Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy? - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

buckman · 09-01-2009, 06:22 PM

So now that we have had the worst losses in a month since the war started could someone please explain the Obama mission and exit strategy? Please.
If you say to get Bin Ladin then tell me what Obama will do with him once we get him.

I won't even mention how well things have changed for the better for our men and women in Iraq.

striperman36 · 09-01-2009, 06:26 PM

This situation scares me. To me it is NO WIN.

JohnR · 09-01-2009, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by striperman36

This situation scares me. To me it is NO WIN.

Think you might be right on that but all I hear are the crickets chirping.

striperman36 · 09-01-2009, 07:18 PM

that country has been at war longer than the crusades

spence · 09-01-2009, 07:26 PM

The "Obama mission and exit strategy"? He's pretty much continued the Bush policy on Afghanistan, with slightly more strategic focus than Iraq.

Strategy seems to have been flawed from the start, but people want to jump on Obama now that he's in charge. Too bad none of those neocons bothered to pick up a history book.

My opinion is that we should leave and park an aircraft carrier offshore who's responsibility is to punish anyone who gets out of line.

-spence

striperman36 · 09-01-2009, 07:36 PM

Naw, just a bunch of UAV's ready to rock

However, the issue is to know who is the one's to be punished

detbuch · 09-01-2009, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

He's pretty much continued the Bush policy on Afghanistan . . . Strategy seems to have been flawed from the start . . .Too bad none of those neocons bothered to pick up a history book.-spence

Why on earth is Obama following the flawed Bush plan? Surely, Obama has read a history book?

buckman · 09-09-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

The "Obama mission and exit strategy"? He's pretty much continued the Bush policy on Afghanistan, with slightly more strategic focus than Iraq.

Strategy seems to have been flawed from the start, but people want to jump on Obama now that he's in charge. Too bad none of those neocons bothered to pick up a history book.

My opinion is that we should leave and park an aircraft carrier offshore who's responsibility is to punish anyone who gets out of line.

-spence

????

Nebe · 09-02-2009, 06:15 AM

Maybe we could ship over a couple hundred thousand blankets that are infected with small pox. It worked once... Why not agian.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Raven · 09-02-2009, 06:41 AM

Obama's not as interested in reading History as he is in making History.

Well, Nebe that was done long before there were so called ethics in fighting a war and would not fly .

Raven · 09-02-2009, 06:44 AM

how ever something that could make them hallucinate
is ok by me.

Fly Rod · 09-02-2009, 06:55 AM

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

Raven · 09-02-2009, 07:07 AM

BULLSH1T ......

buckman · 09-02-2009, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan. Both fronts are now a mess. His administration is a mess. You can't run a war on campaign promises and retoric. Lifes are being lost and I would like to know why. The war was why the Dems won, now tell me what they are doing.

stcroixman · 09-02-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

We win when we committ 100% which we didn't do in 'Nam and don't appear to be doing in Afghanistan. Once we are out of Iraq completely it will be interesting to see if the gov't folds. That will seal the deal with "occupying" these countries as a waste of $$$ and lives

justplugit · 09-04-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

could someone please explain the Obama mission and exit strategy? Please.

I would like to know that too. The silence is deafening.

I thought the original mission was to destroy
the terrorist's training camps and get Bin Laden, who according to reports, is
somewhere in Pakistan now.

Now is the time to use special ops and the new weapons of war, not introduce more troops.

Obama's campaign talk sounded oh so promising.

striperman36 · 09-04-2009, 05:28 PM

NPR had a good discussion of this today.

Check it out

buckman · 09-09-2009, 02:32 PM

So I'll ask again....Why are we here and what's the end game? Same questions I heard over and over about Bush. What are we trying to accomplish? The same thing Bush was accomplishing in Iraq? Nation building?

justplugit · 09-09-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

So I'll ask again....Why are we here and what's the end game? Same questions I heard over and over about Bush. What are we trying to accomplish? The same thing Bush was accomplishing in Iraq? Nation building?

Yes, and I'll repeat my first post too:

"I would like to know that too. The silence is deafening."

buckman · 09-09-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, and I'll repeat my first post too:

"I would like to know that too. The silence is deafening."

I thought the war was the reason he won the election. I guess thereal agenda here was socialism. I'll have to hand it to him, he really knows how to play on a persons emotions. At least the people that make decisions based on them.

JohnnyD · 09-09-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

I thought the war was the reason he won the election. I guess thereal agenda here was socialism. I'll have to hand it to him, he really knows how to play on a persons emotions. At least the people that make decisions based on them.

The reason he won the election is because people were scared of McCain continuing the Bush agenda, everything about Palin, and the Republicans buried themselves deep in the muck. Now the Democrats are doing the same thing.

buckman · 09-22-2009, 03:41 PM

He said on Letterman last night that he won't commit anymore troops until he comes up with a plan. If I'm not mistaken, I thought he had a plan and already had more troops over there. WTF

JohnnyD · 09-22-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

He said on Letterman last night that he won't commit anymore troops until he comes up with a plan. If I'm not mistaken, I thought he had a plan and already had more troops over there. WTF

When you head to the tuna grounds, and there isn't a sniff of life for miles, do you continue on with your plan because you "had a plan" already?

Situations change, and as such, so does the response. I'm sure the Generals of WWII had plans that needed re-adjusting after they got in the rough of it.

buckman · 09-23-2009, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

When you head to the tuna grounds, and there isn't a sniff of life for miles, do you continue on with your plan because you "had a plan" already?

Situations change, and as such, so does the response. I'm sure the Generals of WWII had plans that needed re-adjusting after they got in the rough of it.

Sounds like the same thing you would say about Bush

The Generals have recommended a change and a plan. It's been sitting on his desk. While real men are losing there lives. He's too busy hitting the road selling Shamwow Health Care. Where is that outrage from the left???????

spence · 09-23-2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

The Generals have recommended a change and a plan. It's been sitting on his desk.

I don't think this is accurate. To my knowledge there's been no formal proposal made to the President, rather an unclassified status report which says we need more troops was publish that caught the media's attention.

This doesn't mean the plan is sitting on Obama's desk and American's are dying because of it.

-spence

buckman · 09-24-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think this is accurate. To my knowledge there's been no formal proposal made to the President, rather an unclassified status report which says we need more troops was publish that caught the media's attention.

This doesn't mean the plan is sitting on Obama's desk and American's are dying because of it.

-spence

Remember the last time you called me out for not telling the truth

RIJIMMY · 09-23-2009, 10:58 AM

Johnny, he's right.

buckman · 09-27-2009, 06:56 AM

Bloodiest year already for our troops in 8 years. What's the change?... not for better thats for sure.

spence · 09-27-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

Bloodiest year already for our troops in 8 years. What's the change?... not for better thats for sure.

I think you just crossed the line.

-spence

JohnnyD · 09-27-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

Bloodiest year already for our troops in 8 years. What's the change?... not for better thats for sure.

A shift in focus from Bush's war in Iraq, where we never should have been to Afghanistan, where the real problem has always existed.

In one post, you complain that Obama doesn't heed the advice of the Generals in Afghanistan (the increase of troops, temporary outposts, moving into rural areas and establishing a longer-term presence all contradict your comment though), then, you complain that nothing has changed.

We all understand that you will seize even the slightest opportunity to make vague criticisms about any topic referring to Obama - you'd probably even criticize the way he takes a sh!t - but at least be consistent.