Obama Announces Halt of U.S. Troop Withdrawal in Afghanistan

Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 113
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

15 Oct 2015, 8:52 pm

first vid from earlier today, second was ~3 years ago





Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

16 Oct 2015, 4:05 am

According to Wiki, as of October 1, 2015, there have been 2,326 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. About 600 of those troops died during Bush's 8 years, the rest have occurred on Obama’s watch.


This is our Peace Prize President.



AntDog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,967
Location: Riding on a Dragon

16 Oct 2015, 2:24 pm

Receives the peace prize for doing absolutely nothing.
Proceeds to prolong a war, topple many otherwise stable countries, and support a group of the most barbaric savages the world has seen in centuries.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

16 Oct 2015, 2:27 pm

You're right.

When rebels first rose against the rulers of Libya very early in Obama's administration, his first act was to order cruise missiles launched to kill these people he didn't agree with. Personally I believe this was done to convince a slightly skeptical American public (and detractors) of his murderous capabilities. No act of Congress...just go ahead and kill them and their families.

This act showed his intent and for Obama, peace always seems to come out last. I'll never forgive myself for voting for him.



glebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Age: 64
Posts: 1,665
Location: Mountains of Southern California

16 Oct 2015, 3:10 pm

Obama's showing his true colors because he is a lame duck President.
And, yes, I'm sorry you voted for him too! :lol:


_________________
When everyone is losing their heads except you, maybe you don't understand the situation.


slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 113
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

16 Oct 2015, 6:57 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
According to Wiki, as of October 1, 2015, there have been 2,326 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. About 600 of those troops died during Bush's 8 years, the rest have occurred on Obama’s watch.
This is our Peace Prize President.

How many died that were not American?
There is a thought provoking silence on that aspect of the War.



Last edited by slave on 16 Oct 2015, 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 113
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

16 Oct 2015, 7:04 pm

ZenDen wrote:
You're right.

When rebels first rose against the rulers of Libya very early in Obama's administration, his first act was to order cruise missiles launched to kill these people he didn't agree with. Personally I believe this was done to convince a slightly skeptical American public (and detractors) of his murderous capabilities. No act of Congress...just go ahead and kill them and their families.

This act showed his intent and for Obama, peace always seems to come out last. I'll never forgive myself for voting for him.


Those missiles are only 1 million USD each, so no big deal, right?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

16 Oct 2015, 7:10 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
According to Wiki, as of October 1, 2015, there have been 2,326 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. About 600 of those troops died during Bush's 8 years, the rest have occurred on Obama’s watch.


This is our Peace Prize President.


So what exactly is your point?

That Obama should have just let the Taliban retake Afghanistan so we all can go back to September 11, 2001 when Afghanistan was a base for terrorist attacks on the USA? Or what?

Not trying to pick a fight. I just don't see what you're getting at.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 113
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

16 Oct 2015, 7:28 pm

AntDog wrote:
Receives the peace prize for doing absolutely nothing.
Proceeds to prolong a war, topple many otherwise stable countries, and support a group of the most barbaric savages the world has seen in centuries.


"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples....

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.....Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened....

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future..."
Source: Nobel Committee

NB: He had been inaugurated on Jan 20 2009 and was nominated on Feb 1 2009. 11 days. Yup, 11 days. Re-read the above and then explain it to me.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Oct 2015, 9:10 pm

We're never leaving, the Afghanis will have to kick us out which they just might. The Taliban is resurgent and now ISIS working diligently to establish a foothold in Afghanistan, it's pretty much inevitable that the government and military that we've spent 14 years building will fall whenever our muscle isn't there to back them up.



traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,408

Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

17 Oct 2015, 3:28 am

naturalplastic wrote:
So what exactly is your point?


We obviously learned nothing from the Vietnam debacle.
We cannot win a "counter insurgency" war with our gigantic, overly complex military and weapons. Are we in Afghanistan to rid the country of Taliban, all Qaeda and ISIS? Or are we there because Afghan troops couldn't be trained in 14 years by over 100,000 troops, so it makes sense for fewer troops to train them for the next couple of years?
Most of these counter insurgency wars are, in fact, civil wars and historically, outside powers involving themselves in internal conflicts have ended tragically.

As Robert Fisk pointed out some time ago, the Afghans have now defeated the British, the USSR, and the Americans.

And my final point, I think he should return the Nobel Peace Prize now. It's only fair.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

17 Oct 2015, 4:39 am

Shrapnel wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
So what exactly is your point?


We obviously learned nothing from the Vietnam debacle.
We cannot win a "counter insurgency" war with our gigantic, overly complex military and weapons. Are we in Afghanistan to rid the country of Taliban, all Qaeda and ISIS? Or are we there because Afghan troops couldn't be trained in 14 years by over 100,000 troops, so it makes sense for fewer troops to train them for the next couple of years?
Most of these counter insurgency wars are, in fact, civil wars and historically, outside powers involving themselves in internal conflicts have ended tragically.

As Robert Fisk pointed out some time ago, the Afghans have now defeated the British, the USSR, and the Americans.

And my final point, I think he should return the Nobel Peace Prize now. It's only fair.


Dude- you still haven't answered my question.

You're saying that you dont like what Obama is doing now in Afghanistan- and you wish that he would do - something else.

What you need to do is to tell us exactly WHAT this "something else" IS that you wish he would do.



Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

17 Oct 2015, 5:12 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Not trying to pick a fight. .

Really? I illustrated my point, if it's too oblique, that's unfortunate.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

17 Oct 2015, 5:42 am

Shrapnel wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Not trying to pick a fight. .

Really? I illustrated my point, if it's too oblique, that's unfortunate.


Really?
You have made NO point.

What would like Obama to do?

You are still refusing to answer that question.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

17 Oct 2015, 6:43 am

Let me help you out.

If you had said: "Obama should just pull out, and allow the Kabul government to topple, and allow the Taliban to take over and rule the country just like they did on September eleventh 2001- when Afghanistan was the base of terrorist attack on the US" ..then...that would be an actual STATEMENT!

(and it would be nice if you also state that you are willing to live with the consequences- that being the return to the 2001 status quo ante of Afganistan being a base for 9-11 type attacks on the US).

But you're just mouthing the same cliches weve all already heard for the last fourteen years about how "the Brits couldnt defeat the Afghans....), and are complaining about what he is doing without stating what the alternative (what you would want him to do) would be.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Its true that Obama promised to be less of a war monger than Bush. But he only promised to be reduce Bush's aggression by fifty percent, never by 100 percent: "Bush started two wars. But only one was necessary. So I will end the unnecessary one in Iraq, but continue the good war in Afganistan". So what he is doing now in Afghanistan is not inconsistent with what you voted for.

However when the Arab spring rebellions broke out in the rest of the middle east Obama did indeed jump in to exploit them militarily, and did revert to being like Bush- by aiding the destablization of Libya and Syria( like Bush destablized Iraq). Thats a fair criticism. So overall maybe you could say that Obama is just as interventionist as W. ( went back to 100 percent of Bush's policy).

But the US is kind of stuck in Afghanistan. And I dont claim to know of any better course of action for any US president to follow in that particular country. But apparently you know of some better solution in Afghanistan. But for some reason you're keeping your better idea a secret from us.