How many more people have to die after Obama declares defeat

[CuteOldGuy]

There is nothing to "win" in Afghanistan. Neither the Bush, nor the Obama administration has ever defined victory. This war is designed to continue indefinitely. It's time to bring our soldiers home, like Obama promised, and has once again, failed to deliver.

Bring them home, and never, EVER, again send them on a fool's mission. NEVER!

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There is nothing to "win" in Afghanistan. Neither the Bush, nor the Obama administration has ever defined victory. This war is designed to continue indefinitely. It's time to bring our soldiers home, like Obama promised, and has once again, failed to deliver.

Bring them home, and never, EVER, again send them on a fool's mission. NEVER!

Would be nice if that ever happened. Strange, I find you annoying and a jerk, but we totally agree on this isolationist thing.

[CuteOldGuy]

Really, BertJerk? You think, as I do, that GW Bush and Obama should stand trial in The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Cool!



But I don't really consider myself an isolationist. But I do think we should leave other countries alone unless they become a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to the US, and Congress specifically passes a Declaration of War resolution. No more allowing the Executive Branch to go on hunting missions with no definition of victory or exit strategy.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There is nothing to "win" in Afghanistan. Neither the Bush, nor the Obama administration has ever defined victory. This war is designed to continue indefinitely. It's time to bring our soldiers home, like Obama promised, and has once again, failed to deliver.

Bring them home, and never, EVER, again send them on a fool's mission. NEVER!

It's not designed to continue indefinitely, it's just that nobody can face up to the fact that the exit is going to be less than stellar. That's why shit like this drags on. That having been said, you're a lot closer to being correct than you usually are. Whatever there was to "win" in Afghanistan occurred right after we kicked out the Taliban with help from the Northern Alliance. That was the optimal time to exit but we had to get it on with the Iraq thing at that point....thanks to Shrub.

All that having been said.....we need to get out...now.

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Really, BertJerk? You think, as I do, that GW Bush and Obama should stand trial in The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Cool!



But I don't really consider myself an isolationist. But I do think we should leave other countries alone unless they become a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to the US, and Congress specifically passes a Declaration of War resolution. No more allowing the Executive Branch to go on hunting missions with no definition of victory or exit strategy.

GWB - yes BHO -no

[CuteOldGuy]

Why not BHO BJerk? A little partisan hypocrisy, perhaps? More soldiers died in Afghanistan under Obama than GWB. A Christian hypocrite. Who'd have thought?

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Well, maybe we should bomb them from the ships, Navy man?

Bombs from ships....only planes carry bombs not ships. They carry missiles and projectiles. Look at a map. Afghanistan is a land-locked country. We could shoot in cruise missiles and then we have to allow for lag time, too far for gun fire, so then we have to have permission to overfly other countries to prosecute the war.

Since so many silly B I R C H E S have asked, we have two choices; we prosecute the war to the fullest extent possible with liquified gas bombs, daisy cutters, a cave busters then we declare victory and go home. We leave the option open to come back again and stamp out any other little shits. The other option is that we don't get involved unless we are willing to "win".

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by timpage

It's not designed to continue indefinitely, it's just that nobody can face up to the fact that the exit is going to be less than stellar. That's why shit like this drags on. That having been said, you're a lot closer to being correct than you usually are. Whatever there was to "win" in Afghanistan occurred right after we kicked out the Taliban with help from the Northern Alliance. That was the optimal time to exit but we had to get it on with the Iraq thing at that point....thanks to Shrub.

All that having been said.....we need to get out...now.

Isn't Obama the great communicator? If he was just honest and explained then he would get some support even from republicans. The problem is that he can't be honest and he can't take the heat without trying to blame someone. He could not withdraw and save lives without trying to remove the burden from himself.

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why not BHO BJerk? A little partisan hypocrisy, perhaps? More soldiers died in Afghanistan under Obama than GWB. A Christian hypocrite. Who'd have thought?

BHO is only trying to wind down, in the least painful matter, the mess he inherited from GWB. He is like Irving Picard to GWB's Madoff. Big messes take a great deal of time to eradicate. You deny being an athiest. Do you believe in the God whose son is Jesus Christ? If so, yes, we have lots of hypocrites, including you.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Bombs from ships....only planes carry bombs not ships. They carry missiles and projectiles. Look at a map. Afghanistan is a land-locked country. We could shoot in cruise missiles and then we have to allow for lag time, too far for gun fire, so then we have to have permission to overfly other countries to prosecute the war.

Since so many silly B I R C H E S have asked, we have two choices; we prosecute the war to the fullest extent possible with liquified gas bombs, daisy cutters, a cave busters then we declare victory and go home. We leave the option open to come back again and stamp out any other little shits. The other option is that we don't get involved unless we are willing to "win".

Unless, of course, the ships are aircraft carriers, in which case bombs do come from ships. I'm surprised an experienced swabbo like you would miss that.

And, you're an idiot, as usual. Firepower isn't going to win the war in Afghanistan Professor. What do you think we've been doing the last ten years? Where are you going to drop your liquefied gas bombs ( I assume you mean a fuel-air bomb you fucking dunce), daisy cutters (old fashioned technology) and cave busters? In the vast wasteland that is Afghanistan, the problem isn't a lack of firepower, it's a lack of intelligence regarding the location of the enemy. There aren't very many of them, they carry almost everything they need on their backs, the seldom use vehicles, they have no brick and mortar bases, they don't wear uniforms, they look exactly like the local population and they pick and choose when to fight....not us. You can't blow them up when you don't know where they are genius. This is more of your cartoon version of our military capabilities and it aptly illustrates why you don't understand Benghazi. The military can't simply snap its fingers and create a positive outcome in a war or in combat. There are situational realities relating to ground combat that have to be dealt with that you consistently ignore. I guess it's because you spent your alleged military career floating around on a boat doing whatever it is sailors do out there.

I'm also not surprised that your strategy includes a "declare victory" aspect....exactly what you do here after being repeatedly spanked. I guess if Obama simply said "Well, we've won and now we're leaving" that would satisfy you. Because you're fucking brain-dead.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by timpage

Unless, of course, the ships are aircraft carriers, in which case bombs do come from ships. I'm surprised an experienced swabbo like you would miss that. Did you miss the part where I mentioned aircraft and permission to overfly? I take it that you only have the one left eye.

And, you're an idiot, as usual. Firepower isn't going to win the war in Afghanistan Professor. What do you think we've been doing the last ten years? Where are you going to drop your liquefied gas bombs ( I assume you mean a fuel-air bomb you fucking dunce), daisy cutters (old fashioned technology) and cave busters? Aside from the one misspelling that technology works where or not you think it is old fashioned and that includes bombs dropping from the wings of aircraft as you suggested. I could have called the one bomb a MOAB but I didn't and neither did you. Does that make you a Mensa candidate? In the vast wasteland that is Afghanistan, the problem isn't a lack of firepower, it's a lack of intelligence regarding the location of the enemy. There aren't very many of them, they carry almost everything they need on their backs, the seldom use vehicles, they have no brick and mortar bases, they don't wear uniforms, they look exactly like the local population and they pick and choose when to fight....not us. You can't blow them up when you don't know where they are genius. Once again another illustration of how you can't think. I believe I said at some point any and all means to kill them. This might include destroying everything that lives in a valley where they are operating from. Yep, war is hell. It's like Fallujah in Iraq. When our contractors got killed and their bodies hung from a bridge my suggestion was to encircle the city, give them 48 hours to leave the city without arms (this includes men, women, and children), and then to systematically destroy the city block by block until there is nothing left. Followed by bull dozers that will remove all evidence of a city ever having been there. This is more of your cartoon version of our military capabilities and it aptly illustrates why you don't understand Benghazi. Hold it! I thought Benghazi was a non subject! So you admit that there is something to Benghazi. Good to know. The military can't simply snap its fingers and create a positive outcome in a war or in combat. There are situational realities relating to ground combat that have to be dealt with that you consistently ignore. I guess it's because you spent your alleged military career floating around on a boat SHIPS! moron doing whatever it is sailors do out there. Yeah, training, moving marines and weapons, shooting down planes, dropping bombs, putting SEAL teams ashore, and more training.

I'm also not surprised that your strategy includes a "declare victory" aspect....exactly what you do here after being repeatedly spanked. I guess if Obama simply said "Well, we've won and now we're leaving" that would satisfy you. You really don't get the simple do you? You can only claim victory when it looks, sounds, and smells like a victory. You also have to be believed and is Obama's big problem. No one believes him anymore...other than the coalition of the clueless. Because you're fucking brain-dead.

Had to borrow part of your quote at the end Colonel Timmie

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Since so many silly B I R C H E S have asked, we have two choices; we prosecute the war to the fullest extent possible with liquified gas bombs, daisy cutters, a cave busters then we declare victory and go home. We leave the option open to come back again and stamp out any other little shits. The other option is that we don't get involved unless we are willing to "win".

God , what double speak.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

BHO is only trying to wind down, in the least painful matter, the mess he inherited from GWB. More soldiers have died in Afghanistan during Obama's reign than Bush. Wind down? How long does that take? It's been FIVE YEARS! He is like Irving Picard to GWB's Madoff. Big messes take a great deal of time to eradicate. You deny being an athiest. Do you believe in the God whose son is Jesus Christ? No. I don't. If so, yes, we have lots of hypocrites, including you. But it's no, leaving you as the hypocrite.

Your Obama worship is ridiculous.

[Yssup Rider]

JD is hitting the sauce again.