The Goat Pen

zzZZZzz

Shhhhh. Mook is asleep.

I really think puter has ocd.

Organized Crime Division

Operational Control Document

Oil Content Detector

Optically Coupled Device

Obscure Character of the Day

puterbac wrote:So Oprama is ignoring the military in an attempt to placate the left for 2012 election? What a shocker.

Barack Obama and Pentagon split on Afghanistan pullout

US president set to reject military advice by withdrawing more troops from Afghanistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... fghanistan

For once, in this case, Obama is following the wishes of the majority of the American people. How many more decades is this war worth?

10ac wrote:Shhhhh. Mook is asleep.

Don't wake the dragon.

Professor Tiger wrote:

puterbac wrote:So Oprama is ignoring the military in an attempt to placate the left for 2012 election? What a shocker.

Barack Obama and Pentagon split on Afghanistan pullout

US president set to reject military advice by withdrawing more troops from Afghanistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... fghanistan

For once, in this case, Obama is following the wishes of the majority of the American people. How many more decades is this war worth?

So? The wishes of the American people are that cutting foreign aid will fix all our problems and to leave SS, medicare, medicaid alone which is idiocy.

If the time is right because conditions on the ground dictate that its okay and the military agrees, fine by me. But when I hear the military saying they disagree and the WH is all but saying its being done for pure political reasons for 2012 that is bullshit.

If pulling x number of troops out to soon stretches the rest to thin, and it either takes longer or gains are lost and have to be made again just to support someone's election that is a bad thing? Isn't that Vietnam micro-managing BS? And that is where these Generals cut their teeth, so I am sure their antennae are very sensitive to that. Of course the President is C-in-C and has control, but to ignore the advice of military leadership on matters of fighting a war is dangerous.

ESPECIALLY when the stated reason is because of an upcoming election.

PT,

And I saw the poll as well, but how was the question asked?

"Do you want troops to come home or stay?" - Duh

Or how different would it be if it was:

"Do you want troops to come home even if means conditions worsen and the Taliban regain power?" - Probably flip the poll don't you think?

Jumbo Jets in Near Miss at JFK

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Ju ... 39.html?dr

There's a lot of conservatives who seem to favor pulling out of Afghanistan these days. Ron Paul, naturally, but nearly every one of the candidates in the debates have hinted they favor a pullout...some just more gradual than others This is a quote from Romeny on Afghanistan:

"I also think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation."

I don't think any candidate of either party would come out today and say the troops must remain indefinitely until we're satisfied the Taliban is wiped out

Dr. Strangelove wrote:There's a lot of conservatives who seem to favor pulling out of Afghanistan these days. Ron Paul, naturally, but nearly every one of the candidates in the debates have hinted they favor a pullout...some just more gradual than others This is a quote from Romeny on Afghanistan:

"I also think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation."

I don't think any candidate of either party would come out today and say the troops must remain indefinitely until we're satisfied the Taliban is wiped out

We didn't go to Afghan to fight for their independence. We went to Afghan to kill those who planned and helped plan/train those who attacked us.

I don't know whether even a semi-democracy is possible over there. What I want to avoid is allowing the bad guys to regain footholds, places to hide and train, etc and us having to go back after another attack. Maybe keeping a trip wire type force can accomplish the goals. I don't know as I'm not in the military, but neither is Oprama. If the mission has changed and the military agrees it can do it, fine. If its pure politics for an election and the military says its a bad idea, then I have a problem with that.

But to just walk away and give up as many want makes all the sacrifice for nothing: Sorry American Mom's and Dad's we know you made the ultimate sacrifice of sons and daughters, but it really was for nothing.

That bothers me.

Of course the President is C-in-C and has control, but to ignore the advice of military leadership on matters of fighting a war is dangerous.

The President has other responsibility besides the war. Unlike the military leaders, he has to make decisions based on everything else being considered. And, of course, regardles of what he decides, he will be criticized.

ESPECIALLY when the stated reason is because of an upcoming election.

The President stated this as his reason?

If the war's goal was to kill and eliminate those who helped plan 9/11 then that has more or less been accomplished with Bin Laden dead and nearly everyone associated with its planning and execution dead or captured. So the lives sacrificed would not have been "all for nothing" if you genuinely feel that was the main goal of the Afghanistan War.

The only way I could see you feeling as if "it was all for nothing" is if you thought the top priority was to establish a democracy in Afghanistan and it falls apart thanks to us leaving. So was that why we went to war or not? To bring democracy to the Afghan people?

The bad guys have places to hide right now. They will have places to hide and regroup and retrain even if we send in another 250,000 troops. Exactly how long should we dedicate ourselves to a mission that's clearly gone beyond rooting out the 9/11 masterminds?

puterbac wrote:So Oprama is ignoring the military in an attempt to placate the left for 2012 election? What a shocker.

Barack Obama and Pentagon split on Afghanistan pullout

US president set to reject military advice by withdrawing more troops from Afghanistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... fghanistan

Naturally my first impulse is who gives a fuck what the Guardian thinks.

Secondly, what general worth his salt wants less troops.

And third - actually reading the article makes you wonder why the title wasn't "obama ignores calls for pullout even though Bin Laden is dead and AQ is reeling."

add #4 - stfu wiz

Dora wrote:

Of course the President is C-in-C and has control, but to ignore the advice of military leadership on matters of fighting a war is dangerous.

The President has other responsibility besides the war. Unlike the military leaders, he has to make decisions based on everything else being considered. And, of course, regardles of what he decides, he will be criticized.

ESPECIALLY when the stated reason is because of an upcoming election.

The President stated this as his reason?

Of course he has other responsibilities and he will be criticized no matter what. Of course he has delegated much of his agenda to congress (heh).

We've lost thousands of lives and billions of dollars spent to acheive certain goals. I would hate to abandon this before the job is finished and the troops feel this way to. They want the sacrifices to have been for something and they don't want to have to come back.

Has Oprama said its because of 2012 election, publicly? No. Has it been reported that way by nyt and others including admin sources? Yes.

bluetick wrote:

puterbac wrote:So Oprama is ignoring the military in an attempt to placate the left for 2012 election? What a shocker.

Barack Obama and Pentagon split on Afghanistan pullout

US president set to reject military advice by withdrawing more troops from Afghanistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... fghanistan

Naturally my first impulse is who gives a fuck what the Guardian thinks.

Secondly, what general worth his salt wants less troops.

And third - actually reading the article makes you wonder why the title wasn't "obama ignores calls for pullout even though Bin Laden is dead and AQ is reeling."

add #4 - stfu wiz

Is reeling defeated? Allow me to quote Mortal Kombat: FINISH THEM!

If the boot is on the neck and more time and pressure will finish the job, don't take your foot off and let them live.

This thread needs to be renamed "puter talking to himself"...

Of course he has other responsibilities and he will be criticized no matter what. Of course he has delegated much of his agenda to congress (heh).

If he can get Congress to implement his agenda, I say more power to him!

We've lost thousands of lives and billions of dollars spent to acheive certain goals. I would hate to abandon this before the job is finished and the troops feel this way to. They want the sacrifices to have been for something and they don't want to have to come back.

So what will it take to finish the job?

Has Oprama said its because of 2012 election, publicly? No. Has it been reported that way by nyt and others including admin sources? Yes.

Someone else claiming that to be the reason ≠ the stated reason. The stated reason is the reason Obama gives.

And this is what the NYT reports:

The decision also reflects the rapidly-changing domestic landscape, with Mr. Obama facing a sagging economy, intense budget pressures and a war-weary Congress and public as he looks ahead to his reelection campaign.

Leading Republican hopefuls like Mitt Romney are demanding a swifter withdrawal from Afghanistan, while Democrats on Capitol Hill and elsewhere complain that the cost of the war — $120 billion this year alone — is siphoning money away from efforts to build roads and create jobs in the United States.

“From a fiscal standpoint, we’re spending too much money on Iraq and Afghanistan,” a senior administration official said. “There’s a belief from a fiscal standpoint that this is cannibalizing too much of our spending.”

Dora wrote:And this is what the NYT reports:

The decision also reflects the rapidly-changing domestic landscape, with Mr. Obama facing a sagging economy, intense budget pressures and a war-weary Congress and public as he looks ahead to his reelection campaign.

Leading Republican hopefuls like Mitt Romney are demanding a swifter withdrawal from Afghanistan, while Democrats on Capitol Hill and elsewhere complain that the cost of the war — $120 billion this year alone — is siphoning money away from efforts to build roads and create jobs in the United States.

“From a fiscal standpoint, we’re spending too much money on Iraq and Afghanistan,” a senior administration official said. “There’s a belief from a fiscal standpoint that this is cannibalizing too much of our spending.”

"As he looks ahead to his re-election campaign"

And: These troop reductions are both deeper and faster than the recommendations made by Mr. Obama’s military commanders

And: But it is a setback for his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who helped write the Army’s field book on counterinsurgency policy, and who is returning to Washington to head the Central Intelligence Agency.

Two administration officials said General Petraeus did not endorse the decision, though both Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who is retiring, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reluctantly accepted it.

So the guy even the NYT admits wrote the book on counterinsurgency policy is being over ruled