dagblog - Comments for "White House Says: US Never Leaving Afghanistan Despite Lack Of War Aims, Obama Looking For Bipartisan Cover For Escalation"

Someone needs to tell me what

JohnW1141 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:30:41 +0000

In reply to White House Says: US Never Leaving Afghanistan Despite Lack Of War Aims, Obama Looking For Bipartisan Cover For Escalation

Someone needs to tell me what "win" means regarding Afghanistan and Iraq.

To me, winnng in Iraq produces the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds marching arm in arm into the sunrise of peace, prosperity and Democracy.

We pulled our toops back in IRAQ and now almost every day suicide bombers are taking their toll. There was none of this before the war. So anyone who says we won the war in Iraq needs to get off the booze.

What will we have in Afghanistan after we "win"?
All those tribes marching arm in arm into the sunrise of peace, prosperity and Democracy?

heh heh

Afghanistan is like Iraq, people are either a religious fanatics or corrupt, or both.

What's weird is that there is

Zipperupus — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:22:32 +0000

In reply to White House Says: US Never Leaving Afghanistan Despite Lack Of War Aims, Obama Looking For Bipartisan Cover For Escalation

What's weird is that there is a mission for Aghanistan. Hell, I've been told what the Commander's Intent is in regards to the USMC:

Eradicate poppy farming and replace it with local agriculture. Protect farmers who make the transition, and deal with those who don't.

Locate, close with, and destroy Al Qaeda. Isolate Taliban elements and either repel or destroy and mission dictates.

You may or may not agree with the war in Aghanistan or its potential escalation... but there is a mission. I am not sure why in the hell the administration is so mealy-mouthed, because we are so conditioned as a public to support the drug war and the war on terror. I sense ambivalence from the administration based on something the public isn't allowed to know. Color me confused.

Excellent post!

I keep coming back to the

miguelitoh2o — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:46:34 +0000

In reply to White House Says: US Never Leaving Afghanistan Despite Lack Of War Aims, Obama Looking For Bipartisan Cover For Escalation

I keep coming back to the Newton's third law, that for every action, there is a reaction, in a nutshell. I wonder that the strategists don't perceive our continuing prosecution of these conflicts as a primary driving force of the opposition which we are ostensibly fighting.

Obama will be a one-term

diachronic — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:04:33 +0000

In reply to White House Says: US Never Leaving Afghanistan Despite Lack Of War Aims, Obama Looking For Bipartisan Cover For Escalation

Obama will be a one-term President. The economy will be destroyed by these wars. It has been destroyed already. Anyone can see it.

But no one will listen, least of all the coalition of the spineless, the Democrats.