More Troops to deploy??????

[Jeremy Gilmore 2]

I am just posting this to kind of rant and rave a bit. My wife read me an article today about how Pres. Obama is increasing the number of troops again in Afghan. This time when I heard this is, it really pushed my buttons the wrong way.



I am a military service member. I will honestly say that I did not vote for Pres. Obama. I feel if you want to be in charge of one of the world's most powerful military, you should have served somehow in the military. I have been in the military now for 14 years. I have been deployed and been in engagements since 1999. I have no issue with following my orders to deploy and fight. Hell, that's what I get paid to do.



What pissed me off about this article, is that Pres. Obama promised that he is going to start pulling us out of Iraq and Afghan. Hell that was part of his platform for President. Since he has taken office, he has increased troop numbers over there 3 or 4 times already. Since he, in my opinion only, has lied to his military members, why should we really believe him anymore?



Thanks for letting me rant and rave.

 

[Jacob Dryer]

Isn't he following the recommendation of the highest military ranking officers?

 

[LaRue Medlin]

Viet Nam all over again,,,, a war we will never win or even try for that matter. God bless all the wasted deaths of OUR troops.

 

[Jeremy Gilmore 2]

Sometimes. The main issue with pushing more troops to the area is that they have a hard time providing space for them. Both times I was in Iraq, they did the whole troop surge. Each time they did this, we were on of each other. They had major issues with getting the proper amount of supplies there to handle all the troops.



Another thing is that not always when these generals make recommendations like these are they really considering if they really need more troops or not. Both times when I was there, when the new unit got there, we just start letting them handle all the missions cause we didn't the equipment for both of us to conduct missions. We then just starting sitting around and not really doing anything.

 

[Steve McKellop]

Campaign platforms have less truth in them than Cinderella fairy tales.........all BS!



And now it plays out!:angry:

 

[Les]

No one can win in Afghanistan...

 

[Richard McAlister]

Actually we could win in Afghanistan (and any other place) if we took the gloves off and fought with all our capabilities.

Remember how the U.S. ended the war against Japan in WWII? That war would have lasted years longer (with many thousand American lives lost) if the military had been restricted the way they are today.

 

[Bill Barber]

No problemo, 30k troops, 30 BILLION BUX:angry:for a non-war, two will placed nukes cost maybe 6 mil, war over in 10 mins.

 

[Kevin Lang]

No problemo, 30k troops, 30 BILLION BUX

Why are you still hung up over the money? You realize that a billion is a drop in the bucket compared to trillions?



Compared to our national debt already, a billion dollars is 25 cents. Many an American won't bend over to pick that up off of the ground.



Obama already spent more than all other 42 presidents of the US, what is a few billion more?





While he was prattling on FOREVER (Barack Obama: The Verbosity of Hope), the Messiah assured us that we were in it to win it, that we would encourage agriculture (Let's grow more opium!), and that it would NOT be another vietnam. Ya'll dare to refute the Chosen?



...of course, then he turned around and said that we'll start pulling out in 2011



On a side note, they showed a blonde cadet in the audience and I thought she had her eyes closed. Did anyone else catch that?



And Obama said that he would not use nukes, that peace cannot be obtained by those who seek greater weapons of destruction. Direct quote, I know you guys saw it too. Totally bogus. So Mr. Barber, even if we knew where to place only two nukes (Why be sparing? We have hundreds, nuke the whole middle east), the Chosen One has refused to use them.



I guess when he was stealing quotes from men like Eisenhower and Lincoln (Blasphemy!), he forgot the classic truth:

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

 

[gary s]

les,



+1

 

[Gavin Allan]

Change you can believe in!



When are you people gonna start believing?



:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Shaun Tucker]

On a side note, they showed a blonde cadet in the audience and I thought she had her eyes closed. Did anyone else catch that?

KL, I caught quite a few "nappers"



I notice weird things about broadcasts like that. Take for instance that while Obama was talking about diversity in the US, the production crew had a camera man single out the only Asian cadet in the crowd. Talk about awkward, the poor girl didn't know where to look.

 

[P M]

I have no problem with deploying or his decision, IF...IF it is based on achieving a viable outcome. I'm not a part of discussions at the highest level, but I just don't see how we've clearly defined a desired and achievable outcome for Afghanistan. I'm okay with the original intent of killing Al Qaeda there, but this has evolved beyond that, and I'm not sure how this will work out.

 

[Johnny O]

U.S. involvement in Afghanistan boils down to two things;

1. The new govt MUST do something different than Bush did since everything Bush did, by definition, is wrong.

2. The new govt MUST fight someone someplace so the Libtards don't look weak on defense. On the other hand, we can't fight too hard because it can't be seen that war works, since war is a Republican idea.

What pissed me off about this article, is that Pres. Obama promised that he is going to start pulling us out of Iraq and Afghan. Hell that was part of his platform for President. Since he has taken office, he has increased troop numbers over there 3 or 4 times already. Since he, in my opinion only, has lied to his military members, why should we really believe him anymore?

You think he lied TO YOU? Hell, what do you think his Libtard base thinks? :angry:

Stuff looks different after you move into the Oval Office and get national security briefings every day than it does when you're preaching to Kool-Aid drinkers on the campaign trail.

It's early yet, but my prediction is that Obama's Presidency will be judged as a dismal failure by people on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans don't like him because he's a Communist, the Liberal Dems don't like him because he's not Communist enough, and the Moderate Dems don't like him because he'll wreck the party and most of them won't get elected again. Meanwhile, Obama tries to fix everythnig so that he'll get the credit if it goes well and none of the blame if it goes wrong.



Thank you for your service.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I give PresBO a D+ / C- grade for his first 11 months in office.



I bet Obama is in the back of his mind thinking how "lucky" GWB was in his first term, and wishing he had a 9-11 moment so that he could "shine" as a president.



But alas, there is no 9-11 moment for Obama, just a very sick economy, that he wants to make sicker by focusing on issues that really don't make a rats-fart of difference to most Americans (govt-supplied healthcare). There's lots of things he COULD be doing; like creating real jobs (highspeed rail, wind/solar energy technology investment, infrastructure projects, education projects); or holding health insurance companies feet to the fire to lower healthcare costs. But instead, he is going around spending money we don't have on programs that are doing us no good.



I know why there is no change...it's because Washington hasn't changed. It's still a town run by special interests and lobbyists; and that was the ONE thing Obama said he was going to change, and one of the few things I agreed he needed to change.



But, it seems he is powerless to change anything.



Seems like we might be screwed. (I have a gift for understatement)



TJR

 

[Les]

I bet Obama is in the back of his mind thinking how "lucky" GWB was in his first term, and wishing he had a 9-11 moment so that he could "shine" as a president.

At this rate, he would just screw that up too. He is a terrible leader and a poor decision maker.

 

[TrainTrac]

Why did he need to give such a long-winded, bloated speech, at West Point of all places, to unveil his brilliant new strategy? Why didn't he just take 30 minutes of prime time TV and lay out the plan from the Oval Office?



I'll tell you why: His ego. He said it himself a few weeks ago on a stop at at Osan Air Base in South Korea on the way home from his China trip:

"You guys make a great photo op".

:blink:



That's why he went to the Point. Right now he looks really weak as a CinC, and he used the cadets and troops as a backdrop make him appear more like a strong leader.



Look back on every time he's spoken this year. He's gone on for at least an hour or more, even in press conferences. At most press conferences, instead giving a few brief opening remarks and then opening the floor for questions like most presidents, he seems to feel the need to bloviate on and on for 30-60 minutes before taking any questions. And even his answers to questions usually drag on for 15 minutes or more. He's so full of himself, and his yes-men have propped him up on such a pedestal that he loves hearing himself speak, 'cause he believes (or has been told) that he's the smartest guy in the room.



Does anyone who watched him last night recall him saying anything about victory in Afghanistan? I don't. I even reviewed the text of the speech again today, and all I saw was talk about a withdrawal in 18 months, but nothing about victory. Yep, that's sure to be a real morale booster to the troops in the field! Troop withdrawal in 18 months, just in time for his re-election... coincidence? I think not! After last night, al Quaeda and the Taliban now know that all they have to do is just lay low for 18 months in their mountain caves. Then, after the troops leave, they can pick right back up where they left off.

 

[Gavin Allan]

I thought he promised in his campaign that he was pulling all the troops OUT?



Now he's sending more in harm's way?



Does he even have a strategy besides "wishy-washy"?



We'll have 110,000 troops in that little hell-hole of a country? We'll be sitting ducks for Iran's nukes to take out a sizable chunk of our military!



Just pull 'em all out and fire up our nukes or neutrons.

 

[Mark K 2]

But Vivian! The chicken soup didn't taste all that great.

 

[Woppy V]

'GWB was the worse president of all time... until now." Heard that recently... made me smile cause Obama is exactly what I thought we was - a retarded selection to lead the USA & free world. When the history books are recorded... Bush isn't going to be reviewed nearly as harshly as Obama... bandwagon voters can blame themselves for this one...