The big difference is in the one case, a Republican president sent in about 20% more troops and called it a surge. In the other, a Democratic president sent in more troops, and didn't call it a surge.
Yes, totally different.
On that we agree.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Frankly Speaking - Congressman Barney Blasts Back
- Thread starter The Bare Knuckled Pundit
- Start date
The big difference is in the one case, a Republican president sent in about 20% more troops and called it a surge. In the other, a Democratic president sent in more troops, and didn't call it a surge.
Yes, totally different.
On that we agree.
Werbung:
I think the political situation domestically was in a different place as well. I think it is much easier politically to send soldiers to Afghanistan now than it was to send more to Iraq for the "surge."
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
yes do to that whole not lieing to get us in, and that they actuly attacked us....
During that time I have doubts that many people would have supported sending more troops into Afghanistan either.
That said, when we sent more soldiers in Anbar, we did send an additional 5,000 (or so) marines into Afghanistan.
I also question what you mean by "they" when you say "they" attacked us. The government at the time of Afghanistan did not attack us.
Also, it is not just sending in soldiers that makes the difference. They need to have a clear mission.
Last week Richard Holbrooke (the point man for Afghanistan in the Obama Admin) was spelling out the strategy and it included creating jobs, growing agribusiness, reforming the justice sector, promoting mobile banking, starting a media commission, and fighting corruption. Nation building anyone? How many people in the public will go for that? How many even know?
In Afghanistan, I doubt that strategy is going to work no matter how many people you send in.
Last week Richard Holbrooke (the point man for Afghanistan in the Obama Admin) was spelling out the strategy and it included creating jobs, growing agribusiness, reforming the justice sector, promoting mobile banking, starting a media commission, and fighting corruption. Nation building anyone? How many people in the public will go for that? How many even know?
In Afghanistan, I doubt that strategy is going to work no matter how many people you send in.
TruthAboveAll
Well-Known Member
So we more or less established this is just a political persuasion issue it seems.
Not exactly. First I would have been laughing hard enough to fall on the floor because it would have been so incredibly out of character for Bush to dis someone this way. Second, it would have been because PFOS (sorry, kept skipping the F because I'd been doing bank statements with POS items...) would never have supported Bush in any way, and has said some pretty vicious things about him. Also, it's one of those things of hearing all the vile lies and accusations, and even valid criticisms delivered with bile and hatred, for 8 years and sometimes dying for him to at least SNARL back! But he carried his conviction of people being entitled to their opinion and their freedom to state it to the N-th degree.
It's a context thing. And yes, it is partly a political persuasion issue. Conservatives and Republicans, because we esteem certain behavioral standards, would be figuratively lynched for this. And yet those concerned, caring Democrats get a chuckle and a pat on the back. This at a U.S. Representatives' meeting with his constituents within his district. I guess if this is what they want representing them, that's their choice.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
no they just sheltered the guys who did, and worked with them, and helped with it...close enough for me
Well, so do various other countries that attack the United States and our interests abroad. Such as Iraq (before 2003), Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc... do you support invading them too?
Yes, the mission is clearly nation building, using the military.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, huh?
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Are you realy questioning the need to take out the Taliban and there massive support and thus that should be tied to the sept 11? attack?
No, I agreed with going into Afghanistan. I am just taking your logic of "helped, sheltered etc" those who do us harm, and applying it to other examples, and asking you if you would support the same action in those places.
Here are "some" of the signs the left has carried around about President George W. Bush... and never did anyone on the left say this was bad, wrong or should be stopped.
But its a big deal if a single person in a town hall has a single sign with a picture of the dear messiah and Hitler?
First off I will bet it was a flaming lib holding that sign trying to make the other side look bad, but even if it was not... how can you even be slightly upset that someone did once or for arguments sake twice what the left did every day for 8 years?
So since I'm guessing your entire point is that it was wrong to do that to Bush... but since they did... then you should support people who run out and do the same thing to someone else.
The other thing is Bush did invade and occupy another sovereign country on a series of manipulations (read that lies) and Bush also did approve TORTURE... water suffocating captured detainees. And he wanted authority to do much more including crushing the testicles of the children of suspected terrorists to obtain information.
In contrast President Obama wants affordable healthcare for all.
I think when you compare what each President did or wants to do it paints the bused in Radicals on the Right as sorta lunatic fringe when they come trying to mob & disrupt what should be informative Town Hall Meetings while packing firearms and waving pictures of our President as "Adolph Hitler".
All because we now have a President that's not TORTURING and is trying to come up with an affordable and all inclusive healthcare system that is needed & will help people... COME ON.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
So since I'm guessing your entire point is that it was wrong to do that to Bush... but since they did... then you should support people who run out and do the same thing to someone else.
No that was not the point I was trying to make.
My point is more like this...
If you never had a problem with people yelling at President Bush, Making Hitler pictures of him, Yelling at right wing congressmen, questioning those who President Bush kept as close friends then you should not have a problem when others do this to obama.
I dont think the people during the anti war protests were very polite or respectful but they did have the right to do what they did. I did not complain when they did Hitler/Bush signs exc, or yell at the congressmen. I did not agree with them but accepted they had a right to do what they were doing.
I think its kind of crappy that people who had no problem with the way President Bush was treated as a president or the way people protested but now all the sudden its a bad thing because now you happen to like the guy in office.
That was the point I wanted to make.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
hey if you wanted to go after SA, I would have supported that over Iraq
Werbung:
And a good point it is.
I have no problem with opposing the president. It is, in fact, our duty as free Americans to protest when we think the government is wrong.
Comparing the pres to Hitler, however, regardless of who he is or what party he represents, says a lot more about the protester than it does about the president.
And, none of what it says is good.
Similar threads
