Bush Claims That Afghanistan is in Trouble

If you support our troops we must bring an end to continuing the failed policy of becoming involved in the Iraq Civil War. No one fought our civil war for us and we should not be fighting the civil war for the Iraqi’s.

Pathetic.

IslandDog

You certainly are Pathetic. Supporting a failed policy that will continue killing Americans is WRONG!

As usual...personal attack based on emotion.

The democrats plan to vote against supporting our troops will backfire as usual.  Unbelieve that people would advocate leaving before the mission is completed.  Clinton did that and it showed our weakness and lack of resolve to the terrorists....the democrats are DOING IT AGAIN!

Right now the US military is turning over many locations to NATO in Afghanistan.  Eventually NATO will run it all.  But since the US is part of NATO we will continue to have troops there.

My husband is working NATO in Afghanistan right now and actively turning over several US held places to NATO.

I asked him if NATO was asking for more US troops.  He said, "no, we have plenty now."  So could you list your source please?

Also, just an FYI.  Currently the other NATO countries send very few troops compared to the US.  They could certainly send many more but there are political reasons in their countries which inhibit it right now (read...no one wants to be under the US's thumb).  The only way to get more troops from more nations involved is to turn it over to NATO, then let NATO deal with manning.

We are headed in that direction right now.

 

The pathetic part is the people there keep saying it was better under the Taliban. They don't bother to mention that it is the Taliban that keeps blowing up their power and water supply, who keep kidnapping and killing people trying to fix stuff, and generally making the place worse.

So it would be better under the people who are doing all the stuff making it worse. That's our problem in Afghanistan. It's full of people with the same political eccentricities as Col. Gene.

IslandDog

I would suggest you read the proposed resolution. It starts out by supporting our troops. What it does not support is the Surge that will place MORE of our troops in danger with no prospect of settling then civil war that rages in Iraq. Anyone that supports what Bush wants to do does NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. Placing them in danger by invading a country that was no threat to the U.S. did not support our troops!!! Prolonging that mistake DOES NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!

You cannot have a resolution that opposes what Bush is doing, and then at the same time telling the troops "we support you".  Democrats could care less if we win this war, and this is just another example of them trying to undermine our troops.  It's pathetic.

I would suggest you read the proposed resolution. It does, basically, nothing. Don't you feel the least bit betrayed?

IslandDog

"You cannot have a resolution that opposes what Bush is doing, and then at the same time telling the troops we support you "

That is PURE BS. We can support our troops and oppose the President's policy. The truth is that sending more American Troops into a war that should NEVER have been fought in the first place is NOT IN ANY WAY SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS! Sending them off to be killed and injured in a war against a country that did not pose any danger to the U.S. and getting them in the middle of a Civil War is NOT supporting the troops.

The best way to support our troops is Impeach Bush and Cheney and given them a new Commander-in-Chief.

Wrong.  Only liberal logic believes that you can call the Commander-in-Chief a liar, vote against support for troops, rally against troops, try to hurt our troops by cutting off funding, and then say....."WE SUPPORT YOU". 

Your whole "Iraq was not a danger" is just rhetoric.  19 people with box cutters were not a threat either col!




And that is never going to happen.  There is absolutely NO REASON to impeach either!

This is for you, Col Gene, and it is you to a "T" . . .


toothpastefordinner.com

LOL

"You cannot have a resolution that opposes what Bush is doing, and then at the same time telling the troops "we support you". Democrats could care less if we win this war, and this is just another example of them trying to undermine our troops. It's pathetic."

Actually apparently the resolution does just that. Says they disapprove of the war handling by the President while authorizing additional troops.

Democrats are weaker then straw.

The only way to end this before 2008 is to cut off funding of the troops. Though I am not in favor of that, it is the only sure fire way to get us the hell out. I'm in favor of a scaled draw down, and re-deployment back to the States. Iraq is an Iraqi problem, Iran is our problem, and so is North Korea, as well as AQ.

If we removed the troops from Iraq, we could remove the focus of Iraq from the war on terror. The Iraqis who want freedom if that is true must stand and fight for it.

No amount of assistance from us, though we have given way more then a generous amount, way beyond that actually, deep into sacrifice to delineate the cost as best I can, still hasn't completed the job in Iraq, it has been almost 5 years now, with no military solution and agreement that a political solution is what will reduce the insurgency and also that reducing the violence is the goal.

Not democracy, not stopping the violence, not rebuilding the country. We cannot accomplish those things, until Iraqi's come together and fight for their own freedom, and achieve their own goals, modest as they are, "reducing the violence" and working through their problems not fighting through them.

You can no more force them to submit then you can expect them to comply. You have to hope for the best and allow them to choose what they want. If they want a war that will destroy their country, and then come to the table and figure out how to work together so be it. If they want to fore go a war and work together indefinetly as we have decided to do in our own country then all the better.

The point is we don't have the control to make that decision for them.

IslandDog

OUR Commander-in-Chief is a liar. He sent our military into a country that was not a danger to America and has gotten them bogged down in the middle of a Civil War. He has caused the death of 3,100 and injured 23,000. He has spent 3/4 of a Trillion dollars to destabilized Iraq and create millions of new enemies for our country. If you position is we should support this Commander-in-Chief --you are crazy.

I would suggest you read your own words. You scream that we did not have enough troops to quell the violence. Now that the President is sending in more troops that were asked for by the commanders on the ground, who have a plan to use them in a way that will make up for the sort fall in the beginning. The plan so far is working since the "Civil warrories" are running for cover in Iran before the troops have arrived. Orders have already been published that when the troops arrive and start to enforce the laws they are to run and hide until they leave. The so called civil war that had the opposition force walking the streets with guns have left the weapons at home. Gee if they are not walking the streets with guns won't less people be at risk? Won't it be hard to fight a "Civil War" if the people won't fight?

In Afghanistan you have the bad guys losing support as they fight only in good weather. The President sees this and wants to increase troops to meet the enemy as they come out of their winter vacation caves. I think that is a smart idea.

Paladin77

I have said from the outset that Bush made two major errors.

First was the decision to invade Iraq. It was not warranted by the danger to the U.S. and predicated on the advice of people with foreign policy knowledge and experience was a policy that would not work. They were correct and Bush was dead WRONG.

The second was the failure of Bush to follow military doctrine and the planning for an Iraq Invasion (The military has plans to do a lot of things even some that may not be a good strategic move like invading Iraq) to less then 1/3 the troops needed to establish order after Saddam fell. The time for the 500,0000 troops was at the time Saddam Fell not after the sectarian elements have organized, armed and have created instability. The Bush Serge of 21,500 troops is as the old saying goes, “a day late and a dollar short". WE may see some reduction in the attacks in the Baghdad area. We have already scene the attacks shift to other cities. When the surge is over the violence will resume if it did abate a bit during the surge. The violence will continue because we have not solved the reasons for this violence. All this will do is prolog this civil conflict and when we leave the factions will battle each other until the people of Iraq settle their dispute. That is what Bush does not get. There is no military solution we can impose short of a massive force that would be able to disarm and occupy all areas of Iraq, seal the borders and prevent all factions from conducting attacks. We will not do that and do not have the military the required to accomplish that type of occupation.

The time for more troops was April 2003, not February 2007!!!!!!!!!! Bush NEVER learns and because of his lack of knowledge and experience he makes policy decisions that are a disaster for our country.

Yes, it would be nice to go to war with a million troops and have everything perfect. Please name a war where that happened. War is decided by the people that start them and ended by the side that wins. We won the war, the peace takes time but it is happening. If you understood how the world works instead of living in a fantasy you would see that. Not everything is perfect and it would be nice to have everything perfect. We do not live in a perfect country or a perfect world.

Bush didnt lie about the war col, you have NEVER proven your accusations.  End of story. 

19 hijackers were not a threat either col, Iraq was not a threat when Clinton attacked, where is your accusations and fake outrage there?

Bush will never be impeached.....get over it.

Paladin77

This war was an elective war. We were not attacked and in 2002 Saddam had no military capacity beyond operating in the central section of Iraq. Thus, we went to war without the manpower and equipment needed to do the job properly and since the fact that we went to war and the timing was not forced upon us, we made a BIG ERROR. This is not like most other wars. We were not attacked nor we were not reacting to an invasion like in Korea.

IslandDog

Yes Bush and Cheney lied as to the threat from Saddam. They presented a threat that required action in early 2003 when the facts showed at that time Saddam was no danger and both Bush and Cheney were aware of the Intelligence and the pentagon assessment that said Saddam had no capability to attack ANYONE!

Once again col you failed to deal with the topic you started because you have been debunked on all of your points. As usual the minute that happens you change topics bringing up other topics that have been proven wrong many times. You keep rewording the same tired arguments that have been proven wrong each and every time. Is it possible for you to stay on topic for any article you write? You have lied, misquoted, and contorted the truth every chance you get. Your positions are factually weak, you are free to have your opinions wrong as they may be but please understand that the only person you are fooling is yourself.

Paladin77

Better look at the news again today. Everything I said in this post is correct. You have debunked NOTHING.

Go dig a Fox Hole and crawl into it. That will do more good then all the BS you post

And so did a long list of democrats then, but you won't hold them accountable.  You have already been proven wrong about Iraq col, so why do you bother?

IslandDog

It was Bush that requested the authorization to attack Iraq and it is Bush that gave the order. He responsible for a war predicated on lies and should be impeached.

And Congress approved it and there is NO PROOF of any intentional lie.  Bush will NEVER be impeached, get over it and move on.

I must have missed the news. Please tell me what point you have made.