Afghanistan Breaking News

#26
#26
rjd970 said:
You're not far off base. One has to wonder how different the situation in Afghanistan would be today if Bush had stayed focused on those that attacked us instead of those that didn't.
Click to expand...

I think he did. But you remember the libs saying this was "the good war" and Iraq was the "bad war"? Well now Iraq has been won so where is your president's leadership on the "good war"
 
#27
#27
Slow down folks. He just got finished fixing the economy. You can't expect the man to get everything done all at once. Patience.
 
#28
#28
volfanjustin said:
I think he did. But you remember the libs saying this was "the good war" and Iraq was the "bad war"? Well now Iraq has been won so where is your president's leadership on the "good war"
Click to expand...

You think he did what? Are you saying that had we not deployed resources to Iraq then the Afghanistan war would still be where it is today?

I'm not one to say I completely disagree with us going into Iraq, but clearly Bush should have finished in Afghanistan before taking on his Iraq agenda. It should be beyond evident that taking resources that could have been used in Afghanistan and deploying them to Iraq only delayed progress against those that actually harbored the worthless maniacs that attacked us.

....And if Iraq has been won, please explain to the rest of us why we are still there.
 
#29
#29
why are we still in Germany, Japan, Korea, Kosovo, and so on? We're still in Iraq because there's still work to do.
 
#32
#32
rjd970 said:
You think he did what? Are you saying that had we not deployed resources to Iraq then the Afghanistan war would still be where it is today?

I'm not one to say I completely disagree with us going into Iraq, but clearly Bush should have finished in Afghanistan before taking on his Iraq agenda. It should be beyond evident that taking resources that could have been used in Afghanistan and deploying them to Iraq only delayed progress against those that actually harbored the worthless maniacs that attacked us.

....And if Iraq has been won, please explain to the rest of us why we are still there.
Click to expand...

We have troops all around the world, not just Iraq. Why did we not pull resources from Japan or Germany? Was the war in Iraq ran flawlessly, no, there were mistakes.

So how many more U.N. resolutions were we going to let Sadam break before we went in? He is no longer in power and has joined his sons in hell, that is a great thing.

And Iraq has been won on Bush's and Petraeus' surge strategy. You know how to tell we won and its over? Watch the news, you never hear about Iraq anymore. Your guy is the President, not mine. Ask him why we are still there.
 
#37
#37
rjd970 said:
You think he did what? Are you saying that had we not deployed resources to Iraq then the Afghanistan war would still be where it is today?

I'm not one to say I completely disagree with us going into Iraq, but clearly Bush should have finished in Afghanistan before taking on his Iraq agenda. It should be beyond evident that taking resources that could have been used in Afghanistan and deploying them to Iraq only delayed progress against those that actually harbored the worthless maniacs that attacked us.

....And if Iraq has been won, please explain to the rest of us why we are still there.
Click to expand...


+1
 
#39
#39
volfanjustin said:
We have troops all around the world, not just Iraq. Why did we not pull resources from Japan or Germany? Was the war in Iraq ran flawlessly, no, there were mistakes.

So how many more U.N. resolutions were we going to let Sadam break before we went in? He is no longer in power and has joined his sons in hell, that is a great thing.

And Iraq has been won on Bush's and Petraeus' surge strategy. You know how to tell we won and its over? Watch the news, you never hear about Iraq anymore. Your guy is the President, not mine. Ask him why we are still there.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting to hear how the current situation in Afghanistan isn't completely of Bush's making, arised from deploying resources to Iraq.
 
#40
#40
rjd970 said:
I'm still waiting to hear how the current situation in Afghanistan isn't completely of Bush's making, arised from deploying resources to Iraq.
Click to expand...

Can you prove that it is because we sent troops to Iraq? Do we have a shortage of military? We can be 2 places at once.
 
#41
#41
volfanjustin said:
Can you prove that it is because we sent troops to Iraq? Do we have a shortage of military? We can be 2 places at once.
Click to expand...

The current personnel standard is, the US military will maintain a large enough force to fight two major wars and one minor one simultaneously. Before 9/11 can anyone remember the news reports that came out on the status of our military?
 
#42
#42
volfanjustin said:
Can you prove that it is because we sent troops to Iraq? Do we have a shortage of military? We can be 2 places at once.
Click to expand...

Common sense says double the troops and resources in Afghanistan over the last 8 years would have made the situation a lot different than it is today. This is to say nothing of the fact that the Taliban is resurging and OBL is still at large.

Nobody is saying Iraq and Saddam shouldn't have been dealt with, but Afghanistan should have been stabilized first. Bush dropped the ball on that one, plain and simple, and blaming the current situation in Afghanistan on Obama is disengenous...to say the least. IMO, this one falls squarely on the shoulders of the previous administration. Your hatred of Obama blinds you to this common sense fact.
 
#43
#43
rjd970 said:
Common sense says double the troops and resources in Afghanistan over the last 8 years would have made the situation a lot different than it is today. This is to say nothing of the fact that the Taliban is resurging and OBL is still at large.

Nobody is saying Iraq and Saddam shouldn't have been dealt with, but Afghanistan should have been stabilized first. Bush dropped the ball on that one, plain and simple, and blaming the current situation in Afghanistan on Obama is disengenous...to say the least. IMO, this one falls squarely on the shoulders of the previous administration. Your hatred of Obama blinds you to this common sense fact.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of people saying exactly that.
 
#45
#45
rjd970 said:
Common sense says double the troops and resources in Afghanistan over the last 8 years would have made the situation a lot different than it is today. This is to say nothing of the fact that the Taliban is resurging and OBL is still at large.

Nobody is saying Iraq and Saddam shouldn't have been dealt with, but Afghanistan should have been stabilized first. Bush dropped the ball on that one, plain and simple, and blaming the current situation in Afghanistan on Obama is disengenous...to say the least. IMO, this one falls squarely on the shoulders of the previous administration. Your hatred of Obama blinds you to this common sense fact.
Click to expand...

You all have blammed everything you can on Bush, your guy won. Its time for him to step up. He has spent all his time trashing Fox, trashing Rush, campaigning for candidates up for reelection, playing golf, going on vacation and trying to get the olympics. He sure knows how to run a war against the most watched cable news network
 
#47
#47
MontereyVol said:
The current personnel standard is, the US military will maintain a large enough force to fight two major wars and one minor one simultaneously. Before 9/11 can anyone remember the news reports that came out on the status of our military?
Click to expand...

That was the case before Clinton cut the Army in HALF! I believe the current standard is one major war or two regional conflicts. The long duration of this war is what's killing the military. We have to cycle troops through deployments multiple times. The result is the Army can't concentrate it's forces in the two areas, only about a third. Two-thirds of the Army is either recovering from deployment, or preparing for deployment. With a small remainder maintaining presence in Korea etc.
 
#48
#48
red butler said:
That was the case before Clinton cut the Army in HALF! I believe the current standard is one major war or two regional conflicts. The long duration of this war is what's killing the military. We have to cycle troops through deployments multiple times. The result is the Army can't concentrate it's forces in the two areas, only about a third. Two-thirds of the Army is either recovering from deployment, or preparing for deployment. With a small remainder maintaining presence in Korea etc.
Click to expand...

It is still the standard, Two major wars involving the entire military network not just the Army.

I will agree with the Clinton part, but staging and cycling troops through Iraq is not what hurt them. Before 9/11 the status of the Armed forces came out and the majority (it would be closer to say all of them) of US combat units were declared unfit for combat. We were not prepared for a war before 9/11, the numbers were there, the training was not.
 
#49
#49
^^BUMP^^

How about that decision Chief? Any closer to a decision there Chief?

It's been 74 DAYS since Gen. McChrystal has told Chief Obama of the much needed 40,000 troops.

The saga continues..................................:no:
 
#50
#50
RockyTopVol said:
^^BUMP^^

How about that decision Chief? Any closer to a decision there Chief?

It's been 74 DAYS since Gen. McChrystal has told Chief Obama of the much needed 40,000 troops.

The saga continues..................................:no:
Click to expand...

He can't make a decision because he has put himself in a no win situation. If he sends the troops McChrystal has asked for the left wing of his party and his main supporters will go crazy. If he does nothing and we keep losing soldiers then he is guaranteed (if he hasn't already) to be a 1 term president. So he does what he done in the senate so many times and just votes "present"
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top