Oh, that's right.



Clinton never tried to kill OBL.

Carter? I don't think OBL was a threat in the 1970s.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Apparently we do given that The Taliban has made a comeback in some areas. Since the initial attack was on us it is reasonable to assume we could offer more troops to NATO.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

So now you're for putting american troops under the authority of a foreign power? Sounds about right for dems.

Varus

That's right Clinton outright refused OBL when offered by the sudanese. And Carter didn't have the nutz to rescue those kidnapped americans; he actually negotaited with those f*cks.

Varus

Obama has always said that he is not "one of those pacifists" (his words) but that its this war he doesn't support.

I'd love to think he's finally decided on a war he could support but then again he is fighting Hillary for the nomination of his party and he is has twice been made an idiot by her when he firstly said that if we were attacked again he'd get the first responders sorted where as she said she'd retaliate and then he said he'd meet with crackpot U.S. hating leaders when she said she wouldn't so i guess you have to take this with a pinch of salt.

Is he becomming like her and is now willing to say anything to help him get elected? He said the other day he wasn't "Bush and Cheney lite", he sounds more like "Hillary-lite".

His willingness to negotiate with murderous thugs is a deal-breaker. It didn't work for Clinton and NK and it won't work today with Iran, NK, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, or any of the other countries that routinely blackmail the US with the threat of violence.

Varus

I'm sorry. I thought we are a member of NATO. My mistake.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

We don't need 160 000 troops in Afghanistan like we do in Iraq! That's just preposterous.

You may think we need slightly more but overall the amount of troops but we have a lesser percentage of the overall troops in Afghanistan than we do in Iraq in relation to howmany of our own troops we have. We have something like 20 000 in Afghanistan but that's less than half the overall force where as in Iraq we have some 160 000 which is 95% of the force in Iraq.

Untrue.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

So you think it is acceptable to have allowed The Taliban to still be around in Afghanistan and to not have caught Osama and who knows how many other al-Qaeda to get away so we could have as many troops as we have now in Iraq? I'm sorry but I see al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan who plotted 9/11 to be our main enemy that should be taken care of first and only a portion of what we put in Iraq probably would have gotten the job done there.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But surely you don't think we need 160 000 troops in Afganistan?

Not that many. However we do not seem to have many to spare for what increases we would need.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

You have to remember that we've been in Afghanistan a year and a half longer than in Iraq, we've been in there for what will be the best part of 6 years this fall and until last year or so nobody even voiced anything about the Taliban regaining strength. For me we've done a fantastic job there and to keep a pretty steady level of activity (not being more or less aggressive) and staying constant is very difficult. We routed out the Talban and Al Qaeda within the first year or so but to maintain things at that level for years to come is very difficult without doing something. If maybe we'd have gotten out sooner and forced the Afghans to take control of their own country the way liberals and the Dems have said this administration should to Al Qaeda maybe they wouldn't have resurfaced? I still think we're doing a great job there and winning more than comfortably against Al Qaeda.

I'm not saying we haven't made progress but I think we need to go after them into Pakistan and putting more resources into that or even Afghanistan would not be a bad thing and would obviously produce better results.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Well everyone knows about the problems with Iraq's borders so why not put the same pressure on the Afghans on their borders.

And there has been so much talk about "having" to talk to Iran and Syria yet Karzai and Musharraf can't stand each other, they openly criticise each other and the other's country and have never spoken privately, (one on one) ever.