What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

American Patriot — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:37:10 GMT

Between Barack and a Hard place.

What would you do?

1 Sent more troops and be accused of being a War Monger
2 Withdraw and be accused of a"CUT AND RUN" policy
3 No nothing and keep the "Status Quo" and let more American Troops die

PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL!!! PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL!!!

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

charlestonroger — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:10:53 GMT

There has to be a good valid reason to take the step of committing troops anywhere. But once that decision has been made, then everyone, the public,white house and congress has to be on the same page. The military and the government must have a winnable, achievable goal to insure victory. Then after committing the troops let the generals run the battlefield and give them all they need to win the objective with overwhelming force and armament. If not it is not winnable and we will have another vietnam.

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

richard — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:35:15 GMT

The best thing that Obamination could do for our great Country is to trip and fall down the concrete steps at the White house and go in to a comma for the next four years, and let the lessor of the two Evils rule the Roost, we would have a better chance of survival then!

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

soccermom — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:03:55 GMT

From what i understand (which is not much), it would have gotten worse before better in afghanastan because they were going after the drug lords and their precious poppy crops. The summer season is when to do it, and the drug lords will not give up their crops without violence. this is the first time those crops have really been targeted. NOt only is the poppy crop being destroyed, but,I think farmers are being paid to seek alternate sources of revenue, which would incite more violence. So, I am in wait and see mode. The violence should decrease as winter arrives. If this is going on next summer, than definitely GET OUT!

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

GWObama — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:18:37 GMT

After all the American lives that have been lost, if there is an obvious way to win that war, we need to go in and finish it off. To just pull out would be an insult to those who have already given their lives. The main thing is to commit to this war what needs to be done and not just sit around watching men lose their lives year after year as was done in Vietnam only to pull out in the end. The trouble is, our country does not seem to want to commit what needs to be done. Instead you have Obama going to the UN and apologising to the world for the US being an evil entity as his friends in Iran, Cuba and N. Korea like to do. No wonder our enemies love Obama. He is just like them. They all hate the US.

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

Undertaker — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:34:17 GMT

Pull our troops out of Iraq And Afghanistan, Sign a law that would ban both countries from entering America , Refuse any visas from people from the Iraq And Afghanistan, trying to come and make a life America..People who live here that were born in Iraq And Afghanistan..Should be allowed to go visit relatives only if their country will allow permit the policy ..Or all people who are from Iraq And Afghanistan, who moved to America to live should be required to back to their own country once the law is pass to bann Iraq And Afghanistan from coming into America

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

The Judge Says: — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:29:33 GMT

The Judge says:

I don't think Obama has a spine for protecting suppressed people.He is a cut and run person.
I was hoping for a better President. One who claimed that we were in the right battle and one that would commit enough force to win the war.

American Patriot There is a fourth option .The obama surrender .

The delay in responding to McChrystal stands in stark contrast to the promises old Barky made during the campaign. Compare his foot dragging with the following “stirring” promise to take firm action in Afghanistan:

The challenge now for Obama is to get up off of his lazy ass and make a decision. The time for waffling is over.

Here is a video of pure bull s*it from our commander in chief

"Had we listened to this collection of self-named realists, we would have lost in Iraq and Iran and al Qaeda would be dominating the region."

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

Pat D — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:30:26 GMT

It is my understanding that sand (silicone), when exposed to high temperatures, melts and the result is glass...Nuclear weapons create high temperatures and I think a huge piece of glass set against the blue of the Persian Gulf would be absolutely beautiful from the international space station.

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

The Judge Says: — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:33:58 GMT

The Judge says:

He's a Democrat, and they are cowards. Democrats think National Defense means talking tough and when that doesn't work - leave and beat a hasty retreat . He'll just declare victory and leave and give the country over to the Taliban and Al Queada.

Oh, and he'll blame Bush for the whole thing.

The challenge now for Obama is to get up off of his lazy ass and make a decision. The time for waffling is over.

Obama is an Islamofascist with communist views and with strong ties to leaders of domestic and international terrorist groups..

The likelihood of him handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Quaeda is very high.

The chance of him standing up to Iran is low, as is the probability that he will finish the job in Iraq.

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

Pat — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:09:43 GMT

Obama has had no experience in the military and only has experience in being a community organizer. I can not believe the American people who voted for this coward could think that he could run this country the way it should be run. He apologizes for everything we have done good or bad. To me he is a disgrace as an American President. He sees the world as he wants it to be not as it is. When can we start impeachment proceedings? The sooner the better.

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

niteowlett — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:14:53 GMT

President Obama is going to follow the advice of experts. I believe he is not a pacifist, nor a warmonger. Common sense tells me he is doing the right thing by picking up the troop involvement and honing in on the trouble spots and then creating the same scenario as in Iraq, by training the Afghans themselves to fight the insurgients themselves.

By all that I believe that is good in this world, I know we will do the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan and not abandon them without our help.

All of you who think you know the answers, why didn't you question Bush and his tactics as hardily??? Then, maybe, you could have made a difference. Instead, you remained silent and let the Cheney machine take over and mismanage what they did and left this mess for others to straighten out.

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

MrWebster — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:09:51 GMT

Those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Early in his term, JFK withdrew our military "advisors" from Laos by Executive Order and as Commander in Chief. He took some heat on that, but he was a MAN. Had he not done so, we would not have been fighting the Viet Cong. We would have been fighting earlier on the Pathet Lao (same difference).

That may be the reason that "they" took him out. Isn't it interesting that 3 weeks before the election of 1964, that clown LBJ was saying, "I am not about to send American boys to spill their blood on foreign shores" and that 3 weeks after the election all the school buses were lined up in front of the many induction centers? They were drafting them in droves. I don't know this from the history books. I was right there. I saw it with my own eyes. I had my hand on the pulse of this country. I felt the hypocrisy and the LIE.

Isn't it interesting that the Truth now comes out (it always does in the end) that the so called Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a complete hoax, fabrication, and ploy orchestrated by the CIA on direct command of LBJ? Apparently the big chemical companies et al wanted "guns and butter."

As for Afghanistan, all the King's horses and all the King's men (The British Empire) couldn't do it. The powerful Soviet Union couldn't do in in more than 10 years. What makes us think that we can do it?

Kenny Rogers says, "You've got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them." As much as it grieves me to say so, I say fold and fold now before another American life is uselessly spent in a futile effort. I do not say cut and run. That is just a colloquialism and, after all, we are Americans. I say cut your LOSSES and bring them home NOW and with honor. Let's do it right this time. Ticker tape parades, medals, live interviews on talk or news shows, and just going up as a complete stanger to a person in uniform, extending your hand and saying, "WELCOME HOME and thank you for your service to our beloved country."

~ MW "Victory or death" and "Bless 'Em All"

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

I'm your HUCKLEBERRY — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:20:54 GMT

I believe Obama's doesn't have the spine or the military mine or courage to fight a war.

I will predict the Obama will #3 Status Quo and when the public turns against him he will CUT AND RUNNNNNNNNNN so fast he will lose his shadow like Peter Pan

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

Moosemose — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:01:50 GMT

Well, this has been a festering "Boil on the Arse Hole of the World" since I can remember as the Drug Trade has been entrenched in the "Poppy Fields" for Centuries!!! Big $$$ small investments Huge Profits all combine to bring about a "No Win" situation especially when one factors in the "CIA Involvement" in "Trafficking" here as in S.E. Asia (Cambodia, Laos & Viet Nam). I guess it all depends on what the "Powers Behind the Players" have to say as this situation is also not in the best Interests of a "One World Order" just like the Iranian "Nuke Situation" is NOT Productive to their "Agenda". John

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

Capt. Conservative — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:12:29 GMT

First of all, We need to listen to the Military Leaders that are in charge of our Soldiers in Afghanistan. If they're calling for more troops, than "WE NEED MORE TROOPS". But now, we have to wait for the Community Organizer to make a decision. And knowing his record in the Senate, this could be a long process. We need to commit the requested amount of troops, and WIN THIS WAR.

Of course Liberals want us to pull out and leave. What they fail to understand is that if we do pull out, the Taliban & al-Qaeda will use this as Propaganda against the United States. They will declare victory over the United States and that will lead to further recruitment and more confident attacks against us.

Also ... The Soldiers that have lost their lives and laid everything down for their Country, will have died in vain. We cannot allow that to happen. These Soldiers need to be honored by finishing and winning the war that they gave their lives for.

Obama is in a tuff political situation. While on the Campaign Trail, Obama continued to claim that Afghanistan is where we needed to be and that if he were elected President, that's where our focus would be directed. Obama said that Afghanistan is where the war on terror should be fought and won. Liberals and Democrats continually preached this as well.

Now, it appears that this was simply rhetoric. It seems that Obama was only "USING" our military as propaganda of his own.

Obama is appearing weak and indecisive as usual. And the World is watching.

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

silver's — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 03:57:32 GMT

One word...whatever he does it'll be WRONG and the press will say it's right. Army brat if you are reading this and you are ...don't bother with the "exactly what do you mean"? routine. You are as bad as a hangover and twice as nausiating.

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

meowkats — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:58:17 GMT

We Americans need to stop pussyfooting around when it comes to WAR! President Obama needs to listen to the Generals, if the Generals say we need more troops give them more troops, if the American Soldiers Need Better Equipment give them better equipment. You can't fight a war without great supplies! Mr. President listen to the Generals, you are not sitting in Afghanistan working on Health Care your busy pushing Health Care and the war is on your back burner right now. So listen up! Sorry to say you need to bomb bomb bomb over there and bomb them good. We need to stop Pussyfooting -this is WAR and WAR is BOMBING!!! Then bring our troops HOME!!!

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

DYK — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:19:38 GMT

DYK: While military leaders are important, they don't set policy
CC wrote:   Nor should a Community Organizer. Honestly, Do you have faith in a guy that dodged registering for Selective Service ????

DYK writes: What any of the above has to do with anything is anyone's guess.
Policy comes from inspection. Policy comes from multiple minds, from the input of all kinds of agencies. Input from the 'generals on the ground' is a important part, but not any more important than the proper investigations of all relevant factors.
Military leaders DO NOT set policy.
----------------------------------

DYK: And they usually come with a skewed perspective, since they will want to win, no matter the cost; or it can be as simple as wanting to kill the enemy that has killed their soldiers.
CC wrote:    I think you're using Liberal TV theories. (DYK: I have no idea what you're referring to) Sorry but I find your comments a bit ignorant. Military Leaders do not operate as you presume. I tell you what ... Try being there and looking into the eyes of a Commanding Officer after He has lost men. And then tell me He has a "no matter the cost" atittude.

DYK writes: You fail to make a case against, that military leaders are and how they can be "skewed" in their assessments. Their perspective is tactics, the tactics going to an overall strategy. But those only are operative once there is established policy. It is pure folly to rely upon the military for "policy".
CC wrote:   The Liberal Media along with their following, do not take into account how many of the enemy our Military has taken out. That's important to them. What they do is USE the American Body Count as their propaganda.
DYK writes: I'm not sure where this leads as to the argument of sending more and more troops. What's your point, other than some assertions?
-------------------------------------
DYK: Their advice must always be taken in perspective and measured against the other minds involved
CC wrote:   Sure, if those "Other Minds" have any perspective on War or Combat. We are relying on a Community Organizer with Extreme Liberal Tendencies. We are relying on a guy that wouldn't even register with Selective Service when he was supposed to. We are relying on a guy that has spent have his Presidency, apologizing for America.
DYK writes: No, of course, this isn't true. It's a multiple minds' approach, top to bottom. What do you think Gates is doing, sitting in a corner? What do think the Pentagon operatives are doing? Hands over their mouths? What do you think advisers are doing from many, many areas? Are you so naive` to think that Obama is NOT going through a thorough process, unlike his predecessor? The best policy must be found; then the best strategies must be applied; then the tactics created. It's a process, no stone should be left unturned. Lives and security depend upon it.
---------------------------------------
DYK: Along with this request, though, is not the intention of defeating the enemy on the battlefield.
CC wrote:   LoL ... Why don't you tell Marines that. WOW !!!

DYK writes: LOL!! You should pay more attention to what the reality is. Even McChrystal said as much. "Resources" won't win the war, since it is an "insurgency" war. Get your facts, sir. The Taliban is NOT a standing army to be defeated, to be killed and captured. The McChrystal call for More troops is to instigate the fight against insurgency. This is done by working with the Afghan people through organization and trust building, winning the minds and hearts, so that in the future, it is they who reject the Taliban. This is called "nation-building". To nation-build, a massive troop presence is required, and a god-awful number of years, to decades. To repeat: "Resources" will not win the war, not if it is on the Soviet model, their ten years amounting to nothing. The "resources (man-power)" goes to the nation-building.
Should we commit to nation-building? Should we commit American lives to a country whose history is nothing but tribalism, so deeply entrenched, that it is almost pollyannish to consider changing it? What American life is worth it?

CC wrote:   We are not "Nation Building" in Afghanistan.
DYK writes: This is where it goes. It's that or nothing. That is what is being debated right now. Clearly, you are not up to speed concerning the situation in Afghanistan.
CC wrote:   First of all Obama campiagned that Afghanistan is where we needed to be to fight al-Qaeda. He mentioned nothing of "Nation Building". Liberals whined and complained about Bush being in Iraq, claiming Afghanistan is where we needed to be. And they weren't mentioning "Nation Building".
DYK writes: Exactly. But if you send in the troops, for what reason? To do what? Fight an Taliban standing army? There isn't any. Win the hearts and souls of people while occupying their country? Won't happen. Find out that history will be repeated. The Soviet example? Most likely.
What must be done is to stick to the original premise of disrupting the Taliban and bin Laden, while continuing the pursuit of them. This has to be done on a scale that will work, no matter the time it takes. Occupation, which is what occurs with a massive troop engagement, has NO CHANCE of success. Zilch. Ask the Brits. Ask the Russians.
And after nine years, ask the Americans. After nine years, what happened? A recent election that was stolen. A government that has NO support from its populace. Without a accepted government, American has no partner in Afghanistan. Without a functioning central government, the effort is DOA.
CC wrote:   We are there to run The Taliban out and run al-Qaeda out.
DYK: That was done. But what happened? They're in Pakistan. Waiting. Organizing. And what's in Afghanistan? No government. Tribes with warring warlords. Corruption. American forces babysit, but the babysitting is beginning to grow deadly. The longer a country is occupied, the more resistance that will develop. IED's now are sprouting up all over the place. Just think, the Taliban and bin Laden were run out, over a porous border, only to operate with impunity. And who now is a Taliban sympathizer? Who are they in the small villages? They all look alike. Normal by day, deadly by night. Throw in a million troops. So what. The million troops cannot win, just like the thousands of Soviet troops could not win.
The strategy must go to the original, to be sure Al Qaeida does not reorganize in Afghanistan, which is doable. And it won't take a massive involvement. Al Qaieda is all over the world. Should we invade EVERY country they're in, or should we stay with a policy of disruption, of drones, of special opts? Check it out, what the strategy is that's going on in the rest of the world. This same stategy must be the same in Afghanistan.
CC wrote:    We're there to help Afghanistan take their Country back from these thugs. We're there to draw al-Qaeda out. Now all of a sudden' we're "Nation Builsing" ???
DYK writes: Your comprehension is sorely limited. You incorrectly assume there was a country "to be taken back." You clearly dont know the history, the complexities, the nuances of the problems of Afghanistan. Sorry, but you don't. But you can. Until you do, though, you absolutely have no clue.
And you underestimate the United States Military. They don't break, and they will never become broken. Mainly because they fight for one another, not the President. They fight for love of this Country, not the President. And given the Democrats History, The Military knows that Democrats do not suport them financially or their morale.
DYK writes: None of this applies. You can "rah rah" all you want. Men and women are on their 4th and 5th tours. The cost in human lives and maimed bodies and minds has been staggering. Kids that were 11 years old when 9/11 occurred, will be dying now in Afghanistan, a war that should have been over and done with, had not Bush gone into Iraq.
War is Not a movie.
----------------------------------
Given the importance and the gravity, it should take as long as it should.
CC wrote: While the enemy reorganizes and networks more suport to that region ??? While the World watches as Obama looks weak and indecisive ???
DYK writes: Surely, you're not serious. Just this week should disspell the weak assertion. The "world" is impressed with Obama. Tough to admit it, isn't it?
------------------------------
No more cowboy "bring em on." It's an adult decision.
CC writes:   Well ... That Cowboy kept this Country safe. That Cowboy killed more terrorists than any other President. That Cowboy put The United States of America 1st ... Before the United Nations, and before those on Saddam's payroll. Trust me ... Marines are currently saying, "Bring em on".

DYK writes: The Cowboy made the world an far more unsafe place. The Cowboy destroyed America's cherished image in the world. The Cowboy is responsible for the totally unnecessary deaths of thousands and thousands of human beings, many of them the precious treasure of the American families, all for a lie, a horrible lie. As for Bush keeping America safe, bullshit. If you mean by supplying a non ending cornucopia of Americans to kill, delivered to Al Quaeda, then yes, that's how America was kept safe. bin Laden, being given Americans to kill, handed propaganda in order to recruit followers from all over the world, who now are operating all over the world. Kept us safe? Total Bushshit.
CC wrote:   DYK .. I realize you're pessimistic about the abilities and capabilities of our Military.
DYK writes: Nothing to do with it. The situation calls for the proper policy, and this policy is NOT be be dictated by the military. It's as clear and as simple as that. The military is the vehicle, not the driver.
CC wrote:    You're not understanding what I'm saying about "Winning This War". Terrorists declare victories using propaganda everyday. They were making vidoes in Iraq claiming they were winning the war agains the West. Even though we confiscated written messages and transmittions that they were breaking and weakening.
DYK writes: What's your point? You don't think we do the same? That's why it's important to construct the proper image and message for the world, again. Bush destroyed all of those efforts and lost the propaganda war. Obama is on the right track, by example, by showing that America is not the monster portrayed by Bush.
CC wrote:   Winning the War in Afghanistan includes winning the war of propaganda.
DYK writes: There is no "war" to be won in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is like any other 3rd world country who is engaged in harboring terrorists, and must be dealt with in the same manner. It's a war of attrition, persistence, and patience. Massive armies won't win this kind of war.
CC wrote: This enemy fights through Ideology, therefore tangliby they are not defeated by Military means. But, as we defeat them in battles, we win the war of propaganda as well. Therefore, through our Military efforts the war against these people can have a direct effect on the Ideology.
DYK writes: You just don't get the big picture, the complexties, and the history. "Winning" in Afghanistan is not possible. Containment, disruption, etc, has to be the continuing strategy, while working via the diplomatic channels to get Pakistan onboard for the long haul, since it is they who are the key player in the equation. Massive troops in Afghanistan for decades won't solve anything.
CC wrote: You continue to use the term "Adults" ... Which I'm guessing is your attempt at sarcasm. Regardless, it goes without saying. I trust the "Adults" with their boots on the ground for more than the "alledged Adults" running this Country.
DYK writes: Then you should live in a government run by the military.
CC wrote:    In my opinion, playing the rac card when it's for political gain, calling those that oppose you, Nazis and UnAmerican doesn't seem very adult like to me.
DYK writes: This is another subject area.....which is easily rebutted.
------------------------------
"War is not a movie."

CC wrote:   Never claimed it was ... Besides, I'm not a huge fan of Hollywood. Been in Three Battles myself, You ???
DYK writes: Being in battle is not germane to the problems of global terrorism. (I have my DD214....no battles, but three years in the Army Airborne, STRAC)
CC wrote: And just so you know, I did read you entire post, and rather than get into writing novels to show our differences, I will just stick with, We Will Agree To Disagree.
DYK writes: Ok.
CC wrote:   I will say this ... I often wonder if People like yourself, that believe Bush was incompotent, also believe Bill Clinton was incompotent ???
DYK writes: Not on the scale of Bush. I'm no Clinton fan, so much so, that I won't be voting for Hillary in 2016, which means I sit it out. But Bush is off the radar screen as to incompetence.

CC wrote:   History will be the Judge of Bush, not Biased and Hateful Liberals -or- Conservatives that supported Bush. Bush put this Country before his popularity and his approval rating.
DYK writes: Or did he go after the man who tried to assassinate "my dad"? You're right, history will decide. If the "current" history, the books that have been coming out, are any guide, Bush is toast.
CC wrote: Obama is more concerned with his legacy and popularity.
DYK writes: After just 8 months?  Odd that this can be an analysis based upon ??????

CC wrote:   Liberals seem to forget that we still had 30,000 troops in Afghanistan.
DYK writes:   ?????? When?
CC wrote:   Saddam was a problem before 9/11 and still needed to be addressed.
DYK writes: Which was always the case. He was contained. End of story. He was a real threat to no one. He was bluster.
CC wrote: I'm certain Saddam was banking on getting a pass after 9/11 ... He was wrong.
DYK wrote: Yes. But not because he was right to think it. What had he to do with 9/11? Nothing. Let's repeat: nothing. Over four thousand young men and women dead, over 30,000 maimed, crippled, mentally brain damaged, for NOTHING. Nothing but criminal lies, the likes of which have NEVER occurred in the history of our country. The created Bush Doctrine, to invade a country of whim, on suggestion, on an idea that they "could", they "might", "it's possible". The Bush Doctrine, which caused the murder of hundreds of thousands. The Bush Doctrine, which took the eye off of bin Laden. The Bush Doctrine, the reason we are still bogged down in Afghanistan after nine years. The Bush Doctrine, which spawned torture, which set back America's most cherished ideals, and made America reviled throughout the world. The Bush Doctrine.....(which Palin had never heard of.....)

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

Sweet Gypsey — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:59:36 GMT

From the real Troops that I have heard from is the DO NOT WANT ANOTHER VIETNAM,they went there to do a job, I want them home just as much as all do but I know from reading old posts that I have from one the I read so much of that they need to finish this, they need all the right supplies, they need our support. At this point I don't care if they blow the country off the map, they all joined for their country. They can follow wth Iran and a few others just for the start. Yes I have had it with OBATTY, and our Troops in body bags, let them do what they need to do, have to do and want to do, give them all they need and stay the H*LL out of their way.

Gypsey

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

MikeBuilder123 — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:29:50 GMT

As miserable as I may sound for this, we had best not leave the Iraq/Afghan business unfinished.

If we cut and run, we'll have attacks like 9/11 one after the other, which is why Obama plans to cut and run, hoping to absolutely undo all the good that Bush did. That is how wildly consumed with bitter hate Obama and his gang really are and why we have absolutely no reason at all to trust any of them.

Democrats have so much bitterness and hate in them that there is absolutely no way to reason with them at all. They prove it by insulting us with Clinton worship, just as a hateful political insult to support the KKK. Tokenism with Obama only sets that fact in stone.

Racism is unforgivable, which is why Obama is also unforgivable. So are his druggie followers -- the poppy farmers of Afghanistan. They have been selling dope since before history was well recorded, but all that money goes to Pashas who use the money to cause violent crime here.

Do what Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf recommended in March 2009: stay the course! Finish the job even if it takes lives, time, and money. If we pull out like cowards now, we'll have it all to do over and the cost will be much higher -- particularly in lives.

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

full time patriot — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:58:09 GMT

Obama has to make a call. If he wants to win this battle, What the generals request you have to give. If not pull our boys out and do what the Undertaker sugested. Put a federal troops on the border and don't let anyone from those counties in. Then start looking inward to find out who is here. Thats a start. Obama will have the soldiers die before he makes his decision. Let see from August to now, How many of our boys died. Impeach Obama now... Have a good day.

RE: What is Obama to do about Afghanistan?

Sweet Gypsey — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:06:40 GMT

American,

I myself may have a different view on war. You know that first of all I am a Military Brat, my whole family was all and still is in one branch or another, I born into it, I lived it and breathed it, I was my Father clone, the little princess that came on furlow, and right off to Overseas again.

My Dad had joined, then my oldest brother, they ended up being a big deal, father and son both being stationed in Korea, made the papers and all. Other brother tried I think 2 or 3 times, had heath problems and couldn't hide them. Dad started out Army then they both went Air Force, but we have Marines. had Navy and Coast Guard, and still Army. They all joined for their country, and yes it would destroy me if one was hurt or killed. Now I have one that I still read old posts from, and from the way the Troops sound they don't want another Vietnam just pick up and leave. They want to do the job that they started, they need supplies, they need our support, and they need free to do what they have to do to finish the job, they are Soldiers, let them do what they need to do.

BRATS are brought up a little different then most, we hide our emotions, think yo are born with it, but I never knew where or when I would see my Dad, and just knew was new told not to show emotions, but was a big help as I got older.

Just ask the Troops, they will tell you the same thing "finish the job"

Gypsey