Monday May 28, 2012

Obama won't take any current war options

World ( 55 )

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

55 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    Sarge

    The dithering continues!

  • 0

    adaydream

    Sarge, Yeah, but Obama's working on an exit strategy. Something never afforded a bit of republican brain cells. Obama's not staying the course or staying in Afghanistan forever like your ilk advocates. < :-)

  • 0

    JustAGoodOlBoy

    Obama is so clueless. The above is all spin.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    adaydream: Oh, come on! The Republicans never advocated 'forever', just 'one hundred years' or, 'as long as it takes (ie. 100 years)'. True, most of us don't live to see 100, but for some people that's not 'forever' at all! :)

    Justagoodolboy: I know you're trolling, but just thought I'd point out the fact that Obama knows FAR more than you'll ever possibly know on the subject, and privvy to far more as well. So if he's 'clueless' that doesn't say a lot for your situation.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    This is great. Compared to the last president, who rushed into war using plans that were not a lot more than flash PowerPoint presentations with next to zero strategies for post-invasion rebuilding, President Obama's evaluations and considerations are most welcome.

    It never fails to amaze me just how many conservatives there are out there who bay out or more war and more conflict while not having a clue where the money is going to come, how peace will be won, or how long it will take.

    Simple minds - and lack of well-considered planning - will lead to more failure for the US military.

    Just look at the mess the Bush years created.

  • 0

    Kapuna

    smithinjapan, I take it you consider Pres. Obama a brilliant diplomat and, superior military tactician then?

  • 0

    Noliving

    "Sarge, Yeah, but Obama's working on an exit strategy. Something never afforded a bit of republican brain cells. Obama's not staying the course or staying in Afghanistan forever like your ilk advocates. < :-)"

    And that exit strategy is what? I have yet to hear of this exit strategy other than this isn't an open ended commitment.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Noliving - "And that exit strategy is what? I have yet to hear of this exit strategy other than this isn't an open ended commitment."

    That's precisely what the president is considering.

    What would you rather have? More disastrous decisions based on stunning lacks of judgement, poor planning and shoddy strategy like we saw from bush and co.?

    Sorry, America has paid more than enough for those.

    Historically, conflicts and battles that were fought based on ill-thought out planning abound - the Somme, Verdun, Gallipoli, to name a few.

    All were poorly planned, and hundreds of thousands of lives were needlessly cut short.

    Give the president time to make a wise decision, not the quickest decision.

  • 0

    WayneRooney10

    First things first ! That's what I say. Mr Obama is still busy fighting the Murdoch boys at Fox Network.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Kapuna: "smithinjapan, I take it you consider Pres. Obama a brilliant diplomat and, superior military tactician then?"

    A brilliant diplomat, yes -- and definitely in comparison to your last president; rated dead last in terms of international affairs/diplomacy of all presidents in US history. A superior military tactician? well, not so sure about that. I know that he is taking time to consider all options, which by far beats rushing into wars (illegally in at least one case) without any plans two feet in front of one's face, and I was also indicating that Obama is privy to things JustAGoodOldBoy could not possibly have access to, as such saying that the former was far more educated on the matter than the latter, who proclaimed the former to be 'clueless'.

    That help you?

  • 0

    timorborder

    Please don' read any political meaning into my comments, however, one way or another, the head chap in the White House has to be seen to be making decisions. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing does little for the folks who are out there everyday risking their lives. If Obama wants to quit Afghanistan (a decision I would be against), he needs to act. If he wants to continue a US presence in Afghanistan, he needs to give the commanders the troops and tools they need. For god's sake, the last thing we need are commanders in the field who have a politician looking over their soldier (like happened when GW and Rummy stuffed up the invasion of Iraq). Anyway, Obama needs to act, to allow those who are leading in theater to get on with their jobs.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Total concurrence with timorborder's 04:34 post. Well stated, Sir.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Better to act later using a good plan than early with a bad one.

    That's how I see it.

    The primary reason President Obama is facing this decision now is because the previous president and his team did the latter.

    We don't need and cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

  • 0

    OneForAll

    Can democracy be imposed on another people? It worked in Japan probably because of the honorable nature of the people. But where there are bribes? The highest bidder gets my solders? I do not know, but why stay. I think the point has been made that if you attack the USA those in power will lose it. timorborder - Why are you against leaving Afghanistan? Easy to project power from there in that region? For the Afghans? Opium? Why?

  • 0

    OneForAll

    sp - soldiers

  • 0

    Madverts

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8356094.stm

    "The cable appears to be a dramatic and last-minute intervention by the ambassador, says BBC Washington correspondent Adam Brooke"

    Looks like Obama's decision isn't getting any easier......

  • 0

    victimcrat

    Another campaign promise broken. Is it fright-induced waffling or more of his perfidous dithering?

  • 0

    SuperLib

    I think Obama at least needs to let people know what's going on. If he needs more time, then say it and explain what the situation is. This total silence on the issue isn't helping, and in the end it might prove to be a distraction from the decision he does ultimately make.

    You guys can go back to talking about George Bush now. Sorry to interrupt.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Timorborder and Sushisake: Nice back to back posts (with sailwind's praise tucked in between, of course). I agree with both of you, to an extent. Of course Timor's comment is the ideal -- make a decision one way or the other -- while Sushi's represents the stark reality of the situation; it needs to be thought out carefully.

    victimcrat brings about the outright opposite in his post; lack of careful consideration before acting... must be a bush supporter. :)

  • 0

    lostrune2

    The majority of Americans are against sending more troops to Afghanistan. The majority of Americans are also against the public option. So, eh.

  • 0

    yabits

    "The cable appears to be a dramatic and last-minute intervention by the ambassador, says BBC Washington correspondent Adam Brooke"

    I'm glad someone brought up this cable from the American ambassador to Afghanistan, who was a former commander of troops over there. His message: "Do NOT send any more troops."

  • 0

    yabits

    Yes, this thread is about President Obama -- who, not even a year in office, should never, ever be compared with his predecessor. The options that President Obama faces were for a war that we all know he started.

  • 0

    USNinJapan2

    President Obama is perfect and therefore has no critics.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "The majority of Americans are against sending more troops to Afghanistan"

    Then, by all means, Obama should not send them, in fact he should order the troops already there to leave pronto so that the Taliban can take over there again, heaven knows the Europeans certainly aren't going to stop them, lol.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Yabits, Karl Eikenberry, President Obama's ambassador to Afghanistan and former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is against sending more troops primarily because he believes doing so will make the Afghan government more - not less - dependant on U.S. forces, which is the exact opposite of what should be happening if America wants to pull out of that country, as the President has indicated he wants.

    Sen. John McCain, on the other hand, backs General McChrystal's recommendations to send more troops.
    This is quite understandable as Sen. McCain - while reputedly pretty clued up about certain unspecified key military issues - has proven he has little clue about other crucial issues, one of the major ones being "How is this troop surge and war going to be funded."

    While Sen. McCain is certainly justified in trumpeting how his experience nearly half a century ago of being shot down and languishing for 6 years in a Vietcong prison camp does give him a certain degree of military "experience", it goes nowhere in helping him understand how wars do - amazingly - have to be paid for and that contrary to the clearly widely held belief among people like Sen. McCain and apparently the majority of GOP members and conservatives, money does not grow on trees.

    President Obama clearly understands that this war needs to somehow be funded.

    Sen McCain wouldn't know about funding if it slapped him in the face.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge - "Then, by all means, Obama should not send them, in fact he should order the troops already there to leave pronto so that the Taliban can take over there again."

    The real intention behind Sarge's sarcasm shows that he too has no idea about responsible funding.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Sushi, keeping Afghanistan from being taken over by the Taliban and preventing another 9/11 is fiscally responsible, no?

  • 0

    Sarge

    "this war needs to somehow be funded"

    Maybe Obama and the Democrats will stop the bailouts...

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge, you have no way of knowing whether another 9/11-style attack will happen. It is in no way certain.

    What IS certain is the ongoing drain of money being spent on this war, not to mention Iraq.

    You are basing your argument on something that may or may not happen at some point in the future.

    I ma basing mine on concrete reality.

  • 0

    yabits

    Sushi, keeping Afghanistan from being taken over by the Taliban and preventing another 9/11 is fiscally responsible, no?

    Lessee: Cost of 9/11 attacks -- Just under 3,000 lives, relatively few injuries, and anywhere from 20 to 30 billion in property damage.

    Cost of Iraq/Afghanistan wars -- Nearly double the amount of lives, thousands upon thousands of injuries, many of require long term care, and a cost that approaches $2 Trillion.

    Looks like Republicans are channeling Dr. Evil when it comes to making fiscal decisions: Why spend billions when you can spend trillions?

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge - "Maybe Obama and the Democrats will stop the bailouts..."

    The bailouts, you mean the ones that were started when the president you supported, Bush, gave away $680 billion with no checks or balances?

    That bailout? Oh, I get it, you still don't undertand much about fiscal responsibility, whioh the more I read Japan Today, the more this seems like a general trait of conservatives.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Yabits - "Why spend billions when you can spend trillions?"

    Exactly, exactly.

    Conservatives' attitude to funding this war is like a couple who plan a massive wedding without every once thinking how they will pay for it.

    The GOP/conservative 'Money grows on trees' mantra seems to have been part of the conservative psyche for decades and then went absolutely ballistic under bush.

    What is also interesting is how conservatives like Sarge and many others on Japan Today rail against the bailouts, they rail against NOT massively increasing boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and yet they NEVER seem to consider:

    1/ Where is the money coming from 2/ Where did all the money go 3/ Why did all the money go 4/ Why is the money being spent in the first place?

    Ask a conservative and they will give you a totally blank stare, change the subject, and then in a few decades they will sit there and wonder why their grandchildrens' futures were mortgaged.

    The Why is primarily due to these wars and the chronic fiscal mismanagement that occured under bush jnr.

    But conservatives would rather we all point the finger at President Obama and just conveniently forget about the disastrous bush years that

    1/ led to the start of 2 wars that are STILL going on 2/ Witnessed the biggest fiscal meltdown in 80 years.

    Very very unwise.

    are being mortgaged.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    You guys are just too obsessed with Republicans.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    3...2...1....about time for another conservative is going to call me out as 'bush obsessed' while secretly wishing I'd just shut up about bush and how his decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the lax fiscal regulations he imposed on the finance industry, have left the current president with such massive problems.

    Sssshhhh...**none **of this had anything to do with George Bush - it's **ALL **Obama's fault. lol!

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Superlib - "You guys are just too obsessed with Republicans."

    It's the Republican's obsession with failure that's the main problem.

    They just do failure so spectacularly well, it's unreal.

  • 0

    adaydream

    If george bush had dithered a little bit more instead of falling on dick cheney's sword then we wouldn't be where we are. The republicans are just falling on the republican mantra of bad mouthing Obama without actually thinking.

    Obama has had 8 meetings with his advisers and generals on the correct strategy to use in Afghanistan. He hasn't dithered, he listening to the ones who have the best ideas on how to fight this war.

    It must be horrible to watch a president who thinks instead of just following idiots like cheney and rumpsfeld. < :-)

  • 0

    Madverts

    "They just do failure so spectacularly well, it's unreal"

    But sushi, they're now irrelavant. They've been irrelavant for almost a year. All they can don is whine about "ninnies on the left" or "infantacide" and berate Obama for not being able to conclude Bush's wars vite fait when they had nigh on eight years to make a difference and faild dismally.

    I don't see what your War on Republicans is achieving. Those that suported bush that now critisize Obama on every possibme issue without even understanding it have no credibility, no matter how many name changes later. That in itself speaks volumes....

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Madverts - "I don't see what your War on Republicans is achieving."

    You and I know Republicans have short memories. I aim to not let them forget their failures lest history repeat itself.

  • 0

    Badsey

    "the contract with America" -gave us the surplus. Dems were very much against it, but Repubs controlled the house and senate. Clinton did reduce the military and that always helps.

    Now we are back to spend, spend, spend Lib style. -Both parties are at fault.

    Example: John McCain -says Social Security is a bankrupt system, yet he sucks $8k a month from it. I wonder how many of his houses he bought with that. -Lib. Pelosi still wants her fleet of jets.

  • 0

    Badsey

    The Fiscal Responsibility Act

    An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget, unless sanctioned by a three-fifths vote in both houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, passed by the US House Roll Call: 300-132, 1/26/95; rejected by the US Senate Roll Call: 65-35, 3/2/95, two-thirds required), and legislation (not an amendment) provide the president with a line-item veto (H.R.2, passed by the US House Roll Call: 294-134, 2/6/95; conferenced with S. 4 and enacted with substantial changes 4/9/96 [1]). The statute was ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998).

    =Bill Clinton was against balancing the budget.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    SushiSake: I aim to not let them forget their failures lest history repeat itself.

    It's been nearly a year now since Bush has been out of office. You need to get a life and move on. Your feelings about Republicans are well known so there's just no need to repeat them daily in several threads. I trust Obama, and if you do to then you wouldn't need to "help" him by talking about Bush 24-7. Pretending that you're safeguarding us from a group of people you yourself say are irrelevant just doesn't even make any sense anyway. You're just a troll now, and it's becoming more embarrassing to read your posts as more time passes. You really need to clean up your act and stop living in the past.

  • 0

    Badsey

    Marxism: We must blindly go forward and forget the past. -The key word is "blindly" since the past is always wrong.

  • 0

    adaydream

    I see SuperLib's comments and then I look at the post above still trying to lie about Clinton. I have to chuckle.

    But back to Obama. He's taken more time to get the right thing done in Afghanistan then bush ever took to do the wrong thing done. < :-)

  • 0

    yabits

    You and I know Republicans have short memories. I aim to not let them forget their failures lest history repeat itself.

    That is a key point. The full ramifications of executive decisions may not be fully realized for years after they are made. And yet we see folks here trying to put tight boundaries on what is allowable for discussion. (Meanwhile taking no mind of comments made on adminstrations that go much farther back.)

    Obama's taken more time to get the right thing done in Afghanistan than bush ever took to do the wrong thing.

    Classic.

  • 0

    bushlover

    Obama will need the next few years to prove himself before I toot his horn for the Repub haters that can't give up flogging a dead horse. Too funny! hahahahhahahahaha!!

  • 0

    Badsey

    Really, that is the problem with Libs -they never want to take any responsibility, yet they want to tell you how they have suffered.

  • 0

    lostrune2

    Sarge,

    So I take it you want Obama going against the majority of Americans?

  • 0

    Sarge

    Lost - Yeah, this is a real cluster-you-know-what. Here we have military commanders on the ground and the secretary of defense strongly recommending more troops to quash a Taliban comeback since the Afghans are as yet unable to handle the situation, and the majority of Americans who are understandably sick of having our troops over there getting shot at and killed. Of course Obama should make the hard, unpopular choice and order the extra troops, but he may not do that. I guess we'll have to wait a while longer.

  • 0

    hworta269

    Obama wont do anything to endanger his support for his domestic bills even if it is killing troops which he claims to respect so much. He either needs to take them out or win the war what he is doing is creating another conflict that will only cost lives. He had a war almost won and turned it in to defeat.

    If only obama could win wars praising himself then we would be set.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all