Obama Considers Strategy in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mist425, Sep 23, 2009.

  1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html?_r=1&hp

    I'm really glad to hear this as I've been more troubled by the war in Afghanistan in the past few months than I'd been the past few years.

    The Taliban is who we're fighting there now, but it was not the Taliban but rather Al Qaeda that perpetrated the attacks of Sept. 11th. A handful of internet searches have led me to believe that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quite distinct organizations; the Taliban had sheltered Al Qaeda members, especially Osama, for a few years now, protecting him from extradition, but as far as I can tell that's where their interconnectedness ends.

    At any rate the Taliban are not a good group of people, in my eyes anyways; they believe in the subjugation of women, authoritarian religious rule, and other prohibitions on the everyday freedom of Afghans. What's questionable to me is whether or not our fight is truly with them, though...

    Surely if we want to make Afghanistan a better place, we should be spending money on building roads, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure. With poverty comes a sense of hopelessness; no doubt the Taliban seize on such sentiments to gain new recruits. Dropping bombs and eliminating the livelihood of farmers (even if their crop is one we find reprehensible) is not making life any easier for the average Afghan.

    Props to our president for keeping cool and not rashly committing even more troops just to appease detractors that think he's not tough enough.
  2. I'm sorry, but IMO this is the only credible part of the article:

  3. either way hes sending more troops to afghanistan

    he is a liar

    a pathological liar. i dont trust anything this man says.

    he said he would pull out troops from iraq but he disguising the troop levels with statements like "they are only there now to train"
  4. we should try doing these things in the US first.

    It's Afghanistan's decision whether or not they want to make it a better place not ours..

    maybe they like it the way it is?

  5. [​IMG]
  6. Afghanistan is a place with a deep and ancient culture, they are largely tribal and non conformist people. They wont fit into this new system, so they have to be wrought in through force, also I hear they have poppies, how many cultures must we destroy before we are satisfied, my guess is many more, if you think this has to do with terroists, you are sadly mistaken

  7. exactly!!

    its like if russia invaded the usa .. i know i would start up guerilla warfare to make them leave.. thats what they are doing in iraq and afghanistan because they dont want us to be there! and i completely respect them for fighting back .. there aint no such thing as terrorists .. look into the Mossad and MI6.. bombing subways in Spain..
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihv7XyguLa8]YouTube - Madrid Train Bombing[/ame]

    the governments are doing this to scare you into submission i dont understand why people dont see this ! all of the beheadings including daniel pearl .. really look into that .. the cia is involved in false flag "terrorism"

    for example.. look at what hitler did to start up the war with poland..

    Reichstag fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    i could go on but i want people to look into research for themselves.
  8. How is that credible? It assumes that left-leaning people wouldnt be outraged if he went ahead and sent for troops into Vietn...im mean Afghanistan.

  9. 1. They wouldn't be outraged.

    2. It doesn't assume the reaction, only that this is a calculated move to temporarily appease his anti-war supporters (not "left-leaning" people, mind you)

    Obama: "See? Look! I said right there that we should reconsider our strategy of bombing civilians and destroying lives. However, after careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that their lives are just not worth as much as corporate support for my administration. Sorry guys... my hands are tied. :confused_2:"
  10. Meanwhile the UN sits back and enjoys its role as the world's "peacekeeper", you know the front group that said WWII was the war to end all wars, I call BULLSHIT!
  11. Have you seen the Penn & Teller BULLSHIT episode on World Peace? They totally debunk the UN "peacekeeper" myth, it's great.

    The secret to world peace, by the way, is money. If two countries are trading partners and both prove beneficial to one another there is no war. If the US didn't blockade/sanction so many countries, we wouldn't have so many enemies.

  12. *sigh*

    Obama's strategy in Afghanistan: his campaign contributor's strategy in Afghanistan: sustain war until the American people riot.
  13. #13 letsgetPOD, Sep 23, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2009
    The american people will too, I think Obama underestimates his opposition, it seems to be growing in number every day, gee wonder why that is. Bush on roids maybe?
  14. True liberals/progressives wouldnt be outraged?

    Im not talking about elected Democrats.
  15. Didn't Obama promise during his campaign that we would have all "combat troops" taken out of Iraq by a certain date? Even if we ignore the fact that we already have permanent military bases in Iraq (that's part of the reason we went there in the first place - to establish military bases in the Middle East), does anybody really think this is going to happen? Or will it just be another broken campaign promise like re-evaluating the War on Drugs or repealing the Patriot Act? These questions all have unfortunate answers.

    Our presence in Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism... if we wanted to eradicate the Taliban that would have been accomplished a long time ago. We are there mostly because their opium fields don't have the CIA's stamp of approval like a majority of the drugs that are trafficked into this country do. Oil pipelines and resource burning probably also has something to do with it...

  16. Obama is a liar .. he was succesfull in suckering the population into voting for him. with his rhetoric.

  17. Outraged? I don't think so. Dissapointed is how they will put it.

    Besides, the true progressive/liberal is incapable of being racist, so how could they possibly protest Obama? It's a catch 22.
  18. Well, all politicians must be liars by default. If they came out with their true intentions they would be bums or dead, not politicians.
  19. Rofl...

    It's a trap, Dickie!
  20. Progressives got him elected, but dont think that all of them are for him lock, stock, and barrel.

    And when you say "they" who are you refering to?

Share This Page