Obamas speach

[billcoe]

Man, the dude just rocks it. ON THE MONEY! Of course, there will be those who say it was nearly word for word identical to a Geo. Bush speech, but delivered better. Your thoughts? Parts to complain about? In the office today, there was complaining about the war cost, and the fact that we are deferring it for our kids to pay by borrowing the $. It won't be cheap, and it won't be fast. It might not be enough either...

 

Thought I'd ask what some of you whiny liberal bitches always complaining about our country thought about Georges...Obamas speech....

[Choada_Boy]

He gave a "speech".

 

War is the natural state of man. Good on him for keeping up our proud tradition of destroying each other.

 

He did allude to the fact that Pakistan is the up-and-coming shithole that we really should be worrying about. Can you say "failed state with rogue nukes"?

[ivan]

seems like the classic compromise

 

liberals/dems want complete withdrawal or at best no change

 

conservatives/repubs want total commitment forever

 

slight increase (which still almost doubles the previous force) and for a short time period just about splits the uprights?

 

with the timeline he's announced, he's pretty much staked his presidency on the issue - it's not like he'll be able to weasal out of the deadline or the outcome in 2012, right?

[ivan]

the kids falling asleep during it though on live tv was fuckign classic though - i felt bad for them too - though he's a fine orator, i was wicked tired last night and in full on zombie mood while listening

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Man, the dude just rocks it. ON THE MONEY!

 

Weird. I thought he sounded like a more articulate Bush. War on terror, blah blah blah.

[kevbone]

the kids falling asleep during it though on live tv was fuckign classic though - i felt bad for them too - though he's a fine orator, i was wicked tired last night and in full on zombie mood while listening

 

 

The bigger issue here is you let your kids watch TV.....

[kevbone]

Obama is a dissapointment to say the least.

[dberdinka]

When I voted for Obama I was hoping (HOPING!) for a bag full of quarters, seems like a few pennies might be all we get.

[Off_White]

I only wish Obama was half as liberal as the deep space rightwingnuts claim he is.

 

 

[Bug]

I still have hope.

Please hold the laughter for a moment.

Pakistan is the real problem here. It was Afganistan when we first went in but we blew that. Different story. I digress.

We cannot outright invade Pak without devastating consequences.

What's the next best thing?

Set up next door. Stabalize a small area that we can establish a base of operations in.

Be ready to launch an all out attack on the Taliban in Pak in the event of a Pak gov collapse.

Of course, this is all Obama's fault.

He needed to git up and talk pretty.

[pink]

the kids falling asleep during it though on live tv was fuckign classic though - i felt bad for them too - though he's a fine orator, i was wicked tired last night and in full on zombie mood while listening

 

 

The bigger issue here is you let your kids watch TV.....

 

before ya know it he'll be letting them have sex....

 

 

 

[JosephH]

Cross posted from ST:

 

30k increase in forces level brings us up to about the same 100k the Soviets had in there for basically nine years and one of their Afghan commanders, Gen. Victor Yermakov, is not anymore optimistic about our fate.

 

Running the absolute bare minimum force levels required for containing the Taliban while providing effective security across Afghanistan would look something like this:

 

- Kabul: 75k

- Kandahar: 50k

- Sealing Pakistan Border: 100k

- Security for 10-15k out of 35k villages: 100-150k

 

Total: 325-375k troops (again, the bare minimum)

 

Ain't gonna happen and anything short of that is just a matter of letting the clock and bankroll run down while attempting to save face.

[ivan]

the kids falling asleep during it though on live tv was fuckign classic though - i felt bad for them too - though he's a fine orator, i was wicked tired last night and in full on zombie mood while listening

 

 

The bigger issue here is you let your kids watch TV.....

 

before ya know it he'll be letting them have sex....

 

 

uh..guys...hello? i wus talking 'bout the west point kids caught napping in primetime. it was bedtime already for my brood

[Pete_H]

They don't let them have sex either.

[Pete_H]

Ain't gonna happen and anything short of that is just a matter of letting the clock and bankroll run down while attempting to save face.

 

Well said. Obama knows we can't effectively neutralize our enemies in the region with 30k more troops. He just wants to make one last symbolic push before pulling out.

[j_b]

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose".

 

Obama, the dash-pot presidency to save the status-quo despite systemic failure.

[billcoe]

I value your well thought out positions JH, but that's apples and oranges don't you think? The Soviets had the US and our free-flowing via the Paki intelligence services high tech weaponry to contend with as a silent Taliban partner. (Read Ghost Warriors as reference) Our Stingers were taking out everything the USSR put in the sky at the time. Of the current neighbors who might give assistance of that kind: Iran hates the Taliban's guts, the Chinese are smarter than to give them a nickel as they have their own minority issues with the Muslim Uighurs and Uzbeks some of whom are just under the boiling point themselves of a civil war. All of the other 'stans of the former USSR are playing ball with the US. That leaves the Paki intelligence forces, who have seen the light and do not support the Taliban any longer.

 

The Taliban never consolidated power over that country...ever, and were still in a civil war when we attacked. Let the former Northern alliance forces under General Dostrum deal with the pockets of radical assholism left when we pull out in a few years if they don't have their shit together by then.

 

30k increase in forces level brings us up to about the same 100k the Soviets had in there for basically nine years and one of their Afghan commanders, Gen. Victor Yermakov, is not anymore optimistic about our fate.

 

Running the absolute bare minimum force levels required for containing the Taliban while providing effective security across Afghanistan would look something like this:

 

- Kabul: 75k

- Kandahar: 50k

- Sealing Pakistan Border: 100k

- Security for 10-15k out of 35k villages: 100-150k

 

Total: 325-375k troops (again, the bare minimum)

 

Ain't gonna happen and anything short of that is just a matter of letting the clock and bankroll run down while attempting to save face.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose".

 

Obama, the dash-pot presidency to save the status-quo despite systemic failure.

 

Who's "McSame" now?

[j_b]

Can't blame people for wanting change.

[j_b]

You are right that nobody knows how rule by a Afghan pro-soviet regime would have turned out if the US hadn't supported the war lords and the religious extremists (support for the guerrillas started before the soviet invasion as confirmed by Brzezinski).

 

Also, in addition to soldiers in Afghanistan today, there is an entire army of private contractors that is sure to grow even faster.

 

But no matter the result it won't happen within a few years.

[tomtom]

Can't blame people for wanting change.

 

Here's your fuccen stimulus package.

 

[ivan]

if iraq goes up in flames in 2011 it will probably be an indicator of how leaving afghan the next year will go

 

that said, iraq appears to maybe not be the total shithole it was just a couple years ago, so maybe the lesson is ya never know? i'm hopeful for this plan, it could work, and i like that regardless we'll be getting the hell out of there in time to hold The Man in charge for it come re-election time.

 

and i agree w/ you bill - it's not the same afghanistan as in the 80s

[j_b]

it not going up in flames is no reliable gauge of how the situation changed. Neither Iraq was going up in flames under Saddam nor was Afghanistan under the Taliban. It will not appear to be (in our media) the total shithole that it appeared to be 2 years ago as long as we pay off the former guerrillas.

 

Greenwald's take: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/02/obama/index.html

 

 

[j_b]

Can't blame people for wanting change.

 

Here's your fuccen stimulus package.

 

are you pretending you were for an effective stimulus package instead of tax cuts?

 

can you change the size of your pic so that no scrolling is necessary?

[billcoe]

it not going up in flames is no reliable gauge of how the situation changed. Neither Iraq was going up in flames under Saddam nor was Afghanistan under the Taliban. It will not appear to be (in our media) the total shithole that it appeared to be 2 years ago as long as we pay off the former guerrillas.

 

Greenwald's take: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/02/obama/index.html

 

There was a full on civil war raging when the Taliban were in power. However, as they had no freedom of the press, you didn't hear of it, but it did not mean that it was not happening. The greenwald Salon article shows him to be a clown with poor and selective hearing and not worth even bothering with. The fact that he does say some correct things notwithstanding.