President Obama Speaks on Ending the War in Afghanistan

by Mopeder Posted 2012/05/02 07:40:02

Related Topics: Obama, Afghanistan, War, United States, President Obama, Future, Historic, President, Security

12 votes
Read all 22 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	I think Obama is handling Afghanistan in the most appropriate way.	8 votes	67%
	I don't think Obama is handling Afghanistan in the most appropriate way.	4 votes	33%

President Obama addresses the nation from Afghanistan after signing a historic agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries -- a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states, and a future in which the war ends, and a new chapter begins.

Add a comment above

abycinnamon BN-1 2012/05/02 09:36:27

I think Obama is handling Afghanistan in the most appropriate way.

+6
I think obama is a smart guy and I think he knows what he is doing. I also know he has a lot more information than I do about what is going on there. I don't really understand the very long commitment there, but I'm confident it's a good decision.
>> See Replies

More polls by Mopeder

michael 2012/05/02 14:51:18

I don't think Obama is handling Afghanistan in the most appropriate way.

This is another of Obama's lies--the war will keep on going but in another form.........why you ask becuase USA's loyal ally in the War on Terror, Pakistan , needs to have a NON-India ally in power in Afghanistan. The current government in Afghanistan is too close to India for Pakistan's comfort. For example, I remind everyone in Condi Rice's book "No Higher Honor" she said during a White House dinner the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan almost came to a fist fight in front of both George W. Bush and Dick Chaney in 2007. Becuase of Pakistan's fear of a Pro-India ally on it northern boarder of Pakistan must undermind that "nighmare" from happening by "fanning the flames" of the Islamic fighters in Kashmir. Remenber both the attackers of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan and the Mumbi attacks in India where connected to the Islamic fighters in the war going on in Kashmir all thanks to ISI--Pakistan's much feared intelligence service( also note that the war in Kashmir was a huge "recruiting ground" for Al Qede terrorist..remenber John Walker Lind the so called "American Taliban" was a trained to be a fighter in Kashmir). Also, the real source of power of the Taliban in Southern Afghanistan is the Pashtuns who are deeply embedded within Pakistan especially in the tribal N...

This is another of Obama's lies--the war will keep on going but in another form.........why you ask becuase USA's loyal ally in the War on Terror, Pakistan , needs to have a NON-India ally in power in Afghanistan. The current government in Afghanistan is too close to India for Pakistan's comfort. For example, I remind everyone in Condi Rice's book "No Higher Honor" she said during a White House dinner the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan almost came to a fist fight in front of both George W. Bush and Dick Chaney in 2007. Becuase of Pakistan's fear of a Pro-India ally on it northern boarder of Pakistan must undermind that "nighmare" from happening by "fanning the flames" of the Islamic fighters in Kashmir. Remenber both the attackers of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan and the Mumbi attacks in India where connected to the Islamic fighters in the war going on in Kashmir all thanks to ISI--Pakistan's much feared intelligence service( also note that the war in Kashmir was a huge "recruiting ground" for Al Qede terrorist..remenber John Walker Lind the so called "American Taliban" was a trained to be a fighter in Kashmir). Also, the real source of power of the Taliban in Southern Afghanistan is the Pashtuns who are deeply embedded within Pakistan especially in the tribal Northwestern Frontier areas and Quatta area ( which is why USA's drone attacks have increased NOT decreased). Becuase of that fact places some restrictions on the freedom of action by Pakistan when it comes to "reaching out " for a diplomatic solution with Afghanistan. I think the Obama White House is covering up the level of Taliban attacks in recent years becuase Obama needs some "success" in Afghanistan for political reasons.
(more)

reply
Keeping It Real 2012/05/02 11:56:38 (edited)

I think Obama is handling Afghanistan in the most appropriate way.

+2
I have no doubt that the president is handling Afghanistan in a very appropriate and credible way.

reply
JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/02 11:17:26

I don't think Obama is handling Afghanistan in the most appropriate way.

This may be a strategic move to keep American troops in the vicinity of Iran.

I don't believe Obama is being forthright with the American people, but there are times when that is not possible.

Extending our involvement in Afghanistan goes against Obama's admitted plans no more than a year ago.

That his constituents are not up in arms is surprising.

reply
scblues... to JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/02 18:39:18

+1
Everyone understood that our involvement in Afghanistan would be extended when he placed an additional 38,000 troops there just over a year ago. The force reduction this summer will bring the troop levels in Afghanistan back down to what it was before the surge troops were deployed.

There's also the reality that if we pull out of Afg too fast, Karzai will face a power vacuum and would most likely be overthrown/killed, which would throw regions of that country into turmoil worse than what's happening in Syria right now.

reply
abycinnamon BN-1 2012/05/02 09:36:27

I think Obama is handling Afghanistan in the most appropriate way.

+6
I think obama is a smart guy and I think he knows what he is doing. I also know he has a lot more information than I do about what is going on there. I don't really understand the very long commitment there, but I'm confident it's a good decision.

reply
Mark 2012/05/02 09:21:44

I think Obama is handling Afghanistan in the most appropriate way.

+3
The whole point of the war in Afghistahn has gotten out of hand.
The whole point should be in the wake of the 7/7 attack, to kill Bin Laden, kick the Taliban in the nuts and come home.

reply
Uranos7 2012/05/02 08:58:34

I don't think Obama is handling Afghanistan in the most appropriate way.

Did he tape that 4 years ago?
He is saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same way as he did 4 years ago when he made the campaign promise to end the Afghan war in 18 months.

reply
Mopeder to Uranos7 2012/05/02 09:18:21

+3

reply
Uranos7 to Mopeder 2012/05/02 10:29:39

reply
scblues... to Uranos7 2012/05/02 18:28:22

+1
He never made a promise to end the war in afghanistan in 18 months.

reply
Uranos7 to scblues... 2012/05/02 20:09:05

""After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan,"
[ Barack Obama 2008 campaign]

reply
scblues... to Uranos7 2012/05/04 18:27:07

Right, after 18 months he will begin the drawdown, not end it completely. He has not strayed from that plan at all.

reply
Uranos7 to scblues... 2012/05/04 19:32:31 (edited)

He did not drawdown but added to.
It marks the second time in his presidency that Obama has added to the American force in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has recently made significant advances. When he became president last January, there were roughly 34,000 troops on the ground. There now are 71,000.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/...

reply
scblues... to Uranos7 2012/05/07 19:22:07

Did you read the first sentence of the article you just sourced? It answers your question, and says exactly what I was just saying. Here, I'll clip it for you:

"President Barack Obama has ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to be deployed in Afghanistan — but he also pledged Tuesday to begin withdrawing American forces in about 18 months, beginning in July 2011."

reply
Uranos7 to scblues... 2012/05/07 21:14:26

and the second shows he broke that 'pledge'.

reply
scblues... to Uranos7 2012/05/07 21:20:40

No, it doesn't. It only reaffirms when he stated he would begin the drawdown.

reply
Uranos7 to scblues... 2012/05/07 22:17:35

When he became president last January, there were roughly 34,000 troops on the ground. There now are 71,000.
That part refutes his pledge. So does this chart.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn....
Chart shows that troops in afghanistan have steadily increased and currently number 100,000.
He has ADDED troops in afghanistan not withdrawn.

reply
scblues... to Uranos7 2012/05/07 22:21:04

On July 11th, 2011, he made a pledge to begin troop withdrawal in 18 months, which puts it at June, 2012. That is when the drawdown will take place. Between June and August of this year, the first phase is supposed to begin, which would bring troop levels in Afghanistan down to what they were before the surge increase.

reply
Uranos7 to scblues... 2012/05/08 01:39:57

He made the pledge in 2008 while campaigning.

reply
scblues... to Uranos7 2012/05/08 19:07:33

He made the pledge to end the war while he was campaigning, yes. And now he's giving a specific timetable.

reply
Uranos7 to scblues... 2012/05/09 00:29:16

Man that is a lot longer than the 18 months he promised in 2008

reply
Mopeder 2012/05/02 07:41:35

I think Obama is handling Afghanistan in the most appropriate way.

+2
I agree.

reply