Monday May 28, 2012

Obama: U.S. cannot shoulder Afghan burden alone

World ( 42 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

42 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    jeancolmar

    Europe cannot help shoulder that immoral war either. It is time to get out. I do hope Obama get that through his head before he becomes another Lyndon Johnson.

  • 0

    some14some

    “This is a joint problem, and it requires a joint effort,” he said.

    This is muscle problem caused by mascular Bush who started muscled war.

  • 0

    bushlover

    [What the Europeans had to offer concretely fell short of Obama’s expectations, in part because many of their citizens believe that what is needed is a political solution and civilian aid to rebuild Afghanistan—not more combat troops.]

    Keep on dreaming Europe. Did you not learn anything from the Hitler years? Appeasing armed groups like the Taliban will not solve your problems. You have to be a bit more proactive. Well here it comes again.... America to the rescue.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Obama didn't get what he wanted most from U.S. allies"

    President Obama is finding out what former President Bush already knows and probably tried to tell him.

  • 0

    likeitis

    President Obama is finding out what former President Bush already knows and probably tried to tell him.

    Its more like Bush so soiled America's reputation among our allies that even a change of the guard cannot erase it. But before anyone accuses me of blaming Bush and Bush alone, let me clearly state that I also blame his whole administration and their little fool supporters as well.

  • 0

    USNinJapan2

    jeancolmar

    Immoral war? How is fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda immoral?

  • 0

    Sarge

    likeitis - "It's more like Bush so soiled America's reputation"

    It is not. It's more like the fact remains that the rest of the world refuses to shoulder their fair share of the responsibility.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Typical response. The U.S has gone through hell helping the rest of the world in the last 100 years but when it needs assistance the world is silent. But it's not unexpected, the U.S won't take offense. And the next time a tsunami hits or an earthquake rips through a country the U.S will be there offering aid while the rest of the world complains on how it could be doing more.

  • 0

    adaydream

    The Afghanistan War has been a disaster ever since george bush took his eye off the right war and took off to Iraq. After that the Europeon countries have been aiding both wars. After 7 years in Afghanistan and over 6 years in a war that the world knows that george bush lied about to start... most countries are tired of helping us out.

    It's just plain and simple. < :-)

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Faced with stiff public opposition to war, reluctant European leaders on Friday offered only limited aid for civilians and some troops to help train Afghan police and soldiers.

    Perhaps a few more bombs ripping through Europeans on their own soil will change that. But I doubt it.

    The summit’s co-hosts, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, both were quick to offer support for Obama’s new Afghan strategy of sending American reinforcements and bolstering Afghan forces. But they went no further.

    That's because they're spineless. They got comfortable using Bush's name to skirt their responsibilities in Afghanistan, and now they can't suddenly go back on their positions just because Obama is President. Europe has a much, much bigger problem with radical Islam than the US does. And the next attack will most likely take place on their soil. But if they're unwilling to tackle radical Islam in their own countries, maybe asking them to aid in Afghanistan is pointless?

    What the Europeans had to offer concretely fell short of Obama’s expectations, in part because many of their citizens believe that what is needed is a political solution and civilian aid to rebuild Afghanistan—not more combat troops.

    Again, that's because they're spineless. Political solutions are part of the answer. But so are military solutions. Both are needed. You need to take away the conditions that allow terrorists to recruit, and you need to take out the terrorists who have already crossed the line into violence. Europe seems to think they can win with their checkbooks.

    How's that been working out for you so far?

  • 0

    teleprompter

    Europe - time to put or shut up.

  • 0

    timorborder

    I agree with US Navy. Combating the Taliban and OBL in Afghanistan is not immoral. These nutjobs (who have a whole lot of blood on their hands both in Afghanistan and elsewhere) needed to hunted down and neutralized. You can debate all you want about Iraq, but Afghanistan (specifically islamic extremism) is a threat that must be addressed by all.

    Europe needs to get off its axse and help.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Bush and his naive band of supporters brought this on America.

    They should have known that invading not 1 but 2 countries would have had consequences.

    And not even the Russians with superior armor and weaponry could win in Afghanistan in the 80s.

    Europe is wise to keep out.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    It's a good thing Obama is such a smooth talker and is healing the rifts that bush created after starting all these wars; he's actually won over a few people, and in the meantime even got some countries to take prisoners from Gitmo.

    Good job again, Obama. It's one hell of a mess bush made things, and he completely destroyed relations with many European countries, but now that a superior man is in office, with the ability to speak, and the ability to win the trust of others instead of simply spitting on them (as bush did), things are slowly coming together again.

    sarge and co., you can finally start to be proud of your country again (and mean it).

  • 0

    WilliB

    Sushi:

    If Bush "brought this on", then now would be the chance for your hero to reverse course. Instead what is he doing? Sending ever more soldiers on a wild goose chase to Afghanistan. (And civilians too, which will make wonderful hostages for the Taliban.)

    That is your change you can believe in???

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    SuperLib: "And the next attack will most likely take place on their soil."

    One has taken place on European soil, in case you forgot the subway bombings. Which country was that again.... oh yeah! one that was helping the US! Now, the next likely target, if they can succeed, will once again be the good ol' US of A. Why? Simply people like yourselves who take on airs and assume superiority, which is what led to the attacks in the first place, under one of the most arrogant fools to be president -- bush. Of course, in particular in his case not a wit, so to speak, of the arrogance was warranted. In fact, there was recently talk of a plan to hit the White House by AQ (again), but I didn't hear any plans to bomb places that haven't foolishly subsribed to the (ready the dark voice) 'war on terror'.

    teleprompter: "Europe - time to put or shut up."

    I believe it's the US asking others for a hand here, not vice-versa, and they particularly need money for their bailouts (hence China is so important these days). Obama is trying to heal the rift that bush created between the US and Europe, in part so that they can all work together on solutions. Your cowboy, "put or shut up" is the kind of nonsense that led to the US having the lowest reputation its ever had, and you guys failing with all the 'go it alone'/'with us or against us' crap.

    WilliB: "If Bush "brought this on", then now would be the chance for your hero to reverse course."

    Once again you prove your ignorance on the matter. Obama IS reversing things -- he's pulling troops out of Iraq, which was a mere attempt to take the focus off bush's inability to find OBL (as well as to secure some 'easy' oil), and putting them back where they should have continued to be long ago. It'll be a lot harder to get the job done after leading the world into the debacle of Iraq, and all based on lies, and ruining US ties everywhere, but at least he's reversing the damage bush has done. It's a shame you played right into that one!

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    TheQuestion: "And the next time a tsunami hits or an earthquake rips through a country the U.S will be there offering aid while the rest of the world complains on how it could be doing more."

    Unless of course it's a massive hurricane called Katrina and it hits the Southern US, and you're a president named bush... in that case you'll just sit there wondering how you can get the rich out, and then shirking the rest of the responsibility to others and saying 'I wish we could have done more' after the fact.

    Fortunately, you have Obama and he is actually acting on behalf of Americans instead of against them (as he would in an emergency like Katrina instead of doing nothing). Hence healing the wounds bush left behind with his daftness and utter lack of respect for human beings other than the American elite.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Smithinjapan: One has taken place on European soil, in case you forgot the subway bombings.

    Right. That's my point, smith. Al Queda has attacked targets all over the world. Yet for some they can't seem to see past the US, as if Al Queda is killing Egyptians and the British and Turks all because of US foreign policy.

    Which country was that again.... oh yeah! one that was helping the US!

    Either that or it really is global jihad where they see everyone who is not a member of their own kind as the enemy and a potential target. I'll let you think about it for a while and decide for yourself.

    Now, the next likely target, if they can succeed, will once again be the good ol' US of A.

    I'm betting the next target won't be the US. The last few dozen bombs and attacks haven't been on our soil....why would you expect the next one to be?

    Why? Simply people like yourselves who take on airs and assume superiority, which is what led to the attacks in the first place, under one of the most arrogant fools to be president -- bush.

    You dislike my arrogance so you're dragging Al Queda into it? Honestly I feel like you should leave them out of it... Al Queda started long before Bush arrived. And they've attacked dozens and dozens of countries around the globe. They've released statements detailing their global jihad. How can a rational person armed with so much information actually speak to an American and say that this is all because of my arrogance?

    Look, I know you have hangups about the US. I know you're an emotional person and you often say things without really thinking them through. But you're really being illogical today. What happened?

  • 0

    SuperLib

    smithinjapan: Obama IS reversing things

    Question: Do you support Obama's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan? Personally, I do. I think the Taliban are spreading the war out and making it difficult to fight them with the current level of resources. And I think if this continues then the situation will become worse. More resources will allow the allies to fight them over larger areas and reverse the gains they've made. I also think Obama's approach on the diplomatic/political front is a good choice to me.

    Please understand what I'm NOT asking: I'm not asking your opinion about Bush or his policies. I'm not asking for a comparison of Obama and Bush. I can do that myself. I already know how much you dislike Bush to the point where I could write that for you. I'm seeking new information, not just old information written with different words. If you choose to criticize Obama in any way I promise that I will not consider that direct or indirect support of George Bush or any policy he may have had. Please speak freely and honestly.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    SuperLib: Slightly better posts, my friend.

    "Either that or it really is global jihad where they see everyone who is not a member of their own kind as the enemy and a potential target. I'll let you think about it for a while and decide for yourself."

    Nope... I'm pretty clear they attacked GB for the specific reason that they are the main supporter of the US in Iraq, and specifically Blair's support for bush from the outset, despite them both lying to the public as to why. But do tell me about the last time they were hit like that before offering support -- and I seem to recall them issuing such threats to those involved in Iraq in particular, including Japan (fortunately Japan has been there strictly helping to try and reverse the complete destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and have not been in any combat). If there were a terrorist act committed in Japan by AQ you could bet your life's savings Japan would pull out instantaneously, recognizing the cause for what it is (lunatics making good on their threat to attack those that support the US in Iraq and what not).

    "Either that or it really is global jihad where they see everyone who is not a member of their own kind as the enemy and a potential target. I'll let you think about it for a while and decide for yourself."

    Fortunately with Obama in office there are less likely to be attacks at all than there were with bush (especially like 9/11!), although if he doesn't succeed in toning down the bombast the US used under bush then it'll get worse again and the threat increase. As such, of course, I hope there are no attacks at all. If there is an attack on a major Western power I think it will be the US, so saying I 'expect' it is a little misleading, my friend. If there are simply attacks in other countries I suspect we'll see more in Pakistan and the ME first, the likes of which we've been seeing for a while now, and largely because the ally in the war on terror, Pakistan, has decided to allow the Taliban free reign.

    "How can a rational person armed with so much information actually speak to an American and say that this is all because of my arrogance?"

    That kind of question is in part exactly what I was talking about, thank you.

    "Question: Do you support Obama's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan? Personally, I do."

    I do, but with conditions, and one of those is that they get out of Iraq ASAP and focus solely on Afghanistan, as they should have way back when. What's more, I do indeed hope other countries will join in and make a greater effort, and that if they do -- and it seems Obama is winning them over (bush NEVER could have in a million years!!) -- there will be greater success in keeping things in control. If not, I am against being in Afghanistan, and seeing it crumbling back into what it was before, and all that effort from the US and allies be for naught. So far they are passing laws that allow rape, which I don't consider to be too hot, and the country is becoming a hot zone for terrorists again.

    Anyway, good second post, again. I have to inform you though, as you should already know, that it is impossible to leave out the past government in this debate since it was the past government that created the current situation. Obama did not start the policies which took the US into Afghanistan and/or Iraq, and the wars did not start two months ago (plus). I'm not always trying to compare the two leaders, but when you have some people who supported bush without question come on here and as such simply criticize Obama even when the man is making progress, how can you not address it and point out where they are completely wrong and misinformed?

    No, asking people not to talk about bush in regards to the wars is like saying it's irrelevant to discuss 9/11 as a reason for being in Afghanistan. Now, when talking about FUTURE solutions, like with Obama making progress here, what you suggest makes more sense, but again the contrasts are often valid and even necessary to point out the obvious differences to the critics.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Sushi - "They should have known that invading not 1 but 2 countries would have had consequences"

    You're right, Sushi, we should have just grabbed the ankles. And I can't wait for your response to WilliB's 6:34 PM post.

    buddha ( 5:52 PM ) - "You are a fuqing twat"

    Isn't it against the rules to insult other posters?

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge, you support both wars.

    Are you now suddenly not supporting the Afghanistan war because Obama is in charge?

    Personally, I think America has far more and bigger problems at home and should be focusing on those problems more rather than fighting wars thousands of miles away.

    Some people say America can cope with multiple threats simultaneously.

    Get real, America right now is an economic basket case and the only reaspon it is staying afloat is because the Japanese and Chinese governments continue to purchase U.S. government debt (bonds).

    America is bankrupt and simply cannot stand on its own feet financially.

    Closer to home for you, another reason America is bankrupt is because people like you voted not once but twice for bush and his cronies who sunk your nation $6 trillion deeper into debt, and had party of big spending Republicans not been voted out last November, would have quite happily continued ravaging your nation's finances.

  • 0

    WilliB

    Smithinjapan:

    " Obama IS reversing things -- he's pulling troops out of Iraq, which was a mere attempt to take the focus off bush's inability to find OBL (as well as to secure some 'easy' oil), and putting them back where they should have continued to be long ago. "

    Oh yeah? Then maybe you can tell us what exactly the additional troops are supposed to do in Afghanistan.

    Fact is, Obama has not ended any war in Afghanistan, he is increasing the idiotic exercise to higher levels than ever.

    As for Iraq, his withdrawal plan is basically exactly the same as GWBs, so it is ridiculous to crow about any difference there.

    Of course, the HUGE difference is that this time around the media don´t hate the Potus any more, they adore him.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    WilliB: "Fact is, Obama has not ended any war in Afghanistan, he is increasing the idiotic exercise to higher levels than ever."

    Point of order! who said he 'ended' a war in Afghanistan?

    "Of course, the HUGE difference is that this time around the media don´t hate the Potus any more, they adore him."

    Well, if it helps you sleep well at night, they didn't hate bush at first either (well, half the country still did, whereas a majority love Obama), but almost everyone hates him now. Perhaps the same will be true for Obama, but it's highly doubtful. Some will, there's no doubt in that, and in fact many on here will continue to hate Obama simply because he represents change and has come through on promises, where their hero failed them for 8 years -- it's not easy to admit those kind of things, and easier to hate.

  • 0

    WilliB

    "who said he 'ended' a war in Afghanistan? "

    Nobody! And he didn´t! He is sending MORE troops on a pointless mission impossible to Afghanistan.

    So what happened to all those glorious promises of "change"?

    Ridiculous.

  • 0

    Den Den

    His speech on tele sounded like it could of been Bush's. US pockets are a little bit empty at the moment, so he is trying to get someone else to pay for the invasions of Pakistan and Iran. If Europe won't pay...I think I know one country that might(damn Article 9)...

  • 0

    USAFdude

    WilliB -

    Nobody! And he didn´t! He is sending MORE troops on a pointless mission impossible to Afghanistan.

    Getting justice for 9/11 is not a "pointless mission impossible to Afghanistan". It's necessary. No good American would disagree.

  • 0

    WilliB

    USAFdude:

    " Getting justice for 9/11 "

    And what in the world does have sending soldiers to die for nothing (or even worse, to die for propping up a Shariah government) to do with "justice for 9/11"??? An insane suggestion!

  • 0

    SuperLib

    SushiSake: Get real, America right now is an economic basket case and the only reaspon it is staying afloat is because the Japanese and Chinese governments continue to purchase U.S. government debt (bonds). America is bankrupt and simply cannot stand on its own feet financially. Closer to home for you, another reason America is bankrupt is because people like you voted not once but twice for bush and his cronies who sunk your nation $6 trillion deeper into debt, and had party of big spending Republicans not been voted out last November, would have quite happily continued ravaging your nation's finances.

    But we've already heard all of this from you. Surely you have something new to add than just your favorite one-liners. You seem like an intelligent fellow but your insecurity sours any chance you have to express an honest opinion.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    smithinjapan: Nope... I'm pretty clear they attacked GB for the specific reason that they are the main supporter of the US in Iraq

    and...

    although if he doesn't succeed in toning down the bombast the US used under bush then it'll get worse again and the threat increase

    Sorry, but I don't think you really believe that. I think you understand that Al Queda was formed and planned 9/11 before Bush was ever in office, even attacking the WTC under Clinton. And I think you understand that Al Queda has threatened or attacked countries that have nothing to do with Iraq. And I think you understand their purpose of global jihad extends to anyone they consider to be an infidel. And I think you understand that most countries in the world see Al Queda as a threat whether they're aligned with the US or not.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    smithinjapan: I do...

    OK, so you support Obama and I can also assume that you support Canada's actions in Afghanistan. Do you think Canada's alignment with the US or just the fact that Canada is involved in invading a Muslim nation will create more terrorism for Canada? Or does that dynamic only exist if the country is Iraq?

  • 0

    USAFdude

    WilliB - I challenge you to back your "statement" that justice for 9/11 in any way equates to "sending soldiers to die for nothing", or even more laughable, "propping up a Shariah [sic] government".

    Looking forward to another swing and miss from you! xD

  • 0

    MeanRingo

    The problem with the US is that even when other countries help with their wars they get ridiculed for it. I for one am disgusted with the mentality of so so so many US citizens. Watch and I rest my case.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVKlFT58Zwc

  • 0

    MeanRingo

    Oh and on the day the above link was broadcast, 4 dead Canadians returned from serving in Afghanistan. You are welcome America.

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    WilliB at 02:37 AM JST - 5th April USAFdude: " Getting justice for 9/11 " And what in the world does have sending soldiers to die for nothing (or even worse, to die for propping up a Shariah government) to do with "justice for 9/11"??? An insane suggestion!

    Man I hope I am reading this wrong, WilliB are you saying that we should not go after the terrorist who attacked us on Sept 11th?

    1. You understand that Bin Laden planned the attacks of Sept 11th from Afghanistan and not from Iraq dont you?

    2. Do you also understand that Bin Laden and his radical terrorist were supported by the Taliban who were in control of Afghanistan don't you?

    3. Do you also understand that when Bush removed assets from Afghanistan to start a new war in Iraq was also very bad for our war effort?

    4. Now let me get this right, you a far right war hawk do not want our forces to fight in Afghanistan?

    5. Are you saying that fighting Bin Laden and his terrorist in Afghanistan is wrong?

    Please tell me I got your reply wrong.....If I didn't all I can say is wow.

    I was one of those that did not think we should enter Iraq but stay in Iraq and finish off the terrorist and their supporters in Afghanistan.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    True entertainment.

    Obama, his starry-eyed admirers and the media that slobbers after Obama are only now learning what Bush knew well before ever even taking office:Europe, that 65-year-old teenager still living at home, is not and was never serious about fighting terror. All that talk about how they were 'on board for Afghanistan but Iraq was the wrong war' was the sort of cheap lie they have casually traded in these last few decades. They can no longer help themselves.

    Besides, Europe needs the Taliban. The Taliban delivers. Europe could not handle the riots that would ensue if all that Afghani heroin were suddenly off the streets and unavailable.

    It is widely known French and German forces are not up to the challenges in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

  • 0

    WilliB

    Joebigs:

    " Man I hope I am reading this wrong, WilliB are you saying that we should not go after the terrorist who attacked us on Sept 11th? "

    To point out the obvious again: The terrorists who attacked you on Sep 11th are dead. They did on 9/11 together with their victims and went to paradise to meet their virgins. And the ideology who drove them is being preached in madarassas everywhere, including in the US. Do you want to bomb your own towns??

    All that you can blame OBL and the Taliban for is that they faithfully preach jihad. And since Afghanistan has written the Shariah into its constitution, your troops running around in Afghanistan are not in a position to do something against that.

    So what is the point of this pointless exercise?

  • 0

    WilliB

    Teleprompter:

    Alas, in regard to the nature of the jihad, Bush was just as clueless as Obama and his starry-eyed admirers. So that is a wash.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    smithinjapan "Unless of course it's a massive hurricane called Katrina and it hits the Southern US, and you're a president named bush... in that case you'll just sit there wondering how you can get the rich out, and then shirking the rest of the responsibility to others and saying 'I wish we could have done more' after the fact."

    And I don't remember any other country going out of its way to help during Katrina either. My point stands, the U.S will go out of its way to send aid to other countries but it shouldn't expect that sort of charity from the rest of the world.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    He's just like Bush:

    "At a news conference afterward, Obama said his debut on the international stage had convinced him that “political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate,” where he served before entering the White House.

    “There’s a lot of -- I don’t know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing, and people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics,” he said in response to an Austrian reporter’s question."

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all