PDA

View Full Version : Taliban Stronger Now than Before Surge



llotter
05-06-2012, 03:10 PM
According to two lasmakers, The Moron's carefully considered troop surge has strengthened the enemy rather than weakened. So the death and treasure have gone for naught. Goes to show that our infamous CIC is no one to trust being in charge of much of anything, let alone our military.

Soflasnapper
05-07-2012, 05:43 PM
So how about the military and the GOP, who supported the surge there? Very trustworthy on their judgements, or not so much?

Gayle in MD
05-08-2012, 09:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to two lasmakers, The Moron's carefully considered troop surge has strengthened the enemy rather than weakened. So the death and treasure have gone for naught. Goes to show that our infamous CIC is no one to trust being in charge of much of anything, let alone our military. </div></div>

So exactly what should have been done? Do be specific!

How should the president have ended the two unpaid for wars, that Bush launched, and then left in his wake, unfinished?

G.

Gayle in MD
05-08-2012, 04:52 PM
? Well? No answer. No solution of your own as to what should have happened?

Figures!

llotter
05-09-2012, 07:44 AM
Bush had it agbout right, IMO, in both Iraq, hoping to building a more modern country in the middle of socially backward Muslim countries, and Afghanistan, a targetless evvironment that required a minimal footprint of specialized forces to thwart rebuilding by our enemies. So, A slower withdrawal from Iraq to do everything possible to insure the success of the Iraqi effort rather than a precipitous ending there, essentially doing everything to aid in its failure would have been a much better course.

Like most lefties, who like to display their manhood by flexing our military but always the least consequential and risk averse way possible, this 'president' did what was so predictable...withdraw from risk in Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan (or Libya) where risk seemed minimal. And it is safe to say that these efforts were merely to make himself look like a real leader because there is almost no justification in terms of Americas interest involved.

I sincerely hope that Iraq ends up as a success but if that happens, the 'president' will deserve no thanks. But the rest of the Middle east in going in the wrong direction about as fast as could be imagined and The Moron has been at the helm, doing exactly the wrong thing is every case.

Gayle in MD
05-09-2012, 08:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush had it agbout right, IMO, in both Iraq, hoping to building a more modern country in the middle of socially backward Muslim countries, and Afghanistan, a targetless evvironment that required a minimal footprint of specialized forces to thwart rebuilding by our enemies. So, A slower withdrawal from Iraq to do everything possible to insure the success of the Iraqi effort rather than a precipitous ending there, essentially doing everything to aid in its failure would have been a much better course.

<span style="color: #CC0000">The agreement of when to leave Iraq was signed and delivered to the Iraqi's by BUSH. </span>

Like most lefties, who like to display their manhood by flexing our military but always the least consequential and risk averse way possible, this 'president' did what was so predictable...withdraw from risk in Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan (or Libya) where risk seemed minimal.


<span style="color: #CC0000">Again, the withdrawel was set in stone, and agreed upon before Bush left office.

Additionally the risk was in Afghannistan, where al Qaeda had safe haven. The risk was, and is, terrorists getting their hands on NUKES! Iraq didn't have any NUKES. Pakistan, across the Afghanistan border, does have NUKES!

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was not the major threat. Saddam was holding Iran's feet to the heat. He was the enemy of our enemy. Afghanistan was where al Qaeda had been given safe haven to plot and carry out the 9/11 attacks, and also where Bush dropped the ball, and couldn't respond to our best chance during his administration, to get bin Laden. Afghanistan was where bin Laden had been for years and years. NOT IRAQ. Bush didn't change the hearts and minds of Iraqi's one single bit. Iraqi's hate George Bush. His invasion of Iraq made everything worse, not better, including out deficits. Bush ignored North Korea, and strengthened Iran. Al qaeda was able to frannchise, and they used Bush's torture to recruit more to their cause. </span>


And it is safe to say that these efforts were merely to make himself look like a real leader because there is almost no justification in terms of Americas interest involved.

<span style="color: #CC0000">He decimated al Qaeda and killed the man who led the attack on 9/11, and that man was NOT Saddam! </span>

I sincerely hope that Iraq ends up as a success but if that happens, the 'president' will deserve no thanks. But the rest of the Middle east in going in the wrong direction about as fast as could be imagined and The Moron has been at the helm, doing exactly the wrong thing is every case.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">You can't be serious! The middle east has been a simmering pot for thousands of years. Reagan and Bush are the ones who threw gas on the simmering fire in the Middle East!

Had we listened to Carter, we could have been completely independent of foreign oil, long ago.

Iraq was a militarily unwinnable war throughout. All of the Generals said so. It was a complete waste of money and blood, and all for naught.


Bush should never have invaded Iraq. The costs have been devastating. We accomplished absolutely nothing of value, by invading Iraq. NOTHING! We strengthened Iran, and North Korea, and Bush allowed bin Laden to escape, and continue building al Qaeda, which president Obama has decimated, without militarily invading other countries.

Bush launched two wars, and didn't finish either of them. Bush was bacially thrown out of Iraq, an ultimatum, which he had no choice but to agree to following, they wanted us OUT throughout the fiasco in Iraq. Bush's policies drew al Qaeda into Iraq, where aQ had never been. Iran was killing our soldiers in Iraq, and financing al Qaeda's attacks.

The invasion of Iraq, used up resources that should have been used to cut the head off the snake in Afghanistan.

It took President Obama, to get bin Laden, and most of the al Qaeda operatives. He is still doing that, and doing it without militarily invading other countries. He's doing a great job of cleaning up after George W. Bush, whose foreign policies have been among the worst in history. Our very successful killing of bin Laden, gave us a wealth of informatiton about al Qaeda and how they are currently operating.




G.</span>

LWW
05-13-2012, 04:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So how about the military and the GOP, who supported the surge there? Very trustworthy on their judgements, or not so much? </div></div>

They supported giving th military people what they said they needed.

They also predicted tat Obama's half fast sur, done to satisfy the dumb masses, was doomed ... I not designed ... to fail.

This s where you dance around realty, rewrite history, and obediently defend the regie.

llotter
05-13-2012, 07:24 AM
If there was any doubt about The Moron's incompetence as CIC, the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan settles that doubt...he knows not how to fill the office and it has cost the lives of many good men. It may or may not have been a mistake to increase the troop level but it was definitely a mistake to increase the troops with a moron in charge.