If the US is at war against Al Qaeda ..

[Brenjen]

Originally posted by rpm
If we are at war with Al Qaeda, why did Bush cut and run 5 years ago in Afghanistan and declare victory? He could have crushed them into oblivion, but decided not to. Guess that's why he's "The Decider".

 We're still in Afghanistan. My nephews friend was shipped out after Christmas with the advanced warning (from the Army itself no less) that this spring is going to be heavy with combat.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Brenjen
We're still in Afghanistan. My nephews friend was shipped out after Christmas with the advanced warning (from the Army itself no less) that this spring is going to be heavy with combat.

yes and the funny thing is that "spring offensive" has yet to materialize in great form from the TALIBAN......not so much AQ.

[rpm]

Kudos Guns, you are correct I ment Taliban.

Bren, I know we still have troops in Afghanistan, but we turned the fight over to the locals and moved most troops out years ago. Locals let most of the leadership escape. Now, they're back.

[Brenjen]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes and the funny thing is that "spring offensive" has yet to materialize in great form from the TALIBAN......not so much AQ.

 Agreed.

Originally posted by RPM Bren, I know we still have troops in Afghanistan, but we turned the fight over to the locals and moved most troops out years ago. Locals let most of the leadership escape. Now, they're back.

 I was just replying to the statement at hand; clarification understood. I agree with most of that statement as well; I just think is was mis-handled from the beginning, too little - too late comes to mind. They came on strong but sat back on their initial successes & lit cigars & patted themselves on the backs. The federal govt. should have had a military with enough men trained to fight BEFORE jumping on the target. Micro management is what the problem was in every conflict since the end of WWII & it really began before the end of that war.

 IMO if you're going to fight & risk American lives you'd better give 100% & let the generals decide what they need to put where & when they need to put them there. The generals can't very well say "send 350,000 combat troops to Afghanistan" when we don't have that many to go around.

 I can't say for certain I could do better but I would lay money on myself that I could. At least when the generals opened the books to see what they had to work with it would be full from cover to cover.

[Flatbar]

This is just another thread posted by a 30%er whining about congress critters who are doing what the other 70% of the country wants.

It is a government of, by and for the people ya know!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Flatbar
This is just another thread posted by a 30%er whining about congress critters who are doing what the other 70% of the country wants.

It is a government of, by and for the people ya know!

and if a poll 4 years from now revealed that 70% of the people thought they were wrong in their choice in hind sight, wouldn't that make congress wrong as well?

ask the people who are there.....we aren't losing the war in Iraq, we are losing it in congress and in the media.

[Vudak]

Well, when judging Bush right now, let's not forget one small detail...  After 9/11, the ENTIRE WORLD was on our side.

Anyone care to take a roll call now?

Obviously you're gonna step on some toes when you decide to fight a war...  But I think Bush could have handled it all with a bit more tact...

Then again, hindsight is 20/20 and I supported going into Iraq, too.  Time to hang together, I suppose.

Anyway, it's not over yet, folks.

[FrodeMk3]

Origanally posted by Engine

We need more great orators. We need leaders who use the best words for the speech, and not the words the most people understand.

Can you imagine Clinton or Bush making any of the great speeches Churchill made?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's also been said that Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers of all time.

And that Joseph Stalin's speeches were found to be very moving.

I'm more worried about the President that gives great speeches, to be honest.

[FrodeMk3]

If we were able to capture Osama Bin Laden, and either have him tried in a U.S. Court, or Get confirmation of his death at U.S. hands, A lot of America's credibility might be reastablished.

Of course, we would have to time it with something like, oh, a sizeable U.S. troop withdrawal...how that would work with the current situation though, might be catastrophic. I would give the Iraqi government long odds on survival, and it would probably wind up getting assimilated by Iran, with a puppet extremist government(And a probable genocidal kind of ethnic strife.)

[L'EMMERDEUR]

Originally posted by Yeager
In my opinion, I dont think Bush has done well leading the country.  Most Americans would trust their President if he was a good and strong leader of the nation, and the free world.  As it turns out Bush is not.  He is a divider, not a uniter.  This whole Iraq problem is a result of his poor leadership.  Again, thats just my opinion.  He is a nice guy, probably funny as a loon once he has had a few drinks, but as a President he is a complete letdown for me.

[Shifty]

Originally posted by Vudak
Well, when judging Bush right now, let's not forget one small detail...  After 9/11, the ENTIRE WORLD was on our side.

Anyone care to take a roll call now?

Obviously you're gonna step on some toes when you decide to fight a war...  But I think Bush could have handled it all with a bit more tact...

Then again, hindsight is 20/20 and I supported going into Iraq, too.  Time to hang together, I suppose.

Anyway, it's not over yet, folks.

I'm not so sure the roll call would be so empty if the opposition party would not have turned into a political lynch mob, undermining the president every chance they get.

Then again with the way things are in Washington, I'm not so sure if we had a Democrat in office the Republicans wouldn't do the same thing.  

The troops, thier welfare and the mission, all seem to be taking a back seat to politics. I'm about fed up with both sides. Both sides sent our troops to war now they are more interested in waging war in Washington among themselves than they are winning the war THEY VOTED FOR.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Vudak
Well, when judging Bush right now, let's not forget one small detail...  After 9/11, the ENTIRE WORLD was on our side

what "ENTIRE WORLD" do you live in?
The ENTIRE WORLD has never been on the side of the US, not even close

It isn't about the ENTIRE WORLD it is what was/is best for the US and her allies .. and that sure isn't nancy and her boys

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I dunno, lot's of threads like this just got closed.

...we'll see what happens.

very odd too.
I just scanned over them as I really asnt paying much attention to them before.

Personally I dont see why any of em were closed as any debates going on seemed ot be relitively civil in nature.

::Shrugs::

Such is life

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by babek-
The correct question would be:

If Bush is really fighting Al kaida - then why he isnt doing anything against the main supporter of these sunnite terrorist organisation, which killed and crippled so many US-soldiers in Iraq :

Saudi-Arabia



The Saudis are the main financial supporter of Al Kaida.

But no one seems to care about this.

Strange IMHO

Or hit them were they've found sanctuary in Pakistan.  Pakistan has become the Laos and Cambodia of the region with all the safe havens they have in their western borderlands.


ack-ack

[FrodeMk3]

You could probably throw Syria in there, as well.