airdvr 210 #1 November 28, 2009 House Democrats from the Bay Area line up against Obama's expected troop surge in Afghanistan House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said in an interview on NPR last week: "I, myself, believe that there's not strong support on the Democratic side in the Congress for any big ramp-up of troops going into Afghanistan." Oh the quandry those on the left are facing. I feel bad for Barack. These are the tough decisions he must make and those in his own party are ready to BBQ him for it.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #2 November 28, 2009 They should. He needs to grow a pair and stop giving into the right. Anyonre that thinks we can make a difference in Afghanistan is sadly mistaken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #3 November 28, 2009 In this case, "grow a pair" would be more appropriate in his taking on the left. In contrast to Iraq, Obama has consistently maintained that Afghanistan is the place we should be fighting since that's where the 9/11 attacks were launched from. It is the left that's trying to make him change his position, not the right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #4 November 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn this case, "grow a pair" would be more appropriate in his taking on the left. In contrast to Iraq, Obama has consistently maintained that Afghanistan is the place we should be fighting since that's where the 9/11 attacks were launched from. It is the left that's trying to make him change his position, not the right. The attacks for the most part were not launched from afghanistan rather the taliban provided refuge for Bin Laden. If we reaaly wanted go get to the root we would be going into the tribal area of Packistan, where we sill would not stand a chance., Afghanistan is a lost cause that is just going to swallow more US lives and money. We can never win a war like this employing the tatics we use now.. Look at how brutal the Russians were and they still got their asses kicked. Outside of a few left wingers in congress I think most of the Dems will support more troops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bullin82 0 #5 November 28, 2009 Your right on the fact that the Russians had a brutal way of fighting the only thing that stopped them from success was there lack of organization and cooperation within there own ranks. Now if we do the same im sure we can get it done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #6 November 28, 2009 Nations have been getting bogged down in Afghanistan for centuries. With the terrain there it is going to be almost impossible to establish any sort of effective control of much of the country."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 November 28, 2009 Are you just reaching here because approximately 2/5ths of the entire Republican party have jumped ship and now identify themselves are "Independents"? That it's no longer "cool"(?) to identify oneself as Republican and these people know it? I'm not saying it's a permanent thing, they'll swing back at some point . . . 2014 maybe.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #8 November 28, 2009 Well, we've got cannibalism on the left that won't support Obama on Afghanistan. We've got cannibalism on the right like those who sabotaged the moderate Republican's candidacy in the NY 23rd and handed that election (and thus another House seat) to the Democrats. And the moderates will win out. Which is probably all for the best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #9 November 28, 2009 QuoteYour right on the fact that the Russians had a brutal way of fighting the only thing that stopped them from success was there lack of organization and cooperation within there own ranks. Now if we do the same im sure we can get it done. Charlie Wilson might have had something to do with it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilson_(Texas_politician)Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Glandu 0 #10 November 28, 2009 So, what would you say about the brits who also occupied Afghanistan and got their asses kicked out big time ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #11 November 28, 2009 Quote So, what would you say about the brits who also occupied Afghanistan and got their asses kicked out big time ? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think occupation is the goal. As someone said earlier...he jumped on W about being in Iraq. Tore into him for not doing more in Afghanistan. It's interesting to see Barack being spoon fed his own words, and the people who pushed to get him elected sharpening the knives. Afghanistan is a much tougher fight. I think W knew this. But we were blood thirsty after 9/11 and we had to kick somebody's ass. Perhaps he knew Iraq would be relatively easy and satisfy the carnivores at the same time? Either way I think Barack had his eyes opened once he took office as to the situation all over the world.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bullin82 0 #12 November 28, 2009 your right occupation isnt the complete goal and thats what is keeping every Afgahn from takig arms and waging the war we know there capable of. were fighting radicals and people wh just want to get paid for killing Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 November 28, 2009 QuoteAre you just reaching here because approximately 2/5ths of the entire Republican party have jumped ship and now identify themselves are "Independents"? That it's no longer "cool"(?) to identify oneself as Republican and these people know it? I'm not saying it's a permanent thing, they'll swing back at some point . . . 2014 maybe. Wonder where y'all keep getting those numbers from... because Gallup disagrees. Edit to add - found the Pew poll. I wonder which is the more accurate?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 November 28, 2009 QuoteWell, we've got cannibalism on the left that won't support Obama on Afghanistan. We've got cannibalism on the right like those who sabotaged the moderate Republican's candidacy in the NY 23rd and handed that election (and thus another House seat) to the Democrats. And the moderates will win out. Which is probably all for the best. Moderate Republican, my ass.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #15 November 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteWell, we've got cannibalism on the left that won't support Obama on Afghanistan. We've got cannibalism on the right like those who sabotaged the moderate Republican's candidacy in the NY 23rd and handed that election (and thus another House seat) to the Democrats. And the moderates will win out. Which is probably all for the best. Moderate Republican, my ass. Well, it depends on how you look at it. Had she won, the Republicans would have retained that seat in the House. And then, sure - they'd have to do what they could to keep her in line. But as it stands, a Democrat is in that seat, rather than a Republican. If that works for the Republicans, then that's their choice to make. But in an era when every vote - both at the voting booth and in Congress - counts mightily, it sends a message out that if you don't pass a litmus test of conservatism, the Republican party doesn't want you. But, as I said, that's their choice to make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 November 28, 2009 Quoteit sends a message out that if you don't pass a litmus test of conservatism, the Republican party doesn't want you. And what does being "Dem-lite" do for them?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #17 November 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, we've got cannibalism on the left that won't support Obama on Afghanistan. We've got cannibalism on the right like those who sabotaged the moderate Republican's candidacy in the NY 23rd and handed that election (and thus another House seat) to the Democrats. And the moderates will win out. Which is probably all for the best. Moderate Republican, my ass. Well, it depends on how you look at it. Had she won, the Republicans would have retained that seat in the House. And then, sure - they'd have to do what they could to keep her in line. But as it stands, a Democrat is in that seat, rather than a Republican. If that works for the Republicans, then that's their choice to make. But in an era when every vote - both at the voting booth and in Congress - counts mightily, it sends a message out that if you don't pass a litmus test of conservatism, the Republican party doesn't want you. But, as I said, that's their choice to make. What good is an R beside the name if they're going to vote with the D's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #18 November 28, 2009 Quote Afghanistan is a much tougher fight. I think W knew this. But we were blood thirsty after 9/11 and we had to kick somebody's ass. Perhaps he knew Iraq would be relatively easy and satisfy the carnivores at the same time? Hell of a justification for 3,000 military fatalities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #19 November 28, 2009 Quote Quote Afghanistan is a much tougher fight. I think W knew this. But we were blood thirsty after 9/11 and we had to kick somebody's ass. Perhaps he knew Iraq would be relatively easy and satisfy the carnivores at the same time? Hell of a justification for 3,000 military fatalities. I'm just sayin'Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #20 November 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteit sends a message out that if you don't pass a litmus test of conservatism, the Republican party doesn't want you. And what does being "Dem-lite" do for them? Same as what being a "Repub-lite" does for those people. Each of the major parties need to have broad appeal. If the Dems can't handle a more conservative wing (say, social liberals, economic moderates and very pro-defense), they'll lose out. If the Repubs can't handle a more liberal wing (say, fiscally conservative, but progressive on social issues), they'll lose out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #21 November 28, 2009 QuoteWhat good is an R beside the name if they're going to vote with the D's? Number 1 - it adds to the number of seats the R party has, in case of close congressional elections, or if the margin is close and interim vacancies open up. Balance of power. Number 2 - Presumably a R will still vote with the R's more often than a D would, so it's still an overall net gain (for the R's). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 November 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour right on the fact that the Russians had a brutal way of fighting the only thing that stopped them from success was there lack of organization and cooperation within there own ranks. Now if we do the same im sure we can get it done. Charlie Wilson might have had something to do with it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilson_(Texas_politician) unfortunately, the other side has their own Charlie Wilsons too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #23 November 28, 2009 I might presume the same, if this person hadn't endorsed the democratic candidate after dropping out of the race. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #24 November 28, 2009 QuoteI might presume the same, if this person hadn't endorsed the democratic candidate after dropping out of the race. She did that in retaliation for getting butt-fucked by her own party. I can't say I blame her. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #25 November 29, 2009 QuoteMaybe I'm wrong but I don't think occupation is the goal. You are correct. The goal is insuring that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for al Qa'eda. The method to achieve that goal is population-centric counterinsurgency (COIN), (see the last bullet on page 2; the ‘how to’ accomplish the ‘objectives’ on page 1). Neither occupation nor traditional military operations, i.e., what the British and Soviets pursued. QuoteAfghanistan is a much tougher fight. Concur. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
