Obama goes Bush, agrees to dramatic troop escalation in Afghanistan

Posted 2009/11/10 00:24:23
Read all 523 comments
+28

Read More

cbsnews.com - "Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops"... Read full article »

+28

Old Geecer 2009/11/10 01:38:45

+16
I really don't understand why the Republicans hate Obama because he is just continuing what Bush was doing, spending taxpayers money and charging it our children that isn't born yet, continuing a War that is not winnable (the only winners is the arms manufactures we our supplying the blood and the money). The Government can spend a trillion Dollars on a War and do this over night, but when it’s for the people everybody is concerned about the cost. Obama problem is that he is trying to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody, The Democrats are beginning to dislike him and the Republican just hate him! One thing is that he doesn't have to worry about the next election because any lame duck could win against him!
>> See Replies

Lt. Fred to LastRanger 2009/11/11 05:02:22

+1
Define leadership? How would one show leadership, in concrete policy terms? Would Obama have to slavishly follow the instructions of his lower-ranked superiors and predecessor, or would he have some wiggle room?

reply
jon to Lt. Fred 2009/11/19 10:32:13

+1
If one needs a definition of leadership then one would not understand the definition. But just to make a point leadership is not invoking political correctness and apologizing for America and bowing in subservience to every foreign dignitary the alleged leader meets.
JB

reply
Lt. Fred to jon 2009/11/19 21:55:26 (edited)

+1
Certainly not. From your description, Obama would need to slavishly obey the untested orders of his domestic enemies in order to show leadership.

Frankly, I don't care about Obama at all. So long as his term ends with a pile of good policy and no recession, he's great. All too many 'manly' leaders with great personality- at least according to the media- have completely trashed the country.

reply
jon to Lt. Fred 2009/11/20 06:39:56

+1
Well I am diametrically opposed to your perspective. The day will never come when I accept the notion that Marxist tactics and socialism is goo for this great nation, and that demilitarizing to the point of vulnerability is good. I believe that you may be naive or uninformed with respect to political philosophy and its relationship to the Constitution. I am anxious to vote out Obama, his cronies and more than half of the Republican party and all of the democrats.
JB

reply
Lt. Fred to jon 2009/11/22 00:58:19

+1
I'm no big fan of Marx, either. The whole 'dictatorship of the proletariat' thing is asking for misuse by tyrants, as it has been many times. But withdrawal from other countries is not increasing vulnerability, but reducing it. If the army is brought home, that means more soldiers to defend the actual borders of the US.

reply
jon to Lt. Fred 2009/11/22 02:13:55

+1
One needs to appreciate the geostrategic importance of the area in order to accurately assess the impact of withdrawal. It is necessary first of all to put the conflict in the context of the Iran-Iraq War. Iran is funding and supplying not only Al Qaeda but the Taliban as well. Iran is central to the issue of terrorism today, and has been since Jimmy Carter helped to usher in the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution.

Do not make the mistake that the Middle East embroilment is a local matter. Keep in min that the World Trade Center was not in the Middle East and that the idea that it was the result of U.S. presence in the Middle East has been defeated.

You view that we need the troops in America seems to suggest that some military conflict will occur in America or arrive here to be fought on American soil. I can understand your fear in light of the drastic demilitarization of America by Obama and the left wing U.S. and European World Socialists that are behind him.

If we pull our finger out of the "security dike" now we will be flooded with catastrophe. The solution is to remove the political influence from the left in military strategy. Obama has not intellectual capacity to decide on military strategy.

I don't know if you are curious, or looking for info...

One needs to appreciate the geostrategic importance of the area in order to accurately assess the impact of withdrawal. It is necessary first of all to put the conflict in the context of the Iran-Iraq War. Iran is funding and supplying not only Al Qaeda but the Taliban as well. Iran is central to the issue of terrorism today, and has been since Jimmy Carter helped to usher in the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution.

Do not make the mistake that the Middle East embroilment is a local matter. Keep in min that the World Trade Center was not in the Middle East and that the idea that it was the result of U.S. presence in the Middle East has been defeated.

You view that we need the troops in America seems to suggest that some military conflict will occur in America or arrive here to be fought on American soil. I can understand your fear in light of the drastic demilitarization of America by Obama and the left wing U.S. and European World Socialists that are behind him.

If we pull our finger out of the "security dike" now we will be flooded with catastrophe. The solution is to remove the political influence from the left in military strategy. Obama has not intellectual capacity to decide on military strategy.

I don't know if you are curious, or looking for information and ideas or if you are just sticking to your guns. But there is a war in Afghanistan and Iraq that impacts our security in America and here is where the rubber meets the road and reality begins.
JB
(more)

reply
jon to Lt. Fred 2009/11/20 06:43:17

+1
His term will end with a lot of unnecessary suffering and hardship for the nation and the families that depend on small business and the workforce.
JB

reply
Lt. Fred to jon 2009/11/20 11:26:03

+1
That's a rather depressing prophecy. May it be ill-founded.

reply
jon to Lt. Fred 2009/11/20 17:23:18

+1
It may be depressing to you but for those of us who do not want a fascist government with a socialist economy; a government that will eclipse our freedom, opportunity for personal success and self actualization, it will be a step towards recovery. If you consider that 1.3 million people attended Obama's inauguration and 1.8 million went to DC to protest his presidency you will realize that not everyone drank the Kool Aid and many who did are rejecting it.
JB

reply
Lt. Fred to jon 2009/11/21 09:47:14

+1
A fascist government cannot have a socialst economy. The fascist system of economics is known as corporatism- free market for the poor, government money if the rich fail. Fascists and socialists, particularly the communist wing of socialism, hate each other, as they have forever.

Obama wants neither system. All indications have it that he's a a moderate liberal in the vein of Eisenhower or Truman, although considerably more bloodthirsty.

As for your numbers, they're a bit off. Most estimates put the Tea Bagger whine-fest at about 40,000-60,000. The corporate event organisers (FreedomWorks) insisted that only a little over 600,000 turned up, and supporting group the National Taxpayer's Union said 200,000. A Boston University professor said at peak 75,000. And the Fire Department made a sketchy semi-estimate of 75,000. So, if we take a wildly generous estimate and say that 200,000 real people turned up to lynch the first black president, the Real to Fake ratio (RFR) is 1 to 9- which is tosay 9 made up people turned up for every teabagger. Using that ratio and applying it to Obama's inaugeration, a grand total of 11.7 million people turned up to cheer in the new president. Strangely, that's exactly how many more votes Obama got than Wasilla Barbie and co.

Furthermore, Obama continues to have positive job approval- extremely positive everywhere but the South.

reply
jon to Lt. Fred 2009/11/21 14:55:20

+1
Maybe you should read about Hitler and Mussolini. You are grossly misinformed...Are you listening to NPR?
JB

reply
Lt. Fred to jon 2009/11/21 22:19:26 (edited)

+1
Mussolini (the inventor of fascism) called fascist economics corporatism. He beat up the socialist/communist party, who were his primary political opponents. Hitler did the same thing, starting street fights with the communist party, invading the Soviet Union and so on.

Fascism is, in my opinion, primarily a government run like a corporation, for the benefit of corporations. That's certainly how it manifested itself in Nazi Germany and Italy. Not so much Spain, though.

In other words, I haven't been listening to NPR and I'm not misinformed. Maybe YOU should read about Mussolini and Hitler.

reply
Lurch 2009/11/10 19:35:09

+1
Nice spin.

FTA (from the article):
"Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan."

That is the difference between Obama and Bush.

Obama takes months to decide if he is willing to morally commit the lives of US troops to such a dangerous mission.

Bush spent months trying to come up with excuse after excuse to get 5,000 US troops killed over a predetermined empire-expanding agenda.

reply
jon to Lurch 2009/11/19 10:38:45

+1
???
JB

reply
Lurch to jon 2009/11/19 18:48:46 (edited)

Point is, Obama spends time and resources to find the safest way for our troops and the innocent civilians. Bush/Cheney spent all their time and resources trying to come up with excuses to put more Americans in harm's way, with no consideration for the consequences in the short or long term.

Bush's War in Afghanistan is now the longest war in American history because it is the war that Bush started and then ignored, all the while letting the terrorist escape, regroup, recruit, and train.

Bush was like a hurricane. Any room he walked into, he left a huge disaster for somebody else to clean up - Afghanistan, Iraq, FEMA, the economy, healthcare, SS, immigration, voting rights, and so forth.

A paper weight as president could not have done more damage to America than GWB.

Not that I'm surprised or anything. I saw much of this coming back in 1999 when the MSM really started selling GWB to the public.

reply
jon to Lurch 2009/11/20 06:41:13

+1
Another Bush Basher. Bush is not president and trying to justify Obama's failures by bashing Bush is total nonsense.
JB

reply
Lt. Fred to jon 2009/11/21 22:31:23

+2
We have to act as if Obama was the first president, and ignore all the other guys.

reply
Lurch to Lt. Fred 2009/12/03 02:56:09

True. Nothing ever happened before Obama, and Obama alone created both wars that started five and six years before he took office, the explosion of the debt that started twenty-seven years before he took office, same with the recession that started fifteen months before he took office - all Obama's fault! [see my straight face??]

These NJs are so emotionally far down the rabbit hole, they don't get that we see right through their ignorance, belligerence, and hypocrisy.

reply
FanOreilly to Lurch 2009/12/03 18:43:08

+1
Keep making excuses for Obama's failures...somebody might believe you.

reply
Lurch to FanOreilly 2009/12/07 07:07:13

Keep trying to pretend this whole thing is not Bush and the Republicans' fault.

Tell you what. When you guys start holding your own accountable for their failures, corruption, and incompetence, we'll count how many years after the fact it has taken you to wake up, then we'll count that many years after Obama is out of office and start holding him responsible for his mistakes (AND NOT the mistakes of the Republicans who caused and/or enabled this mess to fester all those years).

reply