View Full Version : How about that reckless cowboy president !
SteamWake
07-02-09, 12:50 PM
and you thought I meant Bush
About four thousand U.S. Marines and more than six hundred Afghan forces poured into Taliban-controlled villages in southern Afghanistan on Thursday in the first major operation under President Barack Obama's strategy to stabilize the country.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529788,00.html
What's the problem (other than you dont like Obama obviously)? Helmand has been a hotspot for a long time. Operation such as this should've been made ages ago already. Why it wasnt? Well, I dont know.
In my eyes, this is clearly an attempt to calm things down in Afghanistan and like I said, should've been done ages ago. Cant see anything 'reckless' about it, especially when the article says that no indirect fire has been used. Have it been Bush, he prolly would've wanted to level the area with massive air and artillery strikes beforehand.
Sure, not using massive air and artillery strikes to soften the enemy beforehand might cause more casualties for US and Afghan troops, but then again, this isnt about you. You are fighting the terrorists, not the country of Afghanistan. The less civilian casualties, the better it's for you, even if that means dead american/afghan soldiers. War is such.
Skybird
07-02-09, 01:26 PM
One GI taken prisoner. German news. Pretty bad place to be captured.
SteamWake
07-02-09, 01:26 PM
No problem really. In fact Im glad to see the action.
Just that if Bush had done this he would of been lambasted.
Not a problem with Obama in this case just my dismay over the hipocrasy is all.
Skybird
07-02-09, 01:39 PM
He said from very early on he would shift focus to Afghanista. So what hipocrasy ? He is perfectly in line with himself here.
Just that if Bush had done this he would of been lambasted.
True that. Tho, I would've agreed on this no matter who the president was. i hope this gives good results. :yep:
SteamWake
07-02-09, 01:43 PM
He said from very early on he would shift focus to Afghanista. So what hipocrasy ? He is perfectly in line with himself here.
Not Obama's hipocrasy for cryin out loud.
Sigh... the knee jerk reactions around here.
Schroeder
07-02-09, 01:47 PM
No problem really. In fact Im glad to see the action.
Just that if Bush had done this he would of been lambasted.
I don't think so, at least not here in Germany. The Americans were always criticised for causing too much "collateral damage" not for fighting the Taliban. If Bush (or his Generals) had switched from aerial/artillery attacks to this sort of engagement maybe we wouldn't have such a strong Taliban force there and much more respect in the civilian population.
Just my 2C
Skybird
07-02-09, 01:47 PM
Not Obama's hipocrasy for cryin out loud.
Sigh... the knee jerk reactions around here.
Ah. My fault. Afghanistan is not Iraq. My problem with Afghanistan never was that one has started there: that could be explained and understood, but the inadequate way one handled it for too long.
I wonder how it happened that that soldier was taken prisoner. Hope he remains the only one. Russians did not like the hospitality they got as prisoners back then. Could happen, but better shouldn't have happened.
I don't think so, at least not here in Germany. The Americans were always criticised for causing too much "collateral damage" not for fighting the Taliban. If Bush (or his Generals) had switched from aerial/artillery attacks to this sort of engagement maybe we wouldn't have such a strong Taliban force there and much more respect in the civilian population.
Just my 2C
This. :salute:
Onkel Neal
07-02-09, 02:28 PM
No problem really. In fact Im glad to see the action.
Just that if Bush had done this he would of been lambasted.
Not a problem with Obama in this case just my dismay over the hipocrasy is all.
Same here, I support Obama in this. And we laugh when someone uses the term cowboy as an insult; it is a compliment in my neck of the woods :D
I don't think so, at least not here in Germany. The Americans were always criticised for causing too much "collateral damage" not for fighting the Taliban. If Bush (or his Generals) had switched from aerial/artillery attacks to this sort of engagement maybe we wouldn't have such a strong Taliban force there and much more respect in the civilian population.
Just my 2C
That is BS, sorry. It's not a matter of "let's just bombard them from the air / with arty" vs. "let's go in and manhandle them". Since WWII this is a fluid affair. Or do you think that now they went in without having air / artillery on demand?
And what do you mean "the Americans [were not] criticised" for fighting the Taliban? Why is it then that even our own Bundeswehr mission is highly unpopular among people? Surely not because they lack a proper mandate and / or equipment, which would be true. It's because people want them to pull out. Kinda like "Was suchen wir am Hindukusch?"
Also, the old meme of "if only the Americans weren't so gung-ho, they would have won the hearts and minds by now" is typical and getting really old. It was this kind of Disney Land approach that let to some of the first German casualties in Afghanistan. Remember when former Minister of Defense Struck said our soldiers won't drive around in APCs because we are an "Army of peace" and don't want to seem "threatening" to the folks over there [like the evil Americans, which he didn't say, but everyone understood]? Probably not, because that (his failure) was underreported. Seven German soldiers got killed when their BUS was hit by an RPG fired by some Jihadi ******* when they were at the end of their tour and on the way back to the airport. So it only cost the lives of 7 German soldiers for Mr. Struck to re-assess his ******* fantasies. And now, after 3 soldiers got killed recently after being ambushed during patrol, our current Minister of Defense Jung said he was "outraged" and that "We will do everything to clarify the background of this". Well, maybe Mr. Jung, the background of this is called WAR, or are you NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT, SINCE YOUR ELECTORATE WILL NOT LIKE THAT WORD?? Then INDEED, get our troops out so they don't constantly get killed for nothing.
Look, if you send troops into a foreign country to kill an enemy force, you cannot be lukewarm about it. The Afghan people never liked a foreign force on their soil, no matter if they drive around in busses or APCs, no matter if they work on water supply or shoot bullets. And some of the reasons for this is decades long propaganda, being stuck in Medieval times, lack of education or surpression of same, and last but not least simple fear for the Taliban who are still using fear tactics on the normal people, threaten them and will come back to take out revenge on any "traitor" once the foreign force pulls out, having accomplished nothing because THEIR LEADERS WERE TOO FAR OUT IN FANTASY LAND AND COULDN'T MAKE UP THEIR MIND.
OneToughHerring
07-03-09, 09:27 AM
Isn't it wonderful how the two parties in USA are always united when it comes to bloodshed. :)
"Wag the dog", I hear you say? Who cares when there is state sponsored violence!
Schroeder
07-03-09, 11:29 AM
That is BS, sorry. It's not a matter of "let's just bombard them from the air / with arty" vs. "let's go in and manhandle them". Since WWII this is a fluid affair. Or do you think that now they went in without having air / artillery on demand?
I haven't heard anything about artillery yet. They will surely have some around but so far they haven't used it.
And what do you mean "the Americans [were not] criticised" for fighting the Taliban? Why is it then that even our own Bundeswehr mission is highly unpopular among people? Surely not because they lack a proper mandate and / or equipment, which would be true. It's because people want them to pull out. Kinda like "Was suchen wir am Hindukusch?"
In the beginning I can't remember a lot of people being against it. Yes, some are always against it but in the very beginning there was a majority here for that mission. It started to crumble with more and more "collateral damage" being reported. That is when the "Was suchen wir am Hindukusch?" wave started flowing (the dead German soldiers contributed to that of course). So I still think my point is valid.
Also, the old meme of "if only the Americans weren't so gung-ho, they would have won the hearts and minds by now"
If they had done this sort of approach maybe that would have been true. Do you know it? You will definitely fail if you have too much "collateral damage". As for the rest of your post, I don't know were you read that I support this Mickey Mouse position of Struck.
Again I'm just against the blind bombardment of an area. That has to lead to be highly disliked. I welcome the current offensive. I think it should have been done like that from the very beginning.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.