Joe Biden says it perfectly

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Does anyone really think that we would be substantially safer if we had 'finished the job' in Afghanistan? Does anyone really believe that getting bin Laden substantially changes anything? Does anyone think that a Democrat in the office of the presidency could make us substantially safer?

substantially = subjective


Alchy, imagine I'm a complete moron. Ok, bad choice of words. Imagine I just woke from a 10-year coma. What is this 'job' we need to finish?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Does anyone really think that we would be substantially safer if we had 'finished the job' in Afghanistan? Does anyone really believe that getting bin Laden substantially changes anything? Does anyone think that a Democrat in the office of the presidency could make us substantially safer?

substantially = subjective


Alchy, imagine I'm a complete moron. Ok, bad choice of words. Imagine I just woke from a 10-year coma. What is this 'job' we need to finish?

Hi Gaard, where you been hiding lately? First I'd tell you "remember all that crap going on with Clinton in office and terrorists? Well, he did nothing about it and they finally figured out a way to bring down the world trade center Oh, and Creed really sucks".

That's a fantastic question. Perhaps Senator Joe Biden should define it for us, since he's the one whining that the job isn't finished?

I would assume it includes "getting bin laden" and "finishing off the taliban". Of course, to do that we'd have to invade portions of Pakistan. Which is why, of course, the dems (nor the republicans) will never offer a plan to "finish the job".

 

[Aisengard]

Or you could say "Remember all that stuff about Clinton and the blue dress? Well the Republican majority cared more about that than this guy Osama bin Laden, so the job was left to the next guy, the son of George Bush, who really screwed the pooch and now we've invaded and occupied Iraq for reasons that turned out later to be false."

All a matter of perspective

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: K1052
The only logical answer to that is to eliminate or greatly reduce the reasons for our interest in the region, namely our reliance on oil as a major transportation fuel (regardless of origin as it is a world market). Then we can reduce the ME to about the importance of the majority of Africa in our foreign policy. Let the Europeans worry about it since they created the mess in the first place or the Chinese since they need it the most.

Israel, properly supported with military hardware and a good relationship with the US, can take care of itself.

I wouldn't mind all of that, except for while North America goes energy independent the rest of the world will still be sucking the Middle East dry. Meaning we'd still want our people and companies there to make money.

Originally posted by: Zebo
Number one I would'nt attack a country who did'nt attack us because you lose moral athority at home and abroad and if even if you do you fight to win wither way because anything less is just spinning your wheels with spent dollars and blood for nothing. People act like insurgencies are somthing new, so called "4th generation warfare". Nothing new about its just our unwillingness to beat it as we did in Philippines ..Civil War.. etc it is new. AKA scorched earth and family responsibilty. Our only real weapon today with 24 hour news broadcasts and cry babies is airstrikes use them not nation building, welfare, and putting our troops at unnessary risk in a half assed attempt to get them to like us or be like us.. Mistakes like Iraq are yet another unforeseen byproduct of cultural relativism. Because what passes for the intelligentsia continually bleats that "After all, we are all alike, and all cultures have equal validity" and "Everyone wants Freedom and Democracy" Our leaders like GWB can not believe that the Iraqis will not behave just like Kansasians given the chance and we are paying for it dearly.

Wht would I do? embargos and airstrikes overtly and support freedom fighters from Somalia to Lebanon with training and materials and if we need to go to war like in afghanistan win it, not divert 3/4 of the troops there to Iraq, not disarm the NA (freedom fighters) or try to build the love. Just kill the enemy and then we can talk about rebuilding once that's done

I'd rather deal with Iraq in 2004 than Iraq in 2016 with a Hussein son at the helm and nukes in his back pocket. I can't and have no wish to defend the idiocy of sending in so few troops to Iraq off the bat, but I still think it was the best course of action. Shuffling off confrontation with hostile nations doesn't really have a great historical track record.

That policy you speak of didn't work in South America, it didn't work in Somalia, it didn't work in Vietnam... Why would that change now? A return to the bad old days isn't much of a solution either.

A return to the bad old days? Like when we actually used to win wars? Our low-casualties approach to warfare, not to mention putting our guys at unessesary risk, violates basic lessons of military history since Alexander, will never work, and we havn't won a war since 1945 because of it. The Al Qaedas of the world are waging war in the traditional/coventional sense, by killing and intimadating civilians (sorry that's just the way it is), and why they are winning the strategic war. While we may win tactically battle ti battle we are on the virge of pulling both in Iraq and Afghanistan both will fall into the hands of the muhajadeen once we leave. If you don't have the stomach for it, don't start a fight.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Could a leftie please define for me "finishing the job in afghanistan"? Thanks.

First define the job. I think that's the main problem policy makers don't even know what our objectives are in Afghanistan or Iraq. Is it to get rid of terrorists? Good luck with that becuase of muslim faith/jihad makes them vitually infinite. Is it to build democracies? To what ends? Sharia law as is the case in Iraq now vs. it's former secular statues. Seems to be going the wrong direction. What job?

 

[ProfJohn]

I think this Biden attack on Bush shows why ANY politician is reluctant to admit mistakes and publicly change course.

If as Biden says "The administration's new strategy seems to adopt many of the critiques Democrats made about the old one." shouldn't Biden be applauding the president for his change of strategy?

Instead of throwing stones and attacking the president would it have not been FAR more productive for Biden to say something along the lines of:
"I am glad to see the administration is responding to the many critiques the Democrats have made. Let us hope that this new direction proves to be the right one and that we can move forward as a country and ultimately win the war on terror"

The reality seems that the Democrats are more interested in scoring cheap political points than in moving forward in this war.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think this Biden attack on Bush shows why ANY politician is reluctant to admit mistakes and publicly change course.

If as Biden says "The administration's new strategy seems to adopt many of the critiques Democrats made about the old one." shouldn't Biden be applauding the president for his change of strategy?

Instead of throwing stones and attacking the president would it have not been FAR more productive for Biden to say something along the lines of:
"I am glad to see the administration is responding to the many critiques the Democrats have made. Let us hope that this new direction proves to be the right one and that we can move forward as a country and ultimately win the war on terror"

The reality seems that the Democrats are more interested in scoring cheap political points than in moving forward in this war.

You mean like comparing them with those that appeased the Nazi's before WW2?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think this Biden attack on Bush shows why ANY politician is reluctant to admit mistakes and publicly change course.

If as Biden says "The administration's new strategy seems to adopt many of the critiques Democrats made about the old one." shouldn't Biden be applauding the president for his change of strategy?

Instead of throwing stones and attacking the president would it have not been FAR more productive for Biden to say something along the lines of:
"I am glad to see the administration is responding to the many critiques the Democrats have made. Let us hope that this new direction proves to be the right one and that we can move forward as a country and ultimately win the war on terror"

The reality seems that the Democrats are more interested in scoring cheap political points than in moving forward in this war.

There is no war. This is an occupation. There is no moving forward. Nothing has been accomplished there in over 3.5 years... Nothing will be.