jump to last post 1-26 of 26 discussions (160 posts)

Hanging out troops out to dry.

  1. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_ … fghanistan

    Nice to see the reincarnation of Napoleon is doing so well concerning the course of the war.  As much as I dislike FDR, at least he was smart enough to listen to his commanders in the field and let them run the war.  FDR's job was to make sure they had what they needed to fight the war.

    All this President wants to do is ignore the problem and hope it goes away.  That's what all this talk about a weak corruption tainted government is really about.  Bush got slammed for his decision to increase troop levels in Iraq.  His State department, the American people, hell even the Joint Chiefs were against it.  But it worked and he won.  At least he cleaned that mess up before he left office. 

    Afghanistan was put on the back burner for years.  If anything we have more of a moral duty to end this war than the Iraq war.  I shouldn't be so surprised, this is what happens when you elect a freshman Senator to the Presidency.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Your take on the troop build up in Iraq is interesting.  There is still hostilities going on and you think that works. What you fail to notice in your comments is that there were a lot of pay offs to the warlords that came with the build up and that had the desired effect.

      Committing to a corrupt government such as is the case in Afganistan with more troops and money is a disaster in the making. Perhaps we should learn what came about in Iraq and for go the troops.

    2. Pr0metheus profile image61
      Pr0metheusposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Nice to see that Nazis can still relate their opponents to the anti-christ.

  2. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 years ago

    The weak leading the weak minded.

    1. RKHenry profile image78
      RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm curious Texan, who is the weak minded?  The whole of the American populace? 

      You weak minded?  I would have never have pictured that.

      Seriously, I'd like to know.

  3. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    I'm really trying not to start up a polemic over the whole situation.  Did you see the "shoutout" he gave before talking about the Fort Hood thing?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hiw8iXdMM

    Sun Tzu this guy is not.

    1. TimTurner profile image79
      TimTurnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I remember watching this live and not understanding what the hell Obama was doing.  He was all giddy and cracking jokes before he talked about the tragedy.

      I was soooo surprised that no media outlets gave him hell for that.

      I don't feel confident having this clown leading our military or making military decisions.

      If it was a public speaking competition, I would want Obama on my side anyway (as long as there was a teleprompter), but not running this country.

      His Afghanistan decision has less to do with the safety of our troops and our military goals and more with how to make sure the Democrats don't get slaughtered in the 2010 elections.

      1. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It's funny how people gave Bush crap for stuttering when he spoke, but unless Obama has a prepared speech in front of him, he doesn't do too well either.  Especially when it's about a topic he cares nothing about.

        1. TimTurner profile image79
          TimTurnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, CNN even pointed out he's the first president to bring a teleprompter everywhere, including giving 2 or 3 minute speeches in an old folks home.

          And we've seen on the late night talk shows how poorly he does without guidance or a teleprompter.

      2. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I like the way Fox showed the lead in to his remarks of a totally unrelated story.  The twist was good enough to manipulate you.  How many others were led down this path?  If the Obama gets slaughtered as you say it will be because of the distortions and crap that we were led astray with.  We really are lemmings.

        1. TimTurner profile image79
          TimTurnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I watched it live on CNN.  I don't watch FOX.

          His actions before the speech were very weird.

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Then you could not distinguish the two.  The reference and link was to Fox.  I did not take it the way you did. I separated the two different topics.

            1. ledefensetech profile image79
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I saw it live.  The President acted just as weird when it was sent out live as it was when Fox rebroadcast it.  He can't change that. 

              For someone who is supposedly tired of the political game, you sure do go to great lengths to defend the president and his party.

              1. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Both your comments are your perception and opinion.  If Obama does not say or do things in a manner you like then you assume there is something wrong with it.  I might add that this reveals a bit of bias.

  4. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 7 years ago

    War should be left to warriors.

    When the politicians decide to enter into war, they then need to get out of the way and let the Warriors do their jobs, you cannot fight a war while counting the polls.

    The Politicians can outline the objectives of that war, but should not in anyway try to manage it. Politicians interfering with the execution of that war should be prosecuted as Traitors.

    Further no person should be elected to the Presidency of the United States without first having served. I don’t believe anyone can properly perform the duties of Commander and Chief without this experience.

    1. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think that's necessarily true.  FDR never served and he, for the most part, let his generals fight the war.  Unconditional Surrender being an exception, of course.

      1. profile image0
        Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. ledefensetech profile image79
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Um FDR died before the bomb was tested, he could not have made any plans to drop it, that was left to Truman.  He met with Churchill and Stalin to coordinate overall strategy, but he did not countermand his commanders.  Stalin, for example, pushed for a Second Front in Europe pretty much from 1942 onwards.  FDR didn't even consider a Second Front until his commanders told him they were ready.

          I'd check my sources if I were you.  Obviously you've not read much on WW II.  Midway was Nimitz baby, and he kicked Jap tail.  Operation Torch was Eisenhower.  Market-Garden was Montgomery, I think, not an American operation except that we provided troops.

    2. readytoescape profile image60
      readytoescapeposted 7 years ago

      he wasn't exactly the greatest president either, he did however have some of the greatest Generals in History, and certainly the greatest military to ever stand on the face of the earth

      1. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh believe me, I don't think he was in any way responsible for the quality of generals.  Most of the outstanding generals of the War were proteges of Marshall, who himself was a protege of Pershing.  Those men were responsible for the quality of our military leadership in World War II.

    3. readytoescape profile image60
      readytoescapeposted 7 years ago

      Agreed, he performed best during the war by keeping congress at bay

    4. profile image0
      Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago

      The politicians are not the ones who have lost the stomach for war and are interfering but the American people who abhor seeing their sons dying in combat and plead for the politicians to bring them home. It is by and large the American people who expect war to be a sanitary affair and over quickly. If you want to point a finger point one at all those who voted those politicians in and continue to leave them there, then we'll see who's hung the troops out to dry.

    5. SheriSapp profile image60
      SheriSappposted 7 years ago

      All I can say about the indecision of BO is that at least he can't blame this one on Bush. During the campaign, candidate Obama obviously LIED when he said Afghanistan was a war of necessity or he would have already decided how to help our troops. I heard the soundbite with my own ears where Barry said this war wasn't a football game and he wasn't interested in winning! Then WHY are we still there if the commander-in-chief isn't interested in a victory! BO CHOSE this General to lead over there---why doesn't he listen to the man?

      1. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah go figure.  Another countries corrupt election got in the way.  Oh well lets just escalate another unwarranted war.

    6. SheriSapp profile image60
      SheriSappposted 7 years ago

      rhamsom--BO needs to remind himself that he WON!!! He is the president and as such, he must make difficult decisions that will always make some of the people unhappy. If he doesn't want a victory, then he should bring the troops home and not leave them over there with our increasingly worried allies because nobody truly knows what this administration is doing. Sorry if you feel the war is unwarrented, but Al Quaeda is headquartered in that country and THEY ATTACKED US! Let me guess, it was all OUR fault that 9-11 happened?

      1. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you that Obama is the one making the decisions and that there is danger to our troops over there as time passes but let him make the decision.  As far as victory is concerned, you have to assess that on a different scale. Some claim that Iraq was a victory and a blueprint for Afganistan when the military states it clearly is not.

        My opinion for the war as being not warranted is an entirely different issue.  The war was supposed to be based on rooting out Al Quaeda but has turned into another country building project by our government.  Obama feels there is reason to pause and assess that situation with the corrupt Karzai regime and with good reason.  Is it better to be expediant and charge the battlefield backing a government that the people of Afganistan will not support rather than taking a cautious tact and making the best decision for both Afganistan and the US?

        As far as your assumption as to the attacks on 911 you will have to catch up on your history and see what kind of role the US has taken in the middle east since the break up of Palestine and what role we play in resolving the mess.

    7. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

      Unfortunately our troops and their families will suffer for his lack of experience and support.  Another reason why in 2012 we should vote this bum out.

    8. Ron Montgomery profile image62
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

      Yeah, the nerve of that guy! Actually thinking it through before sending 18 year olds into the quagmire.  So unlike the genius who led us into this glorious campaign.

      1. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Is this another aspect of the "He's only been president for a year, give him time!" attitude? When exactly does 'thinking it through' become 'not doing his damn job'?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It's not at all surprising that you don't understand the concept of thinking something through.

          1. tksensei profile image59
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            When exactly does 'thinking it through' become 'not doing his damn job'?

        2. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Obviuosly immediately if left up to you.

          1. tksensei profile image59
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So tell me, when?

            1. rhamson profile image75
              rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              This is a guerilla based and politically charged war. No one can predict the time or the place.  If you read history about these things you would better understand.  Until the political solution is in place there is not going to be a truce.  We cut back some of the violence in Iraq through the pay offs.  We just haven't found the right people to pay off in Afganistan.

              1. tksensei profile image59
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No, no, when does the Empty-Suit-In-Chief have to make a freakin' decision before "thinking it through" becomes 'not doing his damn job'?

                1. rhamson profile image75
                  rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know what would be worse.  In your world of absolutes there is no time for thinking and planning.  Making a decision on half the information can and probably will give you a half assed decision.  Then I guess you will get a half assed result.  Kind of like we had before don't you think.

                  1. tksensei profile image59
                    tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok, assuming there is time (when in reality there often is not), HOW MUCH TIME? Is the question too difficult to understand?

                    1. rhamson profile image75
                      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      One is mutually exclusive of the other.  Ask yourself first is it prudent to set up a corrupt leader that can garner little or no support from his constituency?  Add on top of that the time that could be spent and the cost of lives and money to reinforce it.

                      The cut and run choice would cut out the cost of life and expense in the short term but would the longterm expense be to allow Al Quaeda to rejuvenate enough to have to fight them again?  Maybe bombing runs could keep them underground and somewhat in check.

                      What if another election were held?  Would it validate Karzai and put you in the same situation?  Or would a new leader not have the support of the Afganistan people because of the US involvement?

                      What kind of absolute do you see in these examples and the million others to give you a resolute decision?

      2. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, with his current rules of engagement, not sending troops is what's costing lives.

    9. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

      Funny, that glorious leader seems to have won in Iraq.

      1. Michael Willis profile image77
        Michael Willisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Then why are we still there? Why are American men and women still dying in Iraq? Why can't we just pull out completely if HE (Bush) won? Need more clarification on what you call a win.

        1. ledefensetech profile image79
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          We're mopping up in Iraq.  That doesn't mean we don't take casualties, heck we still take casualties in Korea.  What we do have is a stable government that is rooting out the insurgents.  That's light years away from where we were a few years ago.

          1. Michael Willis profile image77
            Michael Willisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I have no qualms about the Afghan issue you have,  but Iraq is not Won yet. Bush lied there. If you win, it is over! How many lives have to be lost before the "mopping" is done. How many years do we have to stay there? Iraq is becoming the new Vietnam.
            If Bush won Iraq...we could pull out and Iraq would be a secure nation. It would not, so we have to stay.

            1. ledefensetech profile image79
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Bush is out of office, get over it already.  For the record I don't believe we ever should have been there in the first place, but at least we didn't fight all half-assed and cut an run leaving people who counted on us high and dry.  That's something this President seems ready and willing to do.

              Battle deaths in Iraq have been decreasing for years now.  Not so Afghanistan.  Things are heating up there and now our "Commander in Chief" has hamstrung our troops with his idiotic rules of engagement.  We wouldn't even need any more troops if he'd just rescind those ROE.  That's what we get for making a freshman Senator, President.  At least if we'd have had a former governor as President they'd have had some experience with the state National Guard.

              1. Michael Willis profile image77
                Michael Willisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I will Not get over it when BUSH is declared to have WON in Iraq! He did not. It does not matter if he is out of office or not. He did not win. American soldiers are still fighting there. You tell the soldiers they are just mopping up.

                1. ledefensetech profile image79
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  It's obvious you're all tied up around your hatred of Bush.  Great.  It's also obvious you don't understand much about our military or the people who serve.

                  1. Michael Willis profile image77
                    Michael Willisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Now I know how to take you comments. You declare I hate Bush. How much do you know about me? When have I ever said I hated Bush, much less anybody. Do you know the meaning of "Assume?" SO, attack me and call me a Bush hater because I made a correct statement that Bush did not win Iraq. Ok, I see where you come from now.
                    I will take the words of my friends who have served in Iraq over yours.

                2. tksensei profile image59
                  tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  How 'bout three years ago when Harry Reid declared that we had already lost? Remember that one?

              2. Ron Montgomery profile image62
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You're right. Palin would have Bin Laden's head mounted on her wall by now.

                1. profile image0
                  Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Heh, heh - and rightly so smile

          2. Ron Montgomery profile image62
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Mopping up????  Temporarily propping up a regime that has no chance of survival after we leave is mopping up??

            1. ledefensetech profile image79
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              What world are you living in?  There are actual national parties that cut across Sunni, Shi'a and Kurdish lines now.  They won big in the last election.  Who lost?  Religious political parties.  Iraq really seems to be on the road to recovery.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  When our money is pulled out, and warlords can no longer be bribed, they're back to square one.

                1. ledefensetech profile image79
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Time will certainly tell, won't it Ron?

              2. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You really must catch up on your history and cultural and religious traditions in that part of the world.  If you do you will see how ludicrous that statement was.

          3. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe Obama is looking for the right people to pay off as we did in Iraq.  My dear fellow you don't win a war until the political solution is secured. The pay offs are what facilitated the truces.

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image62
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Whatever is politically convenient.

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image62
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        http://roadkillrefugee.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/mission-accomplished.png
        The same guy who claimed to have won 6 years ago?

        1. ledefensetech profile image79
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That was in reference to pulling Saddam out of power, not the insurgency which sprang up after.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            In revisionist history, you are correct.  In actuality, not so much.

            1. ledefensetech profile image79
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Making statements with noting to back them up again, Ron?

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You backed your lie up with......

              2. profile image0
                Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                What are you backing up your statements with years of military service? Funny in my two tours in Iraq, and another two in Afghanistan I don't remember seeing you there with eyes on the ground. What exactly are you basing your opinions on popular media reporting? Iraq is not stable, who tells me this? My friends and fellow Marines that are there now. Why do we need more troops in Afghanistan now, because your glory boy Bush switched focus to Iraq before finishing the job and allowing the Taliban to escape across the border and resupply and rearm. Someone of your limited experience and background in this issue should be more careful about making broad generalizations of which once again you have no practical knowledge of. Rules of Engagement change as the enemy evolves his tactics. They were changed this time to limit risk to civilian casualties in country, in response to American public outcry, and advice from the pentagon and joint chiefs of staff. Once again "Leden" you are talking out of the side of your mouth. Now go ahead and tell me an 8 year veteran and decorated combat Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan that i am misinformed and confused.

                1. ledefensetech profile image79
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You're misinformed and confused.  How can you possibly defeat an insurgency if you're restricted in the targets you can engage?  Don't you think the insurgents will use your unwillingness to fire on civilian homes and businesses into consideration and use that to their advantage?  You claim to be a former military guy, I get that.  We're you by chance in the combat arms or support?

                  1. profile image0
                    Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I was a combat Infantryman in Baghdad, and a platoon sergeant so I dare you to say something about my experience you book smart little chump. You're here debating what I did for a living and you're going to lecture me about tactics. Let's see yopu get your head out there where the bullets are and dictate what does and doesn't work. people like you always have a complaint and remark but when it comes time to make it happen you sit on the sidelines second guessing those who fight. I suggest you just shut your mouth and learn when to be quiet.I payed for my knowledge in blood and a purple heart. Talk smack to me you little punk.

                  2. profile image0
                    Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    All you know about fighting a war is what you played on XBOX or read in a book. You're done

                  3. profile image0
                    Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh and to defeat insurgents you avoid engaging them on their terms and ground, you attack their base of support and deny them opportunity for refuge and rest by turning the civilian population against them. You can not beat an opponent by playing their game you have to change the rules and play to your strengths, but then again what do I know I only spent four out of the last eight years in combat, learning from day to day experience what does and doesn't work. Then again the new strategies aren't in any text book so I see where I'd be at a disadvantage as far as knowledge goes.

                    1. ledefensetech profile image79
                      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      Ok, reincarnation of Eisenhower, what happens when you give insurgents any sort of breathing space?  Don't they get stronger?  And since we can no longer fire into places where there may be civvies, well that pretty much rules out artillery and air support doesn't it?  So now our little insurgent has 2 out of 4 combat arms taken out of play.  Afghanistan is mountainous terrain, so tanks are of limited use there.  At least as the "armored fist" in a stand up set battle.  So one again, it's the riflemen who have to take the fight to the enemy. 

                      Do you really think the Taliban or Al Qaeda is really going to care if they barge into some poor Afghan's house and use it as an ambush point?  Especially when they know the ROE won't allow our troops to fire back?  You could probably whip me in a tactical situation, but even I know that's a recipe for disaster.

                      Just as I don't know you, you don't know me.  I might surprise you.

                    2. profile image0
                      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      This was quite amusing. lol Entertaining, thanks.

                      LDT, smile, Sorry, I think you might wanna go and hide.  It's fairly obvious he was a military guy.

                  4. rhamson profile image75
                    rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    He's insulting you now Scott Life.  A good sign he is on the run.

      3. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Won what!

    10. garynew profile image61
      garynewposted 7 years ago

      Obama's indecision is costing American lives.  One way or the other, DO something!

      1. Flightkeeper profile image78
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        He will, no he won't, yeah he will, no he won't.....lol

    11. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

      With the current rules of engagement I'm not sure what good sending more troops is going to do.  It's the same kind of political mismanagement that cost us so many lives in the Vietnam conflict.

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        McCrystall specifically asked for more troops because the rules of engagement had been changed by Obama in March. Before that we were doing ok, according to McCrystall.

        1. ledefensetech profile image79
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'm debating who the worst President was at Commander in Chief.  It's a toss up between Johnson, Clinton and Obama is definitely in the running.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Bush has them all beaten hands down.  He is lucky not to be in prison.

            1. ledefensetech profile image79
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It's kind of twisted to be all bitter about Iraq stabilizing isn't it?  I mean would you really want the alternative, a failed state which is a breeding ground for genocide and terrorism like Somalia.  Oh wait, we cut and run from there, didn't we?

            2. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              except Carter

            3. tksensei profile image59
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              ................. roll

          2. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You might consider Reagan and Bush in your top three.

        2. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The Pat Tillman debacle showed how smart it is to go by McCrystalls evaluation skills of a situation.

    12. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

      We do have an unfortunate habit however of staying past the sell by date.  I wish we could pull our troops out of Europe.  It's not like we have to protect them against anything.

    13. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago

      Our troops are only in Europe for strategic purposes

      1. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        They're there to "keep an eye on things".  Screw that, we have the lift capability to get anywhere in the world.  Bring them home, then we'll have our idiot politicians thinking twice before engaging in any "peacekeeping" missions, read:  short victorious war, to get people's minds of the mess the politicians have made of things domestically.

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Good point

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image62
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Right! To protect against a Soviet invasion....Oh wait, there is no Soviet Union.

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You're way behind Ron - I already answered this

        2. tksensei profile image59
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And Russia is now a big cuddly teddy bear! Just ask Georgia.

      3. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Who sold you that camel?  We are there because we can be period.

    14. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

      Actually that would definitely be one trophy to see.

    15. profile image0
      Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago

      Let's not forget it was Bush that sent thousands to war with unarmored Hummers and inadequate body armor while Haliburton was making millions on defense contracts. Or that Bush lied about the presence of WOMD, or that he used false information to declare war on a sovereign nation in direct violation to UN treaty and law, violating a major US military rule of engagement.

      Or the fact that every time he ran his mouth off to the media telling the insurgents to "bring it on", that American soldiers and Marines died for his bravado and insults. The American people sent those boys and my friends over there and their inability to solidify their support of this war is the reason why it is still going on.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You're witnessing of these events must be what has you confused.  You'll have to spend more time online if you really want to know what's happening over there.

    16. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago

      WOW, MORE HILARITY. WHERE'S THE 'CUTE' PICTURE TO GO WITH IT?

    17. Colebabie profile image60
      Colebabieposted 7 years ago

      <--- right here

      1. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Is that one of your dirty little secrets, farting in public?

        1. Colebabie profile image60
          Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Shh. Crop-dusting is a talent. smile

          Haha no. I just meant the cute part. But apparently no one's buyin' it. I have a lot better secrets, trust me.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            They're not secrets anymore.  Trust me.

          2. ledefensetech profile image79
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The cute part is self-evident.  Goes without saying, really.

            1. Colebabie profile image60
              Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Hehe. Thanks. Off to sleep now smile Have a good night!

    18. Ron Montgomery profile image62
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8QvBrJaJqig/SYKhFVGhTII/AAAAAAAAAHc/lAqooHtquLk/s400/dog%2Bfart.jpg

    19. Colebabie profile image60
      Colebabieposted 7 years ago

      Eh, maybe they aren't. Doesn't matter anyways. Nothin' to hide really.

    20. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago

      It came out today that Obama is looking for a solution to Afghanistan that will garner the most POLITICAL support among the democrats.

      Obama is in constant campaign mode! All he cares about is power, how to keep it, and how to increase it!

    21. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago

      In other words, for mindlessly fawning supporters like you there is no limit and no point where the Empty-Suit-In-Chief can ever be held accountable.

      1. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If you wish to simplify it as you indicate there is no answer to your question because it relies on absolutes that are not present in this issue.

        I don't know about characterizing my position as mindless but I can assure you that your take is thoughtless.

        1. tksensei profile image59
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Simple question: BY WHEN MUST THE EMPTY SUIT MAKE A DECISION BEFORE YOU HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE? EVER?

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I guess if you must have an answer that comes close your useless timeline it would be when he makes his decision.  Sorry you just don't listen and grasp the gravity of the issue.

            1. tksensei profile image59
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              What a shameless apologist.


              So if he were to continue avoiding a decision on troop levels beyond the end of the year it would stil be "thinking it through"? How about by next summer? Next winter? The end of his term? To what ridiculous lengths do you want to stretch this excuse-making?

              1. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I guess if you wish to equate it to that type of argument then I would have to quote Forrest Gump with regards to how immediate you would handle it "Stupid is as stupid does".

    22. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago

      So you can't or won't answer. Got it. That confirms what I thought.

      1. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It's a whirly twirly world inside that head of yours. I think you really have to get a grip on how your anger affects your logic.  It really gets in the way.

    23. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

      The Philippines action was in reference to the US takeover of the island after the Spanish American War.  Not everything is contemporary, you know.  Malaysia too, was referenced during the post-colonial, post-World War II era, not today.  You really might want to check your assumptions at the door, they don't help you out any.

      1. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You might want to clarify your statements.  Oh that might prove too hard to misdirect.

     
    working