No surprises, at all.
The result of having a pussy in control at the White House:
Note: Please forgive my vulgarity today, I just can't help it. I'm fed up.
|
|||
     |
No surprises, at all.The result of having a pussy in control at the White House:
Note: Please forgive my vulgarity today, I just can't help it. I'm fed up. 26 comments to No surprises, at all.You must be logged in to post a comment. |
   |
|
|
Copyright © 2003-2010 • All Rights Reserved • Hatuey Modifications to Atahualpa Theme by HLG |
|||
Now, Val, you know the score. It's STILL Bush's fault. Every problem out there, especially the ones Obama can't get a grip on, is Bush's fault. Oh, and he's not a pussy. He's a genital canal. He went to Harvard, you know.
If we are actually implementing the COIN strategy that was supposedly being implemented at the start of his admin and announced to much fanfare then this is to be expected. When Petraeus first took over Iraq and implemented COIN casualties soared and the heat came on W. COIN is always going to result in more loss of life since troops are more visible and easier to hit.
The issue is that once you have cleared, held and built that the numbers should decrease...and for that to happen Gen McChrystal is going to need more troops. That is what this debate is about.
Cardinal,
You take on COIN may be correct, but Afghanistan isnt the only place with casualties. Look at the bombings in Iran, in Pakistan as well. Think those are coincidences? All this shit is happening because our enemies know we have a spineless wuss in charge that wont do a damned thing about it.
Now the UN is even telling big O that our bombing of the Taliban - our enemy in a war - is "summary executions."
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/28/un-calls-missile-strikes-summary-executions/
le ronca los cojones.
As a Vietnam vet, I need to point out there are two kinds of casualties -- those sustained while achieving important strategic objectives and those suffered while politicians play their games.
To the families and the troops, both kinds are tragic and painful. Casualties incurred under the latter circumstances, however, have the additional sting of being a needless squandering of the precious lives of our troops. Nothing will destroy morale more quickly than being in harm's way while some fools in Washington give aid and comfort to the enemy by demonstrating their lack of commitment through indecision, incompetence and delay.
We are either all in or all out. When you are being shot at, you need decisive and inspiring leadership. I thank God I am not on the front lines with the pants-wetting narcissist currently in the White House.
Some scum, like the Taliban, deserve summary execution and worse.
After his Apology Tour 2009, Obama feels that his personal magnetism and begging forgiveness for imagined crimes will earn him goodwill. What it has earned him is a perception of weakness. Our enemies thrive on this, thus the increase in attacks.
When we leave Afghanistan I will start the countdown for the first news story detailing the atrocities against women and the general populace by the newly resurgent Taliban. It will be blamed on Bush, of course.
One interesting and good thing that may be a result of Obama's ineptness is what is going on in Pakistan. I keep hearing about Pakistan trying to clear out Taliban strongholds in its country. I don't remember Pakistan doing this so much during the Bush administration. Perhaps they knew it was enough that Bush was doing a good job of destroying terrorist enclaves and they could be lazy about it. But now that Obama is inefficient in these things, Pakistan is getting worried and having to do it for themselves. Is my reasoning goofy here?
I think he wants to get out. And he's going to get out, precisely b/cause he is what he is (Val's perfect adjective.) The casualties are up and the attacks are up and it will continue; Pakistan is on the brink of falling into the wrong hands - it's western flank pretty much has already, according to some mil. experts I heard interviewed Monday. Obama doesn't have the nuts to fight a war much less build any stability abroad -- that's an imperialist endeavor. My guess is he's dragging his feathers while he concocts an ingenious spin for the time he announces that he's pulling out. If he doesn't give a damn about the terror in Chicago's south side, howdya expect him to give a rip about our troops on the field?
Spare me.
Obama @ Naval Academy the other day – “I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way ... I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt ... Because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, the defined goals as well as the equipment and support you need to get the job done ...”
Easy translation: "I didn't send those guys there ... I ain't responsible ... Not my war."
Anyone else recall the POS "art" someone put together with pictures of the fallen troops in Iraq to construct Pres. Bush's face?
Might be time for an Obama war portrait.
Just quick note. "Patriot" is correct in distinguishing the types of casualties. On Val's point the problems with Iraq and Pak are different. In Iraq US forces are now in a reserve roll. This is based on the timeline originally agreed by the Iraqi gov't and W. We have handed over security functions to Iraqis who have insisted that they can handle it. Everyone knew that they would be tested and now they have to step up. I don't think W or the Generals really felt they were up to it but domestic pressures here and then having the Iraqis saying they wanted a drawdown also backed W into a corner forcing him to agree to this new role for us. We will suffer fewer casualties but it does not necessarily make Iraq a safer or stable place. US forces can be used but we cannot act on our own, we need to be asked to help.
In Pak the war that we long ignored is finally on, whether it can be won is anyone's guess. If Pak is going to get better it is going to get a whole lot bloodier and unstable.
Not saying Obama is playing it right, he's not. He's being a Dem about this - he's trying to split the difference between hawks and doves and will ultimately disappoint both. W followed the conventional wisdom on Pak and perhaps didn't push as hard as he should have but I don't think there was anyone here who had that foresight or was willing to state as such. As I mentioned in Iraq I think W was more right than wrong in the end but casualties will mount (albeit Iraqis and maybe contractors) due to Dem pressure and Iraqi arrogance.
I think its nearing time to move all the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Win, kill the bastards, and then leave and let those stuck in the 7th century get back their crap hole countries.
Cardinal,
Again, I think you miss my points. First, Pakistan. Things owuld not have escalated had W still been in power. It is only now, when President Apology is running things do things get worse. Second, Iraq. yeah, we had an agreementto scale back, however, do you think those two huge attacks last week would have taken place had someone else been in the white house? Someone who wentin there in the first place despite being unpopular because it was the rightthing to do. North Korea is shooting rockets galore, Iran has not one but TWO nuclear development facilities. Ortega just made himself ruler for life in Nicaragua.
You think all of these thnings would still be happening if we had a president in office with fucking BALLS instead of this prick?
Shit, Obama cant wipe his fucking ass without running a few polls first to see which hand he should use, whether to stroke backward or forward and whether or not to he should flush the shit laden toilet paper down the toilet. Then, he'd appoint an ass wiping Czar and appear on Sunday talk shows and Oprah to talk about his big ass wiping decision making process.
Please, Val, leave Oprah out of this. You don't mess with sacred cows.
asombra -
O-o-o-o-o-o! No free car for YOU!
Sorry, but I believe in calling a cow a cow. Besides, I don't have a book to sell.
Kinda sorta `splains the Mad Cow disease last November that got us into this current mess.
Those were ordinary cows. Oprah is a very fat cow, I mean fat cat.
Racists!!!
Val -
That's just simply beastly and we refuse to respond to it.
Val, I'll have you know I LOVE cows. I eat them every chance I get.
asombra -
You might want to re-phrase that a little.
Sorry, I oft times lean 'smut'.
I was being strictly culinary, of course.
That's culinary in the American sense, not the French.
You are one cunning linguist, asombra.
Val, I hate to be splitting hairs because while we are arguing specifics we agree on the general principle. As for AfPak and Iraq I honestly believe that the escalations would have occured regardless because that is where it was trending. That being said there are significant implications having O in the White House as opposed to W. I say this as not being a fan of W, but much less a fan of O.
I honestly believe that NATO's committment to Afganistan is diluted with O in charge. It's not that they liked W more, it's just that he held their feet to the fire and demanded that they follow through on their commitments - even if they kept coming short. O's prolonged deliberation only reinforces the perception that he does not want to fight and why would any ally want to help us in a war we don't appear to want to win? If we don't step up, why should an ally offer to do so?
I think more evidence of O's pusillanious policies will manifest in time but a rather obvious example is Putin's offer to help Hugo go nuclear. W would have lost his shit with Putin on that one.
In short, Obama's weakness in my mind hasn't had too many negative results so far but this being only month 9 of his presidency it is only going to get worse...much worse. I think on that we can both agree.
carambol,
I dont know, It looks like casualties in 2009 have almost doubled from 2008 and the year aint over yet.