We all knew this would be Obama's war. He point blank said this during the campaign. Remember...eye on the ball mumbo jumbo. Well here we are. :nope:

Is Barack Obama the first Black Man to beat a white woman and not serve time for it? :hmmm:

The politics invoved makes me sick:shifty:. This is an international problem and everybody needs to pitch in and beat radical islam down. How many more carbombs, train bombs, etc do we need to endure before we decide to truely take care of the problem?

I say we start bombing mosques that house so much as a bb gun in them! It's no longer a place of worship, but a weapons cache and a legit target.
We need to tell afghanistan, take care of the problem or we will and don't whine when we make a mess over there.

No. That was OJ.

I would have preferred objectives that were a little more measurable.

How does one know that al Qaeda has been defeated???? It is not like a traditional state that can either be occupied or surrender. What is the difference between al Qaeda being defeated and them just hiding until the next administration? al Qaeda is patient if nothing else.

D3 al Qaeda in Pakistan I find refreshing. It is about time we realize that Pakistan is not really our ally in this. :nope:.

When will the United States learn that the enemy of my enemy may or may not be my enemy?

President Obama was in a horrible situation. I doubt any decision he could have made would make every one happy. Well it sucks being POTUS but you asked for the job.

This is probably one of the less bad decisions he could have made.

I do like the time table though. If we have the collective balls to stick with it. The AF government has to realize that they MUST be able to take control of their own territory or they are not truly sovereign.:nope:

I hope this time table gives them the kick in the ass they need.....if we have the balls to follow through (wait and see on that).

What I think should happen is to relocate all US troops to the AF/PK border and secure it (if not several borders). Let al Qaeda have its secure base in PK, if they are isolated it won't do them much good. Really seal that border. Let the AF military and NATO deal with the internal threat. Without supplies and manpower coming in to AF, it might give the AF/NATO forces the chance to quell the internal threat.

I think that he tried right that was his great mistake. Sometimes you can't please just everybody, and you certainly can't dance on two parties at the same time. And the timetable i think is highly suspicious, regarding the US elections.

To put it bluntly. :hmmm: That boy ain't dumb enough to bring home (how many ?) troops proficient with firearms.

WHEN THIS COUNTRY IS GOING THRU THE HIGHIEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN IT'S HISTORY. :roll:


Come on you guys... Use your heads for something besides " Hatracks " :haha:

That does bring up an interesting point. Bringing back the national guards will take these people off the federal payroll and put them back into the state employment environment... an environment where there is high unemployment.

Perhaps this a stimulus program? Ship all national guard overseas so that the currently unemployed can move into the newly vacated jobs?

Before you laugh, consider what happened just after WWI and jobs. :nope:

Men that serve in the military can't chose which President to serve ...

I couldn't ... I was 18 for JFK, 19 for LBJ, 24 for Nixon

I didn't even know those US Presidents had personel problems with controlling men and what to do with the power they possesed.

This move has shocked me to send 30,000 troops (which never travel light) to make a full force move on Afgahistan with the clear directive to be out by the year 2011 just in time to welcome the troops home in the middle of another run for the presidency.

When President Obama starts talking about how he is going to solve the problems that his admistration has caused will be the time to turn him off. :smug:

I am suprised no one notice something else he stated. Here is the relevant portion - and I am adding emphasis to show what was missed.

"Let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al-Qaida and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships."

Hmmm - isn't this the guy that said that al-Qaida was pretty much out of Iraq? When they try to move back in - is he going to redeploy the troops he removed to restabilize the region?

More importantly, he mentioned Somalia. The reality is that al-Qaida is known to recruit and finance alot of its efforts in Somalia from neighboring Kenya. *No - I am not tying this to any "truther" conspiracy*

Al Shabob (Al Shabaab?), an al-Qaida linked group, is known to operate and stage from Nairobi (in kenya) to act in Somalia. So when the middle east supposedly starts becoming "settled" (like that will truly ever occur) - will we be looking at sending troops to Africa - both Somalia and also Kenya?

What of the other areas in the world that have become centers of Islamic extremism and violence? Its not just the Middle East and Africa. What about Bolivia in South America? What about Bosnia, which has a erupted previously, and with its religious divisions could easily do so again. Heck, on that note, the entire Balkans area is a valid possibility. What of Bangladesh, a failed state by about any standard, with a substantial majority of Muslims. Turkey has been one nation that, while allied in name, must also be considered as a possible "safe haven" in some areas, due to its current political and social climate. What of Tatarstan, which has an overwhelming majority of its citizenry as Muslims, with a racial decendancy of Tatar? Definitely a possibility. An islamic flavored nationalism, or with the right people seeking haven, an actual islamic republic could easily be created there. Of course we can't forget others, such as Venuzuela or Nicaragua. The leadership of both countries are very chum chum with Iran, which is one of the major sources of real FUNDING of islamic extremism. The economic problems they face could easily have them willing to turn a blind eye to a few extremists trying to rebuild for a price, and before you know it, you have another area being violated by extremists.

While we are at it, add in Xinjiang. A province of China, it is predominantly fundamental islamic, and due to the persecution of all religion by the chinese government, there has already been some push back in that region by militants. Though I do have to say I think the chinese government would squash that ruthlessly on their own if push came to shove.

What the Potus said was he wants to have us out by a certain time, but have no doubt that our forces will be "redirected" to areas where he feels he can gain the most political show points.

Firewall has a valid point on the economic side as well. Obama mentioned that, yet what happens when all these troops come home, return to their jobs (which the employers are mandated to give them back by federal law), and then the numbers of unemployed increases by nearly the same numbers? To do so would exacerbate the economic situation here at home, and provide further facts for the opposition to show how his domestic agenda is a total failure for which the american people are stuck with the bill.

I thought you might be wrong on Bangladesh due to it's being near a Hindu state of India.

But your right ... only 16% is Hindu and 83% is Muslim.

http://countrystudies.us/bangladesh/36.htm

Geetrue, your correct when you post about the accuracy that our submariners can hit land targets. The ability of the Navy to affect sites on land has been critical in our warplans over the last few decades.

Its just unfortunate that hitting a target isn't enough to root out these guys, unless you kill all of them in a meeting. Our intel still lacks the ability to identify and distill this information as it stands.

I also appreciate the fact you went and verified facts. I have been wrong before, as we all have to some extent. Researching things for yourself gives you the most informed views. Wish others were as astute!

Edit: Wrong thread.

Indeed , what about Bolivia in South America, that notorious hotbed of islamic extremism.
While it is true that since February this year Catholicism is no longer the official state religion christianity in its various flavour remains the main flavour, overwhelmingly so.
There is religious problems though and some disagreements, apparently between the Vatican and indiginous religions, just like most of the political arguements are about indiginous issues and land/mineral rights.
Then again its not surprising Bolivia is becoming a hotbed of islamic extreemism as nearly 3% of the population isn't christian.
Then again if you take all the muslims add them to all the Jews Bhuddists Shinto and baha'i then you get the amazing figure of less than 0.2% of the population.

Oh dear , it may have escaped your notice but according to the islamic extremists the people of Iran and the theocracy in Iran are dirty heretics who must be converted or slain in the name of fundamentalist goodness:rotfl2:

Reminds me of an Emo Phillips joke: