Obama's Speech at West Point - Iraq Over by 2011, 30K More Troops to Afghanistan - New England Patriots Forums

***maverick4*** · 12-01-2009, 07:16 PM

On TV right now.

There are two stories right now that Obama is selling, one real/hidden and one public/fake.

Obama keeps saying that it's to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. However, there are only 100 Taliban left in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda is an invented organization (Obama even admitted in the speech that Al Qaeda is non-existent in Afghanistan). He also keeps saying we want to democratize and uplift Afghanistan, but I don't buy it.

The real reason is that we need to control Afghanistan in order to control the gas/petroleum there, and prevent any energy or resource cooperation between the Middle East, Russia, China, and India. We are playing empire, still. Obama's main advisor Brzezinski even wrote a book about doing this 10 years ago.

Also, there is a disconnect for Afghanistan since he keeps saying the threat is in Pakistan. If we really wanted a rebuilt Afghanistan we wouldn't have left them out to dry after Charlie Wilson's war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. If we really wanted a rebuilt Afghanistan we wouldn't be ramping up the opium poppy fields over there. Also, we will still keep a presence in Iraq - after all, we just built the biggest US military base ever there.

.

***DarrylS*** · 12-01-2009, 07:36 PM

I am listening to this in the background, the faces change, but the songs remain the same...

sdaniels7114 · 12-01-2009, 07:47 PM

As always he presented an optimistic, well thought out plan with style and heart. I think it'll work and make the world a better place.

Boy oh boy is he gonna have a field day kicking Sara Palin's butt up and down the campaign trail in 2012.

***IcyPatriot*** · 12-01-2009, 08:37 PM

Somehow I can't help but think he has to do this. in 2012 the gop will say Bush solved Iraq with the surge ... what did Obama do? I really hope this is not the case, but it does not make sense what he thinks he will achieve here. the Taliban will go home to their families and wait this all out ... like they have for hundreds of years. Arabs view conflicts in hundreds and thousands of years - a year or two is nothing. they will wait out this surge and they awill attack sporadically to keep up the recruitment.

Look for a terrorist surge in Africa.

***patsfan13*** · 12-01-2009, 10:05 PM

Weak speech no word of winning just telling the taliban when we are leaving. why bother when defeat is the goal? Sending troops into battle for the purpose of having talking points for the next election is wasting lives. If you are going in at all go in to win.

***maverick4*** · 12-01-2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Weak speech no word of winning just telling the taliban when we are leaving. why bother when defeat is the goal? Sending troops into battle for the purpose of having talking points for the next election is wasting lives. If you are going in at all go in to win.

What is victory?

By the way, stop pretending you aren't going around voting on the threads, it's pretty obvious. Why is this guy still a mod???????

***patsfan13*** · 12-01-2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverick4

What is victory?

By the way, stop pretending you aren't going around voting on the threads, it's pretty obvious. Why is this guy still a mod???????

What is even the point of voting on threads does anyone even care?

***IcyPatriot*** · 12-01-2009, 10:40 PM

Very well written article here that sums up a lot in a short space. Kind of in more expert terms says what i have been saying - that Obama is doing this but he's not crazy at all about it. I still say we could make a deal with the Taliban ... there are worse people in this world that we already deal with. they just want their piece of real estate ... let them have it with some agreements in place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/op...ooks.html?_r=2

Quote:

Some very smart people say that the administration’s direction is already fatally flawed. There is no such thing as effective COIN-lite, they argue. All the pieces of a comprehensive strategy have to be done patiently and together because success depends on the way they magnify one another.

These experts may be right. But none of us get to have our first choice on this matter. President Obama faces such a devilishly complex set of constraints that the policy he announces will be partially unsatisfying to every American and to every member of his administration.

The fights inside have been so brutal that there have been accusations that the Defense and State Departments have withheld documents from the president to bias his thinking.

Nonetheless, my impression, pre-speech, is that Obama has negotiated these constraints in a serious manner, and improved some of his options — for example, by accelerating troop deployments.

He has not been enthusiastic about expanding the U.S. role in Afghanistan, but he has not evaded his responsibility as commander in chief, and he’s taking brave political risks.

It may not be the complete COIN strategy, which offers the best chance of success. But it may be the best strategy under the circumstances.

JackBauer · 12-01-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Weak speech no word of winning just telling the taliban when we are leaving. why bother when defeat is the goal? Sending troops into battle for the purpose of having talking points for the next election is wasting lives. If you are going in at all go in to win.

This reads like verbatim GOP talking points. Shocker.

efin98 · 12-01-2009, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer

This reads like verbatim GOP talking points. Shocker.

Please refute them then...