What's new

Unforgivable

How's that change thing working out,Pal?

You Da Man............ 🙄


I'd like to reply to your question posed to "the man", 'delldude"(if I may).

The Majority of Fair minded Americans both Republicans AND democrats are in agreement that the Downsizing of Afghanistan by Mr. Bush/Cheney and Rumsfeld, was a Horrible mistake thats clearly evident Today, So I gladly accept the "Change" as you call it, if it saves just one more precious life !
 
I'd like to reply to your question posed to "the man", 'delldude"(if I may).

The Majority of Fair minded Americans both Republicans AND democrats are in agreement that the Downsizing of Afghanistan by Mr. Bush/Cheney and Rumsfeld, was a Horrible mistake thats clearly evident Today, So I gladly accept the "Change" as you call it, if it saves just one more precious life !


How 'horrible' is it then?

Last I remember the bad guys ran into and set up in Pakistan where we basically aren't permitted to go.

So how can you 'win'....excuse me .....come to a reasonable outcome?

You aware Obama and company for the most part are using the doctrine given to them by the dreaded Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield Clan aren't you.

As to the 'precious life'.......why then did Obama fiddle around for some 3+ months while I think 100 precious lives were lost?

Ain't that change great for saving 'precious' lives?
 
How 'horrible' is it then?

Last I remember the bad guys ran into and set up in Pakistan where we basically aren't permitted to go.

Back to the original point of this thread...they wouldn't be in Pakistan if we didn't let him get away and go running over to Iraq. Bush's military had bin laden cornered...and they weren't allowed to take him out. Saddam was a bigger threat.

As to the 'precious life'.......why then did Obama fiddle around for some 3+ months while I think 100 precious lives were lost?

Ain't that change great for saving 'precious' lives?

No..what would have been better is taking out bin laden instead of wasting 5,000+ American lives so that we could insure that Iraqi's could vote. Obama fiddled for 3+ months...you seem to forget that before Bush went WMD hunting in Iraq, HIS generals told him that he needed at LEAST 100,000 more troops than he planned on sending. And he "fiddled" for 3+ YEARS before he opted for a 'surge'.
 
How 'horrible' is it then?

Last I remember the bad guys ran into and set up in Pakistan where we basically aren't permitted to go.

So how can you 'win'....excuse me .....come to a reasonable outcome?

You aware Obama and company for the most part are using the doctrine given to them by the dreaded Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield Clan aren't you.

As to the 'precious life'.......why then did Obama fiddle around for some 3+ months while I think 100 precious lives were lost?

Ain't that change great for saving 'precious' lives?


As far as I can see, President Obama is Pulling troops..OUT...of Iraq(where I believe they should have Never been), and re-deploying them INTO Afghanistan to cleanse that area left to re-infect by the former administration.
Or with all due respect, am I misinterpeting whats going on here ?
 
This thread is EXACTLY what the Democrats AND Republicans want. They want good decent Americans to be mired in a meaningless debate over Bush vs Obama while the reall power behind the throne goes about consolidationf thier gains at the expense of Freedom & Liberty.

Capturing OBL is their NIGHTMARE Scenario. If he's captured we'd have to try him in court. Bad for business, Bad for Foreigm Relations, and double bad because then they'd have no BoogeyMan with which to scare the public with and people wouldn't eagerly, blindly give up their civil liberties.

This way the keep us divided by fear and it keeps our eyes off the real issues like how the Middle Class is being driven to extinction and due to the non stop fear mongering from the Left/Right Dem/Rep you have a polarized nation incapable of solving it's problems due to corruption at the Top, Middle & Bottom of the Political Arena
 
As far as I can see, President Obama is Pulling troops..OUT...of Iraq(where I believe they should have Never been), and re-deploying them INTO Afghanistan to cleanse that area left to re-infect by the former administration.
Or with all due respect, am I misinterpeting whats going on here ?


Again.....another Bush doctrine he stole as his own................ :lol:

KC wrote:

Bush's military had bin laden cornered...and they weren't allowed to take him out. Saddam was a bigger threat.

And of course you were there and can testify wholly to your claim?

Or do you have some lame Kerry BS?
 
Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says


BTW, I find it questionable. Who is correct? We will never know.
 
I don't think anyone knows if OBL was in anyone's sights or not but we do know that W was no longer concerned ( as early as 2002) about catching the person who orchestrated 9/11. We also know by Cheney's own words that Iraq would become a quagmire (his words).

My question is why? Why was OBL no longer a concern? Why did we invade Iraq knowing full well it would be a cluster screw? Why were troops diverted from Afghanistan which is where everyone who was not in SA was located? Why did we go in and then leave?

Seems to me that BO is screwed any way he turns. Afghanistan is a lost cause. We have to pretend like we actually give a damn at this point because we went in and said we would build up a nation there and that was never possible. We at least have to pretend like we will try. In 1 to 2 years now we can say 'hey, we tried but it no worky so buh bye'. If OB did not send troops the right would be yelling cut and run BS. Send some troops, and the right yells not enough. Send all the troops and in 2 years ... why are you continuing W's war and loosing? It's like Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. Not a chance of living.

I do not know if W had focused on Afghanistan if the results would have been any different. I doubt it. Area has been fighting for centuries and I fail to see a reason why they would stop now.

Personally I wish no more troops would be sent in but I think I see why he had to do so. I have no illusions that anything good will come of it. The only thing coming out of Afghanistan will be more coffins draped in flags.
 
Again.....another Bush doctrine he stole as his own................ :lol:

KC wrote:



And of course you were there and can testify wholly to your claim?

Or do you have some lame Kerry BS?

dell...going into Iraq is sort of like having Truman send the Enola Gay over to Seoul instead of Hiroshima because somehow the Koreans posed a larger threat. WHY was it more important to go into Iraq instead of continuing after bin laden?

Also, you ignored my question about Bush "dithering" for 3 years AFTER his generals told him he would need at least 100,000 more troops than he was sending. Certainly more than 100 servicemen lost their lives.
 
In an October 2004 opinion article in The New York Times, Gen. Tommy Franks wrote, "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time...Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives ... but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp."

More..........
 
Given that as of 2002 OBL was no longer a major concern for the administration it hardly seems to matter whether OBL was with in their grasp or not.
 
Given that as of 2002 OBL was no longer a major concern for the administration it hardly seems to matter whether OBL was with in their grasp or not.

Excellent point.....

I like how the committee puts out a report by only the Dem side as an obvious ramp up to Lord Obama's PRIME TIME TELEVISION EVENT and the rose colored glasses here go into overdrive..... :lol:
 
I don't think anyone knows if OBL was in anyone's sights or not but we do know that W was no longer concerned ( as early as 2002) about catching the person who orchestrated 9/11. We also know by Cheney's own words that Iraq would become a quagmire (his words).

My question is why? Why was OBL no longer a concern? Why did we invade Iraq knowing full well it would be a cluster screw? Why were troops diverted from Afghanistan which is where everyone who was not in SA was located? Why did we go in and then leave?

Seems to me that BO is screwed any way he turns. Afghanistan is a lost cause. We have to pretend like we actually give a damn at this point because we went in and said we would build up a nation there and that was never possible. We at least have to pretend like we will try. In 1 to 2 years now we can say 'hey, we tried but it no worky so buh bye'. If OB did not send troops the right would be yelling cut and run BS. Send some troops, and the right yells not enough. Send all the troops and in 2 years ... why are you continuing W's war and loosing? It's like Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. Not a chance of living.

I do not know if W had focused on Afghanistan if the results would have been any different. I doubt it. Area has been fighting for centuries and I fail to see a reason why they would stop now.

Personally I wish no more troops would be sent in but I think I see why he had to do so. I have no illusions that anything good will come of it. The only thing coming out of Afghanistan will be more coffins draped in flags.
I thought he said all war was going to end in 2009 when he was elected into office.

That was one of the main reasons why so many people supported him during the campaigns as they were believing he was going to bring all the troops home.

if the war was to continue would it not have been benefical to have someone who actually has a military background?

but that is just how I see it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top