| re: Meat, Jim and Presidents of the US of A | |
|
Posted by: |
Max 01:46 am UTC 07/29/08 |
| In reply to: | re: Meat, Jim and Presidents of the US of A - Pudding 11:01 pm UTC 07/28/08 |
Im not sure that the awakening councils were really active before the surge. A lot of people make the mistake in thinking that the surge was just and increase in troops when it was actually a realignment of strategy. Before the surge people would be sent out and then would return to a central bases. after the surge troops would stay and work in a certain outpost or town. > It's Republicans who've pinned the 'messiah' label on > Obama, probably to try and solidify the religous whacko's > who'll be disgruntled at him being associated with Jesus. > It's a clever tactic I have to admit. > > Although the extra troops helped, the tribal leaders were > actually changing allegiance, fighting the insurgents and > changing the course of the awr BEFORE 'the surge', that's > a fact. So would there have been the same result without > the so-called surge? who knows. I personally believe > though that Obama should give some recognition to General > Petreaus's leadership and what he's done in Iraq. > > Just out of interest I checked the US military body count > (http://icasualties.org/oif/) for Iraq since 'The Surge' > started back in Feb 2007. It's around 1120, so that raises > the question on how successful 'the surge' actually is. > > I don't have the actual figures, but it's well documented > that Afghanistan never had enough troops from the start, > which is something all the Generals agree on. Afghanistan > always has been where the main fight was and there's no > doubt that he Taliban there are getting stronger and > becoming more of a threat. > > > > I'm sure most Republicans would agree that Obama is not > > the messiah, and I'm sure most wonldnt even concede the > > title wise man. I'm not sure how much a delay 26 days is > > but I would say it would have been better to accept the > > Taliban's offer to try bin Laden if only to keep him > > confined to a particular area. I merely think its partly > > humorous that Obama is quick to discount the surge in Iraq > > and then call for a surge in Afghanistan. > > > > > > Looking more to the heart of the issue Obama shares the > > > > same fundamental foreign policy of pro-interventionism > > > > that the current administration holds. Obama would only > > > > rather shift the emphasis of the War on Terror from Iraq > > > > to Afghanistan with his own "surge" strategy. > > > > > > What a load of bollocks. The current administration > > > delayed going into Afghanistan, so most of the Taliban AND > > > Bin Laden got away, then he lost focus on that war and > > > invaded Iraq for no legitimate reason, but he made one up > > > only to be found out he was talking shit. > > > > > > Whoever is the next President is going to inherit a lot > > > bad foreign policies and it's going to take time to > > > correct them. Miracles aint going to happen over night and > > > despite what a lot of Republicans think, Obama aint the > > > next Messiah. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Meat, Jim and Presidents of the US of A - Pudding 11:01 pm UTC 07/28/08 |
| Next: | re: Meat, Jim and Presidents of the US of A - Pudding 02:33 am UTC 07/29/08 |
| Thread: |
|