Obama as a war time President... it's possible.
 

There is a possibility Obama will be as much a war time President as Bush was with Iraq. Obama has stated before that Afghanistan is the place we need our troops and he feels it is a battle we can win. The question is, will Obama send more troops there and what will the Lefties think about his decision?

Afghanistan has potential to be a worst incursion than Iraq ever was. There won't be as much close quarters combat and more running through pig trails and in mountain caves. It is a serious topic to think about. Bush has been maligned regularly for the war in Iraq. What happens if we invade Afghanistan? Will the troop death count be on the news every night as it was in Iraq?

This could be the true test of a media bias towards Obama. Many people voted for him under the premise that he would leave Iraq and get our troops home. Surely this can't be good for Obama in the future, but only time will tell.

This is one thing I would agree with Obama on at least in part. Afghanistan is a threat and needs to be handled, but how is anyones guess. It won't be easy for Obama, but I can say if he plans on going in to WIN I'm all for it. If the plan is to send in troops to battle for years on end then I'm not. Get in with bad intentions, don't ***** foot around, and get the job done.


"DOES HE REALLY THINK AFGHANISTAN IS WINNABLE?

The new president has strongly signaled that he thinks the answer is yes. But neither his rhetoric nor his policy proposals so far have fully reckoned with the implications.

If he intends to win in Afghanistan, he is not going to be a Peacemaker President. To the contrary, he is committing himself to being just as much of a War President as George W. Bush, certainly for the first term and very possibly for a potential second.

Most military experts think a decisive win in Afghanistan — as opposed to a muddle-through strategy leading to a gradual withdrawal —will involve a major surge in troops and a willingness to tolerate high costs and high casualties. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/17769

Afghanistan is surely as much a crappy battleground as Iraq is, as proven by the last time we were there and Bush Sr. "pulled out". If you can't see the differences between putting the effort into Afghanistan and Iraq, then you'll never understand. I'm not sure winning in Afghanistan is possible, but had Bush put our resources there instead of splitting them, and in fact focusing them in Iraq, we'd have had a chance. Hopefully Obama will listen to our military people more than the last administration.

I see the difference, that is my point exactly. I have this stinkin suspicion that Obama will garner much more support on his efforts in Afghanistan from "the other side of the aisle" than he will from his own party. Hopefully Obama won't get the same treatment from Republicans that Bush did from the Dems. This is a truly bad spot for Obama no matter how you look at it. It's a lose lose situation for him unfortunately.

Bush Sr. pulled out of the mid east because Iraq wasn't the goal, liberating Kuwait was. The mission was successful, and he withdrew our ground troops. There is not a terrain on this Earth where US troops can't win. We need to set an end goal, say setting up a peacful, non-civilian murdering, womanizing government and withdraw, much like, oh wait.

All that being said, Obama is going to dissapoint a lot more people on the left than he will on the right. He has already stated that he wants to increase the size of the Army by about 60,000, and the Marines by 27,000.

GUARANTEED if he does go into Afghanistan he will not face the same ridicule as Bush. The excuse will be that Iraq was a mistake, and that Afghanistan is the right place to be.

Nevermind the fact that we were in much more desperate times and were operating based off of the information we had- that stuff won't matter.

As for Afghanistan being a disaster- you could say that again. Russia committed a full fledged war there and got their tails whipped. Alexander the great couldn't even control the place, and they didn't even have AK's or suicide bombers then...

Obama will get the same treatment from the right that Bush got from the left, Clinton did. There is no reason to believe anything else. Your own posts bashing Democrats yet ignoring Republicans for doing the same things (and you're not alone) indicate nothing will change on that front.

I was talking about Bush Sr pulling out of Afghanistan to go fight Iraq, you are aware of that history, aren't you? I was specifically referring to Afghanistan when I said he pulled out.

Oh.

Obama is a weenie...edited for me assness...

Holy crap did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? I get it Shines, whether or not its the UN that screwed us, we pulled out when the job was done. Yes, we should have killed him back then, I totally agree with that and the fact that the UN is pathetic.

jesus.....

Yes i did, I am in a pissy mood. Sorry.:beers:

Its all good, :beers:

Maybe you missed the part about agreeing Afghanistan should be an option for Obama. I'm saying the Lefties will not like it and the Media will not report about it like they did Iraq. Only time will tell...

As I recall, in 2001, everyone, except for pacifists, was for Bush going into Afghanistan, I don't see why it would be different now.

And then in 2003 the lefties had a fit over going into Iraq.

Lol, and the justifications begin :thumbsup: