Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich evans who wrote (328192)	10/9/2009 2:34:11 AM
From: KLP	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793905

Ace: Oh God: White House Prepares Ground for Losing Afghanistan By Claiming The Taliban Is Not the Enemy —Ace ace.mu.nu Neatly disobligating us from fighting them. Jim Geraghty wonders if Obama would have been elected peddling this line -- "The Taliban is not our enemy" -- rather than posturing as a Kill-Crazy Super-Commando ready to wade into Waziristan and collect Taliban ears for his trophy-necklace. Answer: No. The other spin -- this from Kerry and other liberals -- is that it's a "false dichotomy" to claim the options are either trying to win the war through, um, trying to win it, or bugging out completely. This is dangerous and cynical. They don't want to be seen as bugging out, so they're going to leave our troops in the meat-grinder without any actual intention to resource and reinforce them and give them a chance at actually accomplishing anything besides defending the Democratic Party's interests. Disgusting. If Obama wants to lose the war that must be won, as he used to declare hourly -- which he plainly does -- he should do our troops the courtesy of removing them from harm's way completely, rather that letting them twist in the wind in a war he's already decided to lose. As John Kerry once asked -- "Who wants to be the last man to die for a lie?" He ought to ask himself and our gutless worm of a president that question anew. Posted by Ace at 05:48 PM New Comments Thingy

To: rich evans who wrote (328192)	10/9/2009 3:53:05 AM
From: unclewest	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793905

Thanks. That is one Pakistani Officer who understands the problem and the solution. Lately I've been thinking that the reason we aren't fighting the required bottom up war, may be because it will not create enough promotion possibilities/opportunities for West Point generals and Annapolis admirals. That may seem sarcastic...but hey who the heck do you think is getting big promotions for running this war, I can't think of a single instance were we helped install a corrupt government, financed by US dollars, that led to a successful accomplishment of our long-term strategic goals. We can do this right. It won't be by unending gunfights. One of the most, if not the most, important card we have yet to see, is General McChrystal's proposed next move after the additional troops accomplish his quick goals. The true measurements of success can only be defined after most blood shed has ended. 8 years of seemingly little to no success has already wilted a lot of flowers in America. Do we have still have the will to prevail? Does Obama have it?