Community | March 27, 2009 | 18 comments

Obama Outlines New Afghanistan Strategy

Image
ebindelglass
President Barack Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more military troops into Afghanistan, vowing to ``disrupt, dismantle and defeat'' the Taliban and al-Qaida.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   9/11
  2. tags:
    News News and Politics Politics Obama 7 more
  3.     
    |

18 comments // Obama Outlines New Afghanistan Strategy

  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • HAH! who among you didn't agree with invading afghanistan. I did way way back in 200...1? probably 80 % of the nation did too, maybe more. i bet you did too. afghanistan was the right war. still is, it just should have been won years ago, instead our dick of an ex-president fucked things up about as badly as you possibly could.

      that doesn't mean we should evacuate afghanistan and essentially hand it back to the taliban though. the only reason the war is still going is because the troops were stretched too thin and couldn't cover large sections of territory and because bush didn't have the know-how to address the pakistan problem. it's not like the insurgents can actually stand up to the US army. Thus, the surge will work. Example...Iraq. much as I hate to admit it the surge DID work in Iraq.

    • 2 years ago
  • Papachango
    • 0
      Papachango  
    • Image
    • Wait why is the US killing civilians in Afghanistan? What right did our government have to invade this country?

      After 9/11 The Bush Administration demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama Bin Laden to the United States and the Taliban asked for evidence of his crime. The Bush Administration wouldn't provide any evidence because they didn't have any. Then they invaded.

      The invasion is a major crime. It is not appropriate to bomb a country in order to catch criminals.

    • 2 years ago
  • NeverNude
    • 0
      NeverNude  
    • Papachango:

      thing is, you gotta take any information you get about whats going on over there with a grain of salt. Im not saying that US soldiers haven't done this, but how do you know that that wasnt a spin put on the story to make the US look bad? My point is, if you're in support of the US's actions, you can argue everything in a way that justifies them. If you're against, you can do the same in a way that makes them seem like war criminals. Factual and unbiased journalism isn't a thing of the past, it was never in existence to begin with.

    • 2 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • realitybytes
    • 0
      realitybytes  
    • this is ridiculous. hes continuing bush's policy mainly because they work for the same puppet masters. they are using the fear mongering technique again to further their agenda. this war on terror is b.s. and can never be won.

    • 2 years ago
  • NeverNude
    • 0
      NeverNude  
    • realitybytes:

      funny, this seems much different than Bush's policies when you stop to consider the fact that he actually used these claims to veil his true intentions and invaded A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COUNTRY. but hey you're the smartie pants so whatever.

    • 2 years ago
  • maasanova
  • el_chivo
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • ArmyJuggalo
  • erodut
  • bucketoftruth
    • 0
      bucketoftruth  
    • I'm sorry but this is where we should have been all along. Invading Iraq was taking our eye off the ball. The Taliban/Al Qaeda safe havens in Afghanistan/Pakistan are truly a threat to our national security. Plus, I'm in agreement with most foreign policy analysts that the potential collapse of Pakistan is the most significant threat to not only American national security, but the world as a whole.

      We are going in with counter-insurgency techniques, placing more troops in cities and villages to protect the population. This is the main reason more troops are required, to cover as much of the area as we can. Lets see if it works. And from what Obama says, he is playing the "wait-and-see" game as well.

    • 2 years ago
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  
    • I don't like it, but if this were more of the same, Obama would have said,"Al Qaeda exists, and we must hunt it down wherever it exists. And therefore, we will be invading Canada this weekend."

    • 2 years ago
  • maasanova
    • 0
      maasanova  
    • Image
    • Obama echos the Bush administration.

      FEARMONGER FEARMONGER FEARMONGER FEARMONGER FEARMONGER FEARMONGER

      He said multiple intelligence estimates had warned that al Qaeda was actively planning attacks on the United States from safe havens in the mountainous border regions of Pakistan.

      "For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world," he said.

      FEARMONGER FEARMONGER FEARMONGER FEARMONGER FEARMONGER FEARMONGER

    • 2 years ago
  • NeverNude
    • 0
      NeverNude  
    • maasanova:

      I believe this is much different, Im not going to blindly defend Obama, but Bush had ulterior motives that made it plain to see that he was indeed fear mongering due to the subsequent results (or lack thereof) of his actions and the way he veiled them, not to mention the fact that he carried them out in a completely different place, Iraq. We have no reason to distrust Obama as far as I can see, he could very well have only pure intentions. If an attack were to come from within afghanistan and it came to light that his administration had prior knowledge, you would be the first to decry him for not taking proactive measures. So I suggest you sit down and stfu because despite what you think, you know absolutely no more than anyone else that is not involved with military intelligence or his administration.

    • 2 years ago
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  
    • This excerpt from a NYTimes article on his speech places the rest of the speech into context;

      "President Obama promised neither to write a “'blank check'” nor to “'blindly stay the course'” if his risky new strategy does not achieve its ambitious goals."

    • 2 years ago
  • uppityprogressive
  • revolutioninamerica
more from Community:

top videos