The Wrath of Obama

[Sir Bandelot]

U.S. troops have launched a major operation against Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan, U.S. military officials announced in Afghanistan early Thursday.

About 4,000 Americans, mostly from the Marines, and 650 Afghan soldiers and police launched Operation Khanjar -- "strike of the sword" -- in the Helmand River valley, the U.S. command in Kabul announced.

The push is the largest since the Pentagon began moving additional troops into the conflict this year, and it follows a British-led operation launched last week in the same region, the Marines said. It is also the first big move since U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal took over as the allied commander in Afghanistan in mid-June.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/0...tion/index.html

Change you can't believe in...

Edited August 1, 2010 by Sir Bandelot
changed thread title; used to be: "The wrath of Obama"

[lictor616]

god don't you just love obambo and his "withdrawal" ... the american sheeple ... fleeced again... for the umpteenth time... who wasn't expecting this?

Edited July 6, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted recopied Opening Post

[BubberMiley]

god don't you just love obambo and his "withdrawal" ... the american sheeple ... fleeced again...

Actually, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that during the election, Obama promised a stronger commitment to the fight in Afghanistan, and only advocated gradual, responsible withdrawal in Iraq. Nobody's been fleeced. Not yet, anyway.

Edited July 2, 2009 by BubberMiley

[punked]

So you want less American troops in Afghanistan?

Edited July 6, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted recopied Opening Post

[Sir Bandelot]

So you want less American troops in Afghanistan?

What you want me to say... No? Its not about Afghanistan, it's about Obomba. Guess he hasn't tried "reaching out" yet, despite what Karzai says would be the right solution, and some US Generals.

Unless he means, reaching out with more troops and bombs...

I'm not even talking about Afghanistan. I don't know the first thing about it. Do you?

[punked]

What you want me to say... No? Its not about Afghanistan, it's about Obomba. Guess he hasn't tried "reaching out" yet, despite what Karzai says would be the right solution, and some US Generals.

Unless he means, reaching out with more troops and bombs...

I'm not even talking about Afghanistan. I don't know the first thing about it. Do you?

So you don't know the subject you are speaking about but you know Obama is wrong on it? Sound logic.

[Bonam]

The surge strategy worked well in Iraq, and now they are applying it in Afghanistan. Seems like a reasonable thing to try. Send out more troops on the ground, secure the territory so the terrorists can't use it for their operations, and slowly squeeze them out of the country and make them a non-issue, so the people can focus on reconstruction.

[wulf42]

Way to go U.S.A. give those Filthy Taliban animals hell!!! Kill em all! Time to bring a world of hurt down on these vermin once and for all! Obama is turning out to be a good President who is a man of his word keep up the good work!!!

[August1991]

Actually, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that during the election, Obama promised a stronger commitment to the fight in Afghanistan, and only advocated gradual, responsible withdrawal in Iraq. Nobody's been fleeced. Not yet, anyway.

Exactly. Obama has put 4000 troops into Helmand Province, where the British are and near where the Canadians are. This is the soft underbelly of Afghanistan but also the most ill defined border.

It's sad that we Canadians have never given political support to this mission and so our politicians never committed the resources required. Some 2000 Canadian troops deserve credit for holding the fort in such a wide area.

With Obama, this will change. The 4000 is just a start.

[jdobbin]

It's sad that we Canadians have never given political support to this mission and so our politicians never committed the resources required. Some 2000 Canadian troops deserve credit for holding the fort in such a wide area.

Canadians have supported the mission. They have also supported a deadline for our involvement.

Canada has been doing some heavy lifting, more so than quite a few of our allies.

With Obama, this will change. The 4000 is just a start.

It doesn't change the fact that the Afghan government seems incapable of rising to the task and the fact that Pakistan remains an issue. This is what Canadians see and that is why they support a deadline even though some on the right think we should commit for the next several or more years.

[August1991]

Canadians have supported the mission.

...

Canada has been doing some heavy lifting, more so than quite a few of our allies.

The Canadian public has supported this mission half-heartedly. People like Layton and Duceppe have played to isolationist sentiments.

But Dobbin, I agree that Canadian troops have been doing some very heavy lifting in the south. Our troops held the fort before the British arrived recently in numbers. It is no surprise that Obama decided that the first (new) US troops would go to the south: Helmand and Kandahar.

With about 2000 or 2500 troops at any moment, Canadians held the south of Afghanistan for some 6 or 7 years. If we had been willing to commit 5000 troops, we could have done it properly. The political will wasn't there.

----

Al-Qaeda used the Afghan Taliban regime to organize its attack on the World Trade Center. Such (potential) disorganized, extreme regimes deserve a strong lesson. Sending sufficient NATO troops to Afghanistan is a more civilized response than dropping an atomic bomb or two. IMV, Canadians should entirely support this NATO mission.

Edited July 2, 2009 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Canadians have supported the mission. They have also supported a deadline for our involvement.

Canada has been doing some heavy lifting, more so than quite a few of our allies.....

What was the "deadline" for WW2, Korea, or Kosovo?

[lictor616]

Actually, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that during the election, Obama promised a stronger commitment to the fight in Afghanistan, and only advocated gradual, responsible withdrawal in Iraq. Nobody's been fleeced. Not yet, anyway.

Obama's electoral campaign was geared on a QUICK withdrawal in Iraq, the stupid and gullible dopes who voted for him elected him on that understanding .... "ending the war in iraq and afghanistan" was what gave Obama a decisive edge over McCain (that and the fact that he's black)

http://www.presidentobamaquotes.com/2009/0...ama-quotes.html

And so yes the americans elected barack on an assumption (a mistaken one at that) that he would end the war in Iraq and withdraw from Afghanistan), of course anyone who read his party platform could have told you otherwise MONTHS AGO... but alas... the american electorate just took the media's word for it... as they do with everything else.... they are born dupes after all... they vigilant enough to really KNOW what is going on...

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1006662.html

[sharkman]

Canadians have supported the mission. They have also supported a deadline for our involvement.

Canada has been doing some heavy lifting, more so than quite a few of our allies.

Canadians supporting this mission? Maybe some, but our liberal MSM breathlessly reports every casualty(with negative bias and over saturation of any bad news) as if Harper just died, and liberals like you had to be reminded time and time again that it was Martin, your beloved leader, who committed Canada to Afghanistan in the first place.

Now that we are there, we need to ignore cut and run suggestions from Layton, and fulfill our commitments.

Edited July 5, 2009 by sharkman

[jdobbin]

The Canadian public has supported this mission half-heartedly. People like Layton and Duceppe have played to isolationist sentiments.

I'm afraid you are wrong. Support for the mission has been high. Disillusionment has sometimes set in because of Harper's wish to keep everything secret. However, support for troops and mission has remained high.

Having said that, Canadians want a deadline in place. Given what the military keeps saying, the break is needed to get the forces back into form. The lack of training for raw recruits was remarked on this past week.

But Dobbin, I agree that Canadian troops have been doing some very heavy lifting in the south. Our troops held the fort before the British arrived recently in numbers. It is no surprise that Obama decided that the first (new) US troops would go to the south: Helmand and Kandahar.

With about 2000 or 2500 troops at any moment, Canadians held the south of Afghanistan for some 6 or 7 years. If we had been willing to commit 5000 troops, we could have done it properly. The political will wasn't there.

Canada could have had 50,000 troops there and it would still be a problem filled area what with Pakistan being what it is.

Al-Qaeda used the Afghan Taliban regime to organize its attack on the World Trade Center. Such (potential) disorganized, extreme regimes deserve a strong lesson. Sending sufficient NATO troops to Afghanistan is a more civilized response than dropping an atomic bomb or two. IMV, Canadians should entirely support this NATO mission.

And they have.

They also believe that, as in past wars, that armies have to rotated off the front lines lest they break.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm afraid you are wrong. Support for the mission has been high. Disillusionment has sometimes set in because of Harper's wish to keep everything secret. However, support for troops and mission has remained high.

This is no longer the case, and hasn't been for a while:

May 2009: Harris-Decima poll: The majority 54% of Canadians continue to oppose the government's commitment to having troops in Afghanistan, while 39% support it. Almost 90% of Canadians want their troops out of Afghanistan before or by the scheduled end date in 2011. 40% of Canadians want the troops brought back early while 46% say they should be withdrawn in July 2011. Only 8% think the mission should continue past July 2011. 54% of Canadians do not think the additional increases in U.S. troops will succeed, while 41% do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_...fghanistan#2009

[enlightment]

I do believe that there is a need for everyone to know who are the REAL people behind all these wars.

The best way to know U.S. politics is to view " Obama Deception Full Length " on youtube.com

Also download the free Obama Deception Guide :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13404412/The-Obama-Deception-Guide

There is no Left or Right in US politics , they are only acting in front of the camera. When off camera, the Left and the Right go to parties and dinner...etc.

The only people controlling the White House is the International Bankers and the US Presidency is only a puppet post.

For the explanation of all these wars in the past 100 years, please check out the link below and then read all the links of that site. One thing for sure, we have been sidetracked to petty issues while something deadly serious, threatening to Mankind is being secretly engineered.

http://nworesistance.com/war-and-conflict-explained.html

[bush_cheney2004]

I do believe that cross-posting spam violates forum rules.

[ba1614]

The surge strategy worked well in Iraq, and now they are applying it in Afghanistan. Seems like a reasonable thing to try. Send out more troops on the ground, secure the territory so the terrorists can't use it for their operations, and slowly squeeze them out of the country and make them a non-issue, so the people can focus on reconstruction.

More troops will certainly help in Afghanistan, and is needed, but many/most military experts/strategists don't think an Iraq style "surge" will work nearly as effective here. It's a completely different animal than Iraq.

Along with the massive increase in troops in Iraq, it was also a change in strategy, in that the soldiers started living in and amongst the people, rather than commuting a significant distance from the bases, to the "fighting zone". Doing this they were able to make the people feel much safer than when the troops would arrive, strike, then leave the people there practically undefended.

This was much easier to accomplish in Iraq because it is mainly an "urban" country, whereas in Afghanistan it's mainly small villages all over the place. This would require small groups of troops spread out all over, rather than a massive force in one city.

It's not an easy task over there, and like most Canadians, I'm proud as heck of the job our finest boys are doing!! I just pray we have the political resolve to finish the job so that the lives we have given up for the cause weren't for nothing.

[Sir Bandelot]

Questions are emerging as to whether Obama is slipping slowly into his own quagmire, in another guerrilla war. Obama is taking combat troops out of Iraq, but increasing them in Afghanistan, with questions arising as to whether there is a concrete end to our involvement. The 21,000 troops that Obama is adding brings the total of troops in Afghanistan to 68,000.

Obama told Newsweek in May that “My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops. The Soviets tried that; it didn’t work out too well for them. The British tried it; it didn’t work. We have to see our military action in the context of a broader effort to stabilize security in the country.’’

At the same time, the Obama administration is awaiting a midsummer assessment from Afghanistan commander Stanley McChrystal.

Anti-US resentment is building in Afghanistan after air strikes and firefights in which American forces are killing many innocent civilians. A United Nations report found that the killing of 828 civilians by US and Afghan forces last year is not all that far behind the 1,160 civilian deaths attributed to Taliban.

A New York Times story last week reported a district council leader in Helmand Province as saying, “People are hostages of the Taliban, but they look at the coalition also as the enemy because they have not seen anything good from them in seven or eight years.’’ That terrible tension is straight out of the legacy of Robert McNamara.

A quagmire for Obama

Can someone explain again why this war is going on, and what the mission objectives, ie. definition of "victory" is? It seems to me that there is no way to win, if the objective is to create a democratic pro-western society, by killing people and making more enemies. Even McNamara eventually figured that one out.

The way Obama is capitulating to everyones demands, be they republican or democrat makes me think this man has no real power at all. Whatever he wants and thinks does not matter. The emperor has no balls.

[bush_cheney2004]

Can someone explain again why this war is going on, and what the mission objectives, ie. definition of "victory" is? It seems to me that there is no way to win, if the objective is to create a democratic pro-western society, by killing people and making more enemies. Even McNamara eventually figured that one out.

If you have your own answer to the question of objective, then why did you ask. Clearly you are mistaken.

The way Obama is capitulating to everyones demands, be they republican or democrat makes me think this man has no real power at all. Whatever he wants and thinks does not matter. The emperor has no balls.

You didn't like the last emperor with balls...please make up your mind.

Edited July 9, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

If you have your own answer to the question of objective, then why did you ask. Clearly you are mistaken.

If I am mistaken, I would love to hear your explanation.

You didn't like the last emperor with balls...please make up your mind.

There is no contradiction in what I'm saying here. With Obama, its the "same old same old". And this is not surprising, just needs to be pointed out to the people who believed he would reach out and make efforts to reconcile with the enemies. Actually, his reaching out, especially to republicans renders him impotent. To me so far, it looks like the Obama presidency will be the one that shows how a president really has no power. He will be told what to do, and then he will sell it to the public. With a smile

[bush_cheney2004]

If I am mistaken, I would love to hear your explanation.

Explanation of what...when? Original invasion's purpose, mid-play, or end game? Clearly it is not to set up a western style/friendly democracy with Afghanistan Idol on local cave television. It is more about stamping out the safe havens for threats to western interests with traditional methods....war...occupation...reconstruction....rinse and repeat.

There is no contradiction in what I'm saying here. With Obama, its the "same old same old". And this is not surprising, just needs to be pointed out to the people who believed he would reach out and make efforts to reconcile with the enemies. Actually, his reaching out, especially to republicans renders him impotent. To me so far, it looks like the Obama presidency will be the one that shows how a president really has no power. He will be told what to do, and then he will sell it to the public. With a smile

Nope....as other members have clearly stated, President Obama pointedly made the case for increased emphasis in Afghanistan and Pashtun tribal areas (in Pakistan) for political points against the Bush administration (and their Iraq distraction) during the campaign. Fools just chose to hear what they wanted to hear instead.

Obama knows what we had already surmised....that there is an ungoverned rat's nest on the border and inside Pakistan that needs to be dealt with for long term security interests for the region and on the "terrorism" front. A reconstituted Taliban is not acceptable in the former context. So that context must be changed, by any means necessary.

[Sir Bandelot]

President Obama pointedly made the case for increased emphasis in Afghanistan and Pashtun tribal areas (in Pakistan) for political points against the Bush administration (and their Iraq distraction) during the campaign. Fools just chose to hear what they wanted to hear instead.

Fine, we are on the same page with that assessment. I agree completely. Obama is not a bringer of peace and good tidings, as so many thought he would be during the elction campaign. What was it called? Obamania? The masses were swept up in a giddy euphoria, believing in a messiah.

That is why I titled this thread "The wrath of Obama". But for some reason, today I get a PM from the moderator saying, this title is inflammatory and misleading. How is that an inflammatory title? I have no idea. The word "wrath" is inflammatory?

So he changed it to what it is now. But I did not intend it to be specifically about "Operation Khanjar", whatever that is. Proof is in the posting #5, where I say, "I'm not even talking about Afghanistan". They could at least ask or give a poster a chance to explain, before editing threads.

Oh well, no big deal

Edited July 10, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

Fine, we are on the same page with that assessment. I agree completely. Obama is not a bringer of peace and good tidings, as so many thought he would be during the elction campaign. What was it called? Obamania? The masses were swept up in a giddy euphoria, believing in a messiah.

Right...but all is well so far....no sign of Jimmy Carter disease just yet. Just ask those dead Somali pirates. American bombs are still killing people good and bad...Allah (God) is busy sorting them out.

That is why I titled this thread "The wrath of Obama". But for some reason, today I get a PM from the moderator saying, this title is inflammatory and misleading. How is that an inflammatory title? I have no idea. The word "wrath" is inflammatory?

That is strange.....don't see why it would be offensive. I rather liked the pithy title.....reminded me of "Star Trek II - The Wrath of Kahn". But we be guests...so house rules win.