Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Obama sending more troops to Afghanistan


BeeR
 Share

Recommended Posts

Poor libs; they loves Obama so much - but now the guy they were saying was so much better because he wasn't a nasty old warmonger like Bush and those dang conservatives is sending tens of more thousands of troops. How to stay a bleeding heart hippie yet still back and profess love for the Messiah? Hmmm

 

:wacko:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01...anistan-months/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmm....Obama openly campaigned on finally cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan. You know, the place we diverted our attention from to fight Bush's little vengeance war in Iraq? Anyone who is Have to agree here! surprised at increasing troop levels in Afghanistan to fight the actual people that attacked us on 9-11 and those that harbored them is delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikisource:Speeches Against Going to War with Iraq (2002)

by Barack Obama

Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress.

 

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

 

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

 

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

 

I don’t oppose all wars.

 

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

 

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

 

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

 

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

 

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

 

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

 

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

 

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

 

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

 

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

 

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

 

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

 

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

 

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.

 

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmm....Obama openly campaigned on finally cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan. You know, the place we diverted our attention from to fight Bush's little vengeance war in Iraq? Anyone who is Have to agree here! surprised at increasing troop levels in Afghanistan to fight the actual people that attacked us on 9-11 and those that harbored them is delusional.

This is going to tie the righty Obama haters up in knots trying to find an angle to attack Obama.

 

He shouldn't be sending the troops! Well, why were they sent in the first place?

He should be sending millions more! Well, he might but they're all still tied up in Iraq.

He hasn't found Bin Laden! No, he hasn't.......that's eight years now and anyway, someone said he's not significant any more. Who was that guy?

 

This is so easily defensible, I doubt any righties with brains will even try to rag on Obama for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, they already have their angle.

 

He is a "ditherer". You know, he took MONTHS to decide on this strategy. MONTHS!

 

Nevermind the fact he already committed more troops earlier this year which no one talks about. Nevermind the YEARS we've been in the country without much direction for an endgame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going to tie the righty Obama haters up in knots trying to find an angle to attack Obama.

 

He shouldn't be sending the troops! Well, why were they sent in the first place?

He should be sending millions more! Well, he might but they're all still tied up in Iraq.

He hasn't found Bin Laden! No, he hasn't.......that's eight years now and anyway, someone said he's not significant any more. Who was that guy?

 

This is so easily defensible, I doubt any righties with brains will even try to rag on Obama for this.

 

Nope, I'm glad he is sending them. I just wish he would have done it three months ago when McCrystal originally asked for them. That is my only complaint. Well that and I think he needs to make sure we cut spending equally for every percentage of tax increase we see to pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor libs; they loves Obama so much - but now the guy they were saying was so much better because he wasn't a nasty old warmonger like Bush and those dang conservatives is sending tens of more thousands of troops. How to stay a bleeding heart hippie yet still back and profess love for the Messiah? Hmmm

 

:wacko:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01...anistan-months/

 

 

electric Bugaloo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmm....Obama openly campaigned on finally cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan. You know, the place we diverted our attention from to fight Bush's little vengeance war in Iraq? Anyone who is Have to agree here! surprised at increasing troop levels in Afghanistan to fight the actual people that attacked us on 9-11 and those that harbored them is delusional.

Agree, hence the :wacko: - however I was in more than one conversation last year with Obama backers who said "how can you not vote for Obama, he's gonna bring our boys home, not like warmonger Bush blah blah"

 

 

O yay, a stalker. PS I admitted my mistake there. That's what I got for listening to hippies. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, hence the :wacko: - however I was in more than one conversation last year with Obama backers who said "how can you not vote for Obama, he's gonna bring our boys home, not like warmonger Bush blah blah"

 

Lat February Obama committed to withdrawing most of the troops out of Iraq by August 2011 and almost all out by December 2011. Sounds like you are getting your foreign countries confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq was and is a mess . Thanks Dubya

 

Afghanistan should have had more resources , money and soldiers directed from day one. It should have been the priority , bar none ...but that was not done because we were busy in Iraq ..again thank you Dubya

 

At this point I am with Ursa and can not understand why Obama would be criticized by the Righties for this move

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt any righties with brains will even try to rag on Obama for this.

 

:wacko:

Lat February Obama committed to withdrawing most of the troops out of Iraq by August 2011 and almost all out by December 2011. Sounds like you are getting your foreign countries confused.

that is easy to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should have done this month's ago, but as has already been pointed out, shrub sat with his thumb up his ass for 7 years on it.

 

That being said, obamessiah has my support on this one. Go right over the f'ing border into Pakistan and don't apologize for it if we need to. Put osama's head on a pole on PA avenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O yay, a stalker. PS I admitted my mistake there. That's what I got for listening to hippies. :D

 

 

Meh. Just pointing out that this is the 2nd time you said Obama campaigned about not being a warmongerer and how he was going to withdraw troops and this is the 2nd time it was brought to your attention that he never said that about Afghanistan. Maybe the 3rd time will be a charm :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCrystal actually asked for 60,000 troops with a minimum of 30,000. Our wonderful lousy press has only stressed the lower number. Therefore, the General (who should know) did not even get the minimum he requires.

 

Obama should have given McCrystal the number he actually asked for, fired him or withdrawn all troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information