deadliest month in Afghan war - Yahoo! News

Here is why this is happening.

Terrorists read the news.

They can see for themselves that our fearless leader is having second thoughts about the war that HE SAID we should be fighting.

He's "thinking" about the options. The terrorists smell fear. They smell a Lyndon Johnson / Vietnam scenario and they are ratcheting up their attacks hoping to push the political situation over the edge.

Their tactics may work because Obama was as opposed to the Afghanistan war as he was the Iraq war, he just couldn't tell the truth to the American people and also get elected.

Now that he's the President, he is relying upon his military experience to guide him.

That's right, he has no military experience.

So in the absence of having any miltary experience, he is letting his generals guide him.

That's right, he has no time to talk to his generals.

Given the fact that Obama lacks the will or experience to fight, and is more willing to be guided by the left than his generals, I suggest that we get the he!! out of Afghanistan. Obama can become a hero to the left, the rest of us will have our concerns confirmed.

Wow, this is Obama's fault? I guess everything is his fault. Can we blame him for Pickett's charge at Gettsburg? Pearl Harbor, perhaps?

Since he does not have any military(yes, Robert there are 2 i's) experience, he should consult with G.W. Bush. Bush protected Texas and Alabama from the viet cong.

Robert Barney · 11-01-2009, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by armydad

Wow, this is Obama's fault? I guess everything is his fault. Can we blame him for Pickett's charge at Gettsburg? Pearl Harbor, perhaps?

Since he does not have any military(yes, Robert there are 2 i's) experience, he should consult with G.W. Bush. Bush protected Texas and Alabama from the viet cong.

Obama is the Commander in Chief. He can bring the troops home anytime he wants. Do you disagree?

So whose war is it?

Winter · 11-01-2009, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by armydad

Bush protected Texas and Alabama from the viet cong.

Hopefully, we are not denigrating National Guard service, especially since we have buried so many "weekend warriors" of late.

Admittedly Bush was not serving on the frontlines of Chicago with the 34th Acorn Counter-American Expeditionary Force like Obama or held up in a "foxhole" in the Oral Office like Clinton.

Don't believe everything Dan Rather reports. You remember Dan right? He was the left wing reporter who was fired for fabricated stories about Bush's military service. I think he is still on the air somewhere with Radio Free Botswana or something.

Not to worry, Vice Commandante Joe Biden is in charge of military strategy in the White House now. We are going to replace troops with unmanned drones so that the US can specialize in civilian drive-by shootings in Afg. American will become known to Afg as the guys who control the joystick back in D.C. Not sure how that will work out with President Obama's "win their hearts and minds" strategy.

Obama troop announcement coming right up. I fail to see where the mystery is. Just do a psychological profile of Obama. He is type B and needs to be loved by both sides. That tells you the military strategy right there. He will send troops but it will be McChrystall-lite where the number is less than requested. But not really because there will be all sorts of contingencies where they could be increased or decreased. Also, declare that more of those troops are going toward training the Afg army (seen this movie before) so that even though they are being sent, it is really to bring the troops home. He is watering everything down to the lowest common denominator to avoid not being loved by both his commanders and his base. Good luck with that. Explain that to the troops on the ground looking for reinforcement.

His gig six months ago was that we needed to fight smarter and focus on counter-insurgency rather that boots on the ground in numbers. Thus, he hand-picked McChrystall, the premier counter-insurgency commander in the U.S. military, and put him in charge. Now McCrystal says we need more troops. What next? General' Biden's plan?

Mac1958 · 11-01-2009, 06:32 AM

Seems to me that there are two pretty obvious choices:

(A) Go in with such overwhelming force that victory (and I'm not sure what this is, or what it would look like) would be inevitable and quick. Worry less about fighting a Politically Correct war and more about getting this done. Half measures will only prolong the deaths on both sides and accomplish essentially zero. Our soldiers deserve better than this.

(B) Tell the Iraqis and the Afghans that it's time they got their own act together, grab our stuff and leave both places. Recognize that trying to plant a modern, Western-style democracy in a region that operates under a 17th-Century mindset, with 0% rules and 100% corruption, is pointless. Pivot to an intelligence- and technology-based, lower-cost, and lower-American death military strategy.

Looks like Obama is looking for a (C), which is understandable, but it's taking too long and he's looking seriously squishy.

My vote would be for (B).

...

armydad · 11-01-2009, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Mac1958

Seems to me that there are two pretty obvious choices:

(A) Go in with such overwhelming force that victory (and I'm not sure what this is, or what it would look like) would be inevitable and quick. Worry less about fighting a Politically Correct war and more about getting this done. Half measures will only prolong the deaths on both sides and accomplish essentially zero. Our soldiers deserve better than this.

(B) Tell the Iraqis and the Afghans that it's time they got their own act together, grab our stuff and leave both places. Recognize that trying to plant a modern, Western-style democracy in a region that operates under a 17th-Century mindset, with 0% rules and 100% corruption, is pointless. Pivot to an intelligence- and technology-based, lower-cost, and lower-American death military strategy.

Looks like Obama is looking for a (C), which is understandable, but it's taking too long and he's looking seriously squishy.

My vote would be for (B).

...

Mac, you make some excellent points. You're 100% right about the 17th century mindset.

Robert Barney · 11-01-2009, 05:06 PM

The problem with option B is that is what you had before we were involved.

armydad · 11-01-2009, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Winter

Hopefully, we are not denigrating National Guard service, especially since we have buried so many "weekend warriors" of late.

Admittedly Bush was not serving on the frontlines of Chicago with the 34th Acorn Counter-American Expeditionary Force like Obama or held up in a "foxhole" in the Oral Office like Clinton.

Don't believe everything Dan Rather reports. You remember Dan right? He was the left wing reporter who was fired for fabricated stories about Bush's military service. I think he is still on the air somewhere with Radio Free Botswana or something.

Not to worry, Vice Commandante Joe Biden is in charge of military strategy in the White House now. We are going to replace troops with unmanned drones so that the US can specialize in civilian drive-by shootings in Afg. American will become known to Afg as the guys who control the joystick back in D.C. Not sure how that will work out with President Obama's "win their hearts and minds" strategy.

Obama troop announcement coming right up. I fail to see where the mystery is. Just do a psychological profile of Obama. He is type B and needs to be loved by both sides. That tells you the military strategy right there. He will send troops but it will be McChrystall-lite where the number is less than requested. But not really because there will be all sorts of contingencies where they could be increased or decreased. Also, declare that more of those troops are going toward training the Afg army (seen this movie before) so that even though they are being sent, it is really to bring the troops home. He is watering everything down to the lowest common denominator to avoid not being loved by both his commanders and his base. Good luck with that. Explain that to the troops on the ground looking for reinforcement.

His gig six months ago was that we needed to fight smarter and focus on counter-insurgency rather that boots on the ground in numbers. Thus, he hand-picked McChrystall, the premier counter-insurgency commander in the U.S. military, and put him in charge. Now McCrystal says we need more troops. What next? General' Biden's plan?

Winter, I would never disrespect the men & women who serve in the guard. My younger brother is in the guard. He is in Afghanastan right now. He just volunteered for an extra four months over there.

My son who is in the army, is going to Afghanastan next May. I respect those who serve.

W.'s dad pulled some strings to get him in the guard, so he wouldn't have to go to Viet Nam.

Dan Rather is a pretty good ole boy from Texas. Ever hear him talk about the troops, with him saying, "lest we forget" at the end of the telecast?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by Robert Barney

Obama is the Commander in Chief. He can bring the troops home anytime he wants. Do you disagree?

So whose war is it?

Robert, I do not disagree with that. It is his war now. Iraq is his war too.

Winter · 11-01-2009, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by armydad

W.'s dad pulled some strings to get him in the guard, so he wouldn't have to go to Viet Nam.

That has not been established. Liberals continually reciting that allegation does not constitute proof. Bush denies it and his father denies having requested it. The only one who alleged it was the former Speaker of the House of the Texas Legislature who said that he made the request but curiously never mentioned it until he started campaigning for John Kerry. It could be true but there simply is no investigative jounalism to go with it. And as we know, Dan Rather and other libs contaminated all journalistic integrity by showing a fraudulent eagerness to report all sorts of other bogus aspects of his military service as truth without regard to checking the sources and motives.

If libs want to just say well the bushes are all liars so therefore it must be true then fine. Dan Rather took that approach and it did not work out so well. Meanwhile Kerry's actual Swiftboat unit directly testified that his military record and medals were completely bogus but the lib media needed more and more proof because we didnt want poor John to be Swiftboated while he was trying to Swiftboat Bush. Kerry lost that election as I recall.

Quite possibly it is true though along with the "fact" that Kerry shot an unarmed vietnamese kid in the back as part of getting one of his medals. When he testified to Congress about autrocities being committed by American troops he could have cited his own service and perhaps was trying to appease his own guilt.

armydad · 11-02-2009, 08:00 PM

A group funded by the biggest republican donor in Texas began running an attack ad on Aug. 5th in which former swift boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get 1 of his 2 decorations for bravery and 2 of his 3 purple hearts.

But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen and Navy records.

I thought the swiftboat veterans were lying. I voted for Kerry.

Kerry didnot shoot a unarmed boy. He shot a viet cong who was running with a rocket launcher who was poised to turn and fire it.

None of those in the attack ad by the swiftboat group actually served on Kerry's boat. Their statments are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.

Winter · 11-03-2009, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by armydad

A group funded by the biggest republican donor in Texas began running an attack ad on Aug. 5th in which former swift boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get 1 of his 2 decorations for bravery and 2 of his 3 purple hearts.

But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen and Navy records.

I thought the swiftboat veterans were lying. I voted for Kerry.

Kerry didnot shoot a unarmed boy. He shot a viet cong who was running with a rocket launcher who was poised to turn and fire it.

None of those in the attack ad by the swiftboat group actually served on Kerry's boat. Their statments are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.

Indeed we are making the same point. You stated as fact that bush had gotten special treatment to get into the guard to avoid Vietnam. I stated that the facts there have not been established and indeed Rather was fired for journalistic fraud and malpractice. Doesnt mean Bush didnt, just means if you look behind the curtain the "facts" are skimpier than those who have a partisan motive are inclined to believe.

I gave, as an example, the allegations around Kerry and the Swiftboat situation where many conservatives and others believe that, although he may have been smeared, that probably the "facts" support some kind of cheesy behavior on his part somewhere. You justly pointed out that if you look at the "facts" there isn't as much there as political partisans want you believe. That was my point about Bush's military record. We must allow for the possibility that if it could be true for Kerry it could be true for Bush, eh.

As an aside, let the record show that Bush did not blackball or cut off access to CBS even though their leading news anchor was actively involved in journalistic malpractice or fraud which resulted in an eagerness to smear Bush. Contrast this with President Crybaby who blackballed Fox news for telling the truth about his pinko buddies.

Change you can believe in.

armydad · 11-04-2009, 08:22 PM

Obama administration called out fox news because they were not acting like a news station. They were involved in organizing the tea party events and town hall health care meetings.

G.Gordon · 11-04-2009, 08:55 PM

Ooh Ooh Ooh... he's finally going to make a decision. Right after he gets back from Asia.

I hate that thug, welfare minded, do nothing, racist, pupit. 2012 can't come soon enough.

WinoBlues · 11-04-2009, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by G.Gordon

Ooh Ooh Ooh... he's finally going to make a decision. Right after he gets back from Asia....

ASIA? What is going to apologize to them about?

Robert Barney · 11-04-2009, 11:13 PM

Let's see:

1. The Atomic bombs dropped on Japan

2. The Vietnam war.

3. The Korean war.

4. The attempts to spread Christianity

There's at least enough material for a 90 minute awe inspiring speech that will send a shiver up Chris Matthews leg.

Winter · 11-05-2009, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by armydad

Obama administration called out fox news because they were not acting like a news station. They were involved in organizing the tea party events and town hall health care meetings.

I am okay with it. Let him do whatever he wants. Fox is big enough to take care of themselves and we have a free press in some areas. If Fox keeps on "not acting like a news organization" they will go out of business and if President Obama keeps on "not acting like a protector of the free press and transparency" he will go out of business assuming that there is truth in any of those allegations. Let em work it out on the playground. Plus Fox loves the new viewers and loves to watch CNN and MSNBC worry that they could be punished next but dont have the clout to do anything about it.

If Presbo wants to announce tomorrow that he will not speak to Fox News again, go for it.

WinoBlues · 11-05-2009, 04:05 PM

Can't he just go on Asia News, bite his lip, squeeze out a tear and say he is sorry to the world, increase aid and be done with it.

Originally Posted by Robert Barney

Let's see:

1. The Atomic bombs dropped on Japan

2. The Vietnam war.

3. The Korean war.

4. The attempts to spread Christianity

There's at least enough material for a 90 minute awe inspiring speech that will send a shiver up Chris Matthews leg.

bobson · 11-05-2009, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Barney

Let's see:

1. The Atomic bombs dropped on Japan

2. The Vietnam war.

3. The Korean war.

4. The attempts to spread Christianity

There's at least enough material for a 90 minute awe inspiring speech that will send a shiver up Chris Matthews leg.

You forgot the 5th and maybe most important point.

5. Praise Chairman Mau for the wonderful accomplishments in China.