Gates: 'A few years' of combat in Afghanistan

[Tahoma 2,298]

Its really very simple - if you can't address people as individuals with their own opinions rather than members of some arbitrary group who ascribe to some arbitrary checklist of stereotyped beliefs, then there isn't much to talk about.

You've never refuted what I've said

Please remind me of what I'm supposed to refute.

Once again attacking the text instead of any of the issues at hand. Bravo.

What are the "issues at hand" that aren't being addressed?

Have you actually posted anything that relates directly to the topic of the OP?

Yes I have, have you? Besides Rush Limbaugh and attacking people for their terminology and grammar?

No Joe, you haven't.

See I actually read the thread - and your first post here (and everything that followed) is a bunch of stereotypical insults about Liberals and "the left".

And guess what Joe - please find where I do likewise about "the right" in this thread. But let me save you some time - you know why you won't find it, Joe?

BECAUSE IT ISN'T FVCKING THERE!

I gave my opinion on Afghanistan, and I didn't mention Rush. I mentioned Bush once - and you know why? Because it was unavoidable given that his adminstration started the war.

Joseph...Joseph...where are you? Here is the perfect chance for you to set the record straight. Joseph...?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its really very simple - if you can't address people as individuals with their own opinions rather than members of some arbitrary group who ascribe to some arbitrary checklist of stereotyped beliefs, then there isn't much to talk about.

You've never refuted what I've said

Please remind me of what I'm supposed to refute.

Once again attacking the text instead of any of the issues at hand. Bravo.

What are the "issues at hand" that aren't being addressed?

Have you actually posted anything that relates directly to the topic of the OP?

Yes I have, have you? Besides Rush Limbaugh and attacking people for their terminology and grammar?

No Joe, you haven't.

See I actually read the thread - and your first post here (and everything that followed) is a bunch of stereotypical insults about Liberals and "the left".

And guess what Joe - please find where I do likewise about "the right" in this thread. But let me save you some time - you know why you won't find it, Joe?

BECAUSE IT ISN'T FVCKING THERE!

I gave my opinion on Afghanistan, and I didn't mention Rush. I mentioned Bush once - and you know why? Because it was unavoidable given that his adminstration started the war.

Joseph...Joseph...where are you? Here is the perfect chance for you to set the record straight. Joseph...?

Darn, you got me. You win. Man i thought I had you for a minute.

This is really mature by the way.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ok pike then lets continue arguing about terminology and people's grammar. Thats where posts should go at the conclusion of the original topic.

Is that what I said?

My opinion on Afghanistan can be found early on in this thread - if you want to discuss it, feel free to have a read. I'm not going to retype it for your benefit just cause you're too fvcking lazy to read the thread.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Dude, you don't do substance, so there isn't much to talk about. Everything from you is stereotypes or partisan talking points from talk show commentators - no wonder you get people's backs up.

He's not even the typical ideologue in search of "facts" because he so smart that he don't need no "facts." His "common sense" is all the "facts" he needs. It is a mystery to me how he thinks he's saying anything substantial. So far, he's only displayed only attack-mode and whine-mode. I'll bet he thinks that Fox News is a liberal think tank!

Actually - he did say that Fox News is too liberal for him. Go figure.

What's really funny is that he's complaining about the exact same thing that he's guilty of...he's really very obsessed.

Fox News is too liberal for him!?! He's beyond the fringe-of-the-fringe!

I would be interested to know what news sources Joe relies on. Joe, will you indulge?

Sorry I missed this post amidst all the other #######.

I will indulge - no problem.

This is a very small window but here goes

Rassmussen Reports

AP

Latin American Herald Tribune

New York Post

The Mail UK

Politico

Miami Herald

National Post Canada

The Times UK

The Scotsman

NYT (for reference only)

USA Today

Wall Street Journal

UK Telegraph

Washington Post

A ton of others. I read them on a daily basis.

Ok pike then lets continue arguing about terminology and people's grammar. Thats where posts should go at the conclusion of the original topic.

Is that what I said?

My opinion on Afghanistan can be found early on in this thread - if you want to discuss it, feel free to have a read. I'm not going to retype it for your benefit just cause you're too fvcking lazy to read the thread.

So I guess you're done discussing it then and you're sticking around just to attack me and call me fVcking lazy, I see. Cool with me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My opinion on Afghanistan can be found early on in this thread - if you want to discuss it, feel free to have a read. I'm not going to retype it for your benefit just cause you're too fvcking lazy to read the thread.

So I guess you're done discussing it then and you're sticking around just to attack me and call me fVcking lazy, I see. Cool with me.

Well, Joe - what are you sticking around for?

[Tahoma 2,298]

Ok pike then lets continue arguing about terminology and people's grammar. Thats where posts should go at the conclusion of the original topic.

Is that what I said?

My opinion on Afghanistan can be found early on in this thread - if you want to discuss it, feel free to have a read. I'm not going to retype it for your benefit just cause you're too fvcking lazy to read the thread.

Give it up, Pike. He doesn't want address the issue and he certainly doesn't want to address your posts. He has been free from the start of the thread to talk about Afghanistan, yet he strangely hasn't.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

My opinion on Afghanistan can be found early on in this thread - if you want to discuss it, feel free to have a read. I'm not going to retype it for your benefit just cause you're too fvcking lazy to read the thread.

So I guess you're done discussing it then and you're sticking around just to attack me and call me fVcking lazy, I see. Cool with me.

Well, Joe - what are you sticking around for?

I'm really not sure. I may have said the word liberal in my first post and you and several others have talked of nothing else for MANY pages. So, I am not sure what the topic should be about any more. To me, it seems like you're all obsessing over my terminology, but if you say you're not, then ok.

I made one attempt to steer the conversation back to Afghanistan, but you took the opportunity to call me "fvcking lazy" instead. I did read the entire thread, however, why would I go back to the first page of a 13 page thread to quote out something you may have said days ago and was already hashed through?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno Joe - probably because you wrote it off as being a rant about Bush and Rush, when it was in fact no such thing.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I dunno Joe - probably because you wrote it off as being a rant about Bush and Rush, when it was in fact no such thing.

Ok - It wasn't. Can we be friends now?

How do you think Afghanistan will ultimately be solved?

Edited August 23, 2009 by Joseph & Ana

[nowhereman 1]

My opinion on Afghanistan can be found early on in this thread - if you want to discuss it, feel free to have a read. I'm not going to retype it for your benefit just cause you're too fvcking lazy to read the thread.

So I guess you're done discussing it then and you're sticking around just to attack me and call me fVcking lazy, I see. Cool with me.

Well, Joe - what are you sticking around for?

I'm really not sure. I may have said the word liberal in my first post and you and several others have talked of nothing else for MANY pages. So, I am not sure what the topic should be about any more. To me, it seems like you're all obsessing over my terminology, but if you say you're not, then ok.

I made one attempt to steer the conversation back to Afghanistan, but you took the opportunity to call me "fvcking lazy" instead. I did read the entire thread, however, why would I go back to the first page of a 13 page thread to quote out something you may have said days ago and was already hashed through?

Actually your stance for "many pages" was that your point of view was one of common sense & reason, while everyone else is a stupid, clueless liberal. When I attempted to show you that a relatively small percentage of Americans are actually liberal (around 20%) & that your labeling everyone who disagrees with you as a leftist or liberal is just wrong you called my stats "BS". When I cited Rasmussen (a right leaning source) & their numbers were pretty close to mine you still refused to accept my stats.

The point I have tried to make in several threads is that rhetoric, stereotyping, labeling & insulting other points of view will only lead to fighting & will kill any chance of a meaningful debate. If your views are far right then state why & back them up with facts & logic, not baseless rhetoric. If you do that & someone attacks you I will be the first one to denounce it.

[DEDixon 39]

FROM YAHOO NEWS:

WASHINGTON – As public support for the Afghanistan war erodes, President Barack Obama is facing with two equally unattractive choices: increase U.S. troops levels to beat back a resilient enemy, or stick with the 68,000 already committed and risk the political fallout if that's not enough.

The decision is just a few weeks away. Gen. Army Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is completing an assessment of what he needs to win the fight there. Already, one leading Republican is suggesting McChrystal will be pressured to ask for lower troop totals than he requires.

"I don't think it's necessarily from the president," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in an interview broadcast Sunday. "I think it's from the people around him and others that I think don't want to see a significant increase in our troops' presence there."

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the situation in Afghanistan as "serious and deteriorating," but refused to say whether additional forces would be needed.

"Afghanistan is very vulnerable in terms of (the) Taliban and extremists taking over again, and I don't think that threat's going to go away," Mullen said Sunday.

Mullen also expressed concern about diminishing support among a war-weary American public as the U.S. and NATO enter their ninth year of combat and reconstruction operations.

In joint TV interviews, Mullen and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry said last week's presidential election in Afghanistan was historic, given the threats of intimidation voters faced as they headed to polling stations. It could be several weeks, however, before it's known whether incumbent Hamid Karzai or one of his challengers won.

"We're not sure exactly what the level of voter turnout was," said Eikenberry, a retired three-star Army general. "Taliban intimidation, especially in southern Afghanistan, certainly limited those numbers."

Charges of fraud in the election are extensive enough to possibly sway the final result, and the number is likely to grow, according to the commission investigating the complaints.

The independent Electoral Complaints Commission has received 225 complaints since the start of Thursday's vote, including 35 allegations that are "material to the election results," said Grant Kippen, the head of the U.N.-backed body.

Mullen said President Obama's strategy for defeating the Taliban and al-Qaida is a work in progress as more U.S. troops are put in place, Mullen said. But the security situation in Afghanistan needs to be reversed in the next 12 month to 18 months, he added.

"I think it is serious and it is deteriorating, and I've said that over the last couple of years, that the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated," Mullen said.

Just over 50 percent of respondents to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this past week said the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting.

Mullen, a Vietnam veteran, said he's aware that public support for the war is critical. "Certainly the numbers are of concern," he said. But, he added, "this is the war we're in."

Three years ago, the U.S. had about 20,000 forces in the country. Today, it has triple that, on the way to 68,000 by year's end when all the extra 17,000 troops that Obama announced in March are to be in place. An additional 4,000 troops are arriving to help train Afghan forces.

"I recognize that we've been there over eight years," he said. "But this is the first time we've really resourced a strategy on both the civilian and military sides. So in certain ways, we're starting anew."

"We're just getting the pieces in place from the president's new strategy on the ground now," he said. "I don't see this a mission of endless drift. I think we know what to do."

McChrystal's orders from Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates was "to go out, assess where you are, and then tell us what you need," Mullen said. "And we'll get to that point. And I want to, I guess, assure you or reassure you that he hasn't asked for any additional troops up until this point in time."

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said McChrystal should say exactly how many troops he needs, let the Congress debate it and Obama would make the ultimate decision.

McChrystal and other military leaders in Afghanistan should use the same aggressive "clear and hold" approach that Gen. David Petraeus used successfully in Iraq, McCain said. That will create a secure environment for people so that economic and political progress can be made, he said.

On the question of what it will take to turn the tide in Afghanistan, McCain echoed Mullen's projection: "I think within a year to 18 months you could start to see progress."

McCain acknowledged that public opinion on Afghanistan is slipping. But he said that opinion could be reversed.

"I think you need to see a reversal of these very alarming and disturbing trends on attacks, casualties, areas of the country that the Taliban has increased control of."

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Obama's leadership on Afghanistan to bolstering public support.

"He really can't just leave this to the Congress, to General McChrystal, and say, folks, sort of, discuss this, after the report comes in," Lugar said.

*****************

Sorry, I missed the last 4 pages of this because I have a life outside this forum (unlike Pikey).

Funny, just LOL here for the last 20 minutes... finally caught my breath! Sounds like Bush when he was trying something new in Iraq and the only thing liberals wanted was to end the war.... our new President didn't agree with the "SURGE" in Iraq. Had he been President, there would have never been a SURGE.

But, here we are, it is different in the country of ROCKS AND RUBBLE, he wants the America people to give him TIME to BEGIN ANEW!!!!

This article says support is getting weak, but I didn't read anything about any protests. Why aren't liberals protesting OBAMA'S WAR?

[nowhereman 1]

Dixon a lot of Americans (including a significant number of non-liberals, for the record) protested the Iraq War because they felt the intel was trumped up & that there wasn't a valid reason to invade Iraq (Cheney himself recently admitted there was no credible link between 9/11 and Iraq). However there was a strong connection established between the Taliban & Afghanistan and that's why there were much fewer protests concerning the war in Afghanistan. To characterize Afghanistan as "Obama's war" simply doesn't reflect reality... it was Bush's war as well.

However regardless of the reasons (or lack thereof) that we went to Iraq & Afghanistan we need to insure that our efforts were not in vain. I served in Iraq & I personally knew soldiers who died there. I like to think that their deaths meant something & at this point it is up to President Obama to make sure they do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again, there are continuing anti war protests around the calendar, perhaps not on the scale of previous years, but one thing seems certain - they aren't getting coverage in the national media. The war is a dead story as far as they are concerned.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The protests aren't getting covered Pike, because they have to paint this President in a favorable light. Any protests would reflect negatively on the leadership. Whether he started the wars or not, he is at the helm now, and owns these conflicts. They are no more or less relevant to current events than they were when they started, but the media wants to focus on all the "positive" now that the guy they want is in power. I am not saying that Bush did everything i agree with, but the media should not be this biased when it comes to things like that. I am talking about network media (which is where a huge block of media viewership is.). Any president should be scrutinized.

Nowhereman - I don't doubt that the polls you're showing are accurate in that the respondents don't "call themselves liberal", but that doesn't mean they aren't liberal. Many liberals don't like calling themselves liberal because it has somehow become a negative term. Hence the newer term Progressive, Moderate, Independent, etc. Moderates do have some form or another of liberalism in them, that is why I lump them together with the rest. They say Leiberman is "moderate", but on 99% of items he is liberal. His foreign policy is hawkish. I don't think 1 or a few issues earns someone the right to be called moderate. However, some people use that to gain the upper hand in an argument or what-not.

[nowhereman 1]

The protests aren't getting covered Pike, because they have to paint this President in a favorable light. Any protests would reflect negatively on the leadership. Whether he started the wars or not, he is at the helm now, and owns these conflicts. They are no more or less relevant to current events than they were when they started, but the media wants to focus on all the "positive" now that the guy they want is in power. I am not saying that Bush did everything i agree with, but the media should not be this biased when it comes to things like that. I am talking about network media (which is where a huge block of media viewership is.). Any president should be scrutinized.

Nowhereman - I don't doubt that the polls you're showing are accurate in that the respondents don't "call themselves liberal", but that doesn't mean they aren't liberal. Many liberals don't like calling themselves liberal because it has somehow become a negative term. Hence the newer term Progressive, Moderate, Independent, etc. Moderates do have some form or another of liberalism in them, that is why I lump them together with the rest. They say Leiberman is "moderate", but on 99% of items he is liberal. His foreign policy is hawkish. I don't think 1 or a few issues earns someone the right to be called moderate. However, some people use that to gain the upper hand in an argument or what-not.

As I explained in an earlier post & the Rasmussen poll pointed out you can have conservative views on one issue, moderate on another & liberal on a third so I hear what you are saying. However if someone claims to be a moderate then he/she should be given the benefit of the doubt, unless their views seem very conservative or very liberal. We can however agree that the term "liberal" has developed a negative connotation & I would also contend that some people in the Rasmussen poll said they were moderates because of this. Given all of this it is still not fair or accurate to lump together moderates with liberals... moderate is still a legit group & in fact if I recall the % correctly it's something like 40% conservative, 40% moderate & 20% liberal. That's a LOT of moderates!

As for the protests & the media covering President Obama favorably I partially agree with you, but at the same time Obama has complained that the media is only covering the bad news about healthcare reform. Overall the media does lean left, with some notable exceptions like Fox News that leans right, and this sometimes leads to media bias favoring Democrats. However at the same time the media likes to cover sensational news & if they have to choose between making Obama look good or covering a sensational but negative story my money is on the negative story.