Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

So, President Obama decides to throw out the recommendations of the professionals and wait to see if we can turn things over to the defunct Afghan government (who is having to do a re-election).

Official: Obama Rejects All Afghan War Options - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/11/official-obama-rejects-afghan-war-options/)

He's an idiot. National Security Advisors for the most part are just career politicians as well, and have about as much experiance on matters of war as I do, none.. Why doesn't he just listen to his freaking leaders in the field. Why is that so hard, for so many presidents to do? Let your battlefield commanders do their jobs and listen to their advise. They've been in the warfare business for DECADES.

Hugs not Guns, people.

Now, lets all work harder to understand the rage, and all that we have done to cause it. Accept our responsibility for creating anger with our constant advocating of freedom and justice, and our continued imperialistic advances around the globe with Ronald McDonald and Mickey Mouse. The anger is OUR fault. We need to all hold hands and cry together. We need to let them continue to kill us while we work harder to blame ourselves and listen more.

Hugs not Guns, people.

Now, lets all work harder to understand the rage, and all that we have done to cause it. Accept our responsibility for creating anger with our constant advocating of freedom and justice, and our continued imperialistic advances around the globe with Ronald McDonald and Mickey Mouse. The anger is OUR fault. We need to all hold hands and cry together. We need to let them continue to kill us while we work harder to blame ourselves and listen more.

Quick call 911, the liberal politicians of Chicago has gotten to him and obviously brainwashed him against his will. :willy_nilly:

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Shouldn't that be:

Kumbaya my Obama, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Obama, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Obama, kumbaya
Oh Obama, kumbaya

:leaving:

Kill them all, my sword, kill them all
Kill them all, my sword, kill them all
Kill them all, my sword, kill them all,
Oh sword, kill them all.

Barack Insane Obama

Mmmmmmmm, Mmmmmmmm, Mmmmmmmm

You children best be good, or the Messiah wont bring you anything for Christmas:biggrinjester:

Or is it Ramadan? (Now that we are not a Christian Nation)

You children best be good, or the Messiah wont bring you anything for Christmas:biggrinjester:

Or is it Ramadan? (Now that we are not a Christian Nation)

I think the politcally correct term is now Obamamas :nono:

Oh, don't worry BO...I'm sure my buddies in Afghanistan (one of which has barely seen his first baby since she was born) just love being there while you refuse to make decisions and take vacations. How this man can sleep with himself at night is past my ability to comprehend. :(

Sometimes you just have to sit back and see the bigger picture. The military of any country is an instrument of policy. They're sent out to do a job when diplomacy fails. As von Clausewitz famously put it, war is the continuation of politics by other means. Winning battles isn't the point, achieving political objectives is the point. The military are a means to an end. Generals can tell a president how battles can be won but it's the president who decides if they should be fought in the first place.

Generals can tell a president how battles can be won but it's the president who decides if they should be fought in the first place.

If that is truly how he feels, why do we still have troops there? Why not withdraw the troops if he does not think they should be there, rather than having them getting killed because they lack manpower?

Generals can tell a president how battles can be won but it's the president who decides if they should be fought in the first place.

I dunno, maybe I'm narrowminded, but when a country supports a group of people that flies passenger liners into major office buildings, I think the battle is worthwhile.

Now that we're there, perhaps the President should listen to the generals.

Like a cop, a country's leader should quit trying to be everyone's friend and that's what Obama's doing. He reminds me of Carter in so many ways.

If that is truly how he feels, why do we still have troops there? Why not withdraw the troops if he does not think they should be there, rather than having them getting killed because they lack manpower?

I think it's more a case of make the decision and then act accordingly. It might be popular to pull the military out, but what will follow from that? I have no idea but then I'm not having to make the decision.

I dunno, maybe I'm narrowminded, but when a country supports a group of people that flies passenger liners into major office buildings, I think the battle is worthwhile.

Now that we're there, perhaps the President should listen to the generals.

Like a cop, a country's leader should quit trying to be everyone's friend and that's what Obama's doing. He reminds me of Carter in so many ways.

If I remember rightly the Taleban were negotiating to hand over the terrorists but somehow that got fouled up. And we never did find out how far the Saudis were involved in it.

As I said, the generals can certainly advise on the military aspects but I think that must follow the political decisions that have to be made.

Do you think Obama is trying to be everything to everyone? I don't see it that way, but one thing is for sure, whatever decision he makes is going to be - apart from all the other obvious ramifications - a decider for his political future.

Like a cop, a country's leader should quit trying to be everyone's friend and that's what Obama's doing. He reminds me of Carter in so many ways.


He's worse than Carter and he'll bankrupt the counrty on top of it.

He's worse than Carter and he'll bankrupt the counrty on top of it.

I think that is the plan.

Destroy the Country from within, rebuild it with the framework that is "ACORN" with his brownshirts.

The "Uniter" has turned into the "Divider".

Afghanistan decision expected next week (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/11/24/20091124USAfghanistan24-ON.html)


WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama held a "rigorous final meeting" with his Afghanistan war council and is expected to announce his revised strategy for the eight-year-old conflict just after his Thanksgiving break.

Military officials and others expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces. That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama's last large war council meeting earlier this month, when he tasked military planners with rearranging the timing and makeup of some of the deployments.

The president has said with increasing frequency in recent days that a big piece of the rethinking of options that he ordered had to do with building an exit strategy into the announcement - in other words, revising the options presented to him to clarify when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government and under what conditions.

As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs put it to reporters on Monday, it's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out."

Obama held the 10th meeting of his Afghanistan strategy review since mid-September on Monday night, with a large cast of foreign policy and military advisers, to go over that revised information from war planners. The two-hour Situation Room session was aimed at discussing "some of the questions that the president had, some additional answers to what he'd asked for," Gibbs said.

The spokesman said the president left the war council meeting without announcing a decision to the group, but added it would become public soon.

"After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days," Gibbs said late Monday.

The White House is aiming for an announcement by Obama next week, either Tuesday or Wednesday, after Congress returns from its Thanksgiving break. Military officials, congressional aides and European diplomats said they expect Obama to deliver a national address laying out the revamped strategy.

Congressional hearings would immediately follow that address, including testimony from the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Others likely to take part in hearings would be Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. All four were among the approximately 20 top administration officials and Obama advisers participating in the talks Monday night - one of the biggest groups gathered for these sessions in some time.

The force infusion expected by the military would represent most but not all the troops requested by Obama's war commander, for a retailored war plan that blends elements of McChrystal's counterterror strategy with tactics more closely associated with the CIA's unacknowledged war to hunt down terrorists across the border in Pakistan.

McChrystal presented options ranging from about 10,000 to about 80,000 forces, and told Obama he preferred an addition of about 40,000 atop the record 68,000 in the country now, officials have said.

Obama has already ordered a significant expansion of 21,000 troops since taking office. The war has worsened on his watch, and public support has dropped as U.S. combat deaths have climbed.

The additional troops would be concentrated in the south and east of Afghanistan, the areas where the U.S. already has most of its forces, military officials said. The new troops that already went this year were directed to help relieve Marines stretched to the limit by far-flung postings in Helmand province and that would continue, while the U.S. effort would expand somewhat in Kandahar.

The increase would include at least three Army brigades and a single, larger Marine Corps contingent, officials said.

All officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision is not final.

Ooooh, "rigorous"?? 10th such meeting since the middle of September and we'll let the troops wait until after the President takes time to mull over the decision while he's stuffed with Thanksgiving dinner.

Thanks "CiC". :nono:

Far better to make a sudden decision to invade a country on the flimsiest of evidence and to use the military for dubious reasons? You may not have been keeping up with the inquiry in the UK about the decision to invade Iraq, but it's producing some interesting insights.

Give Obama a bit of credit, he seems to be unwilling to piss lives away.

Remember this isn't a decision to invade, apparently that doesn't take much thinking through, this is a decision about longer term strategy.

Far better to make a sudden decision to invade a country on the flimsiest of evidence and to use the military for dubious reasons? You may not have been keeping up with the inquiry in the UK about the decision to invade Iraq, but it's producing some interesting insights.

Give Obama a bit of credit, he seems to be unwilling to piss lives away.

Remember this isn't a decision to invade, apparently that doesn't take much thinking through, this is a decision about longer term strategy.

Yeah, I'm not detecting any snide comments in that post. Sounds like they came straight from the Daily Kos via BBC.

When you people want to stop blaming all of the worlds ills on the USA, and appreciating our arrogant Bleeder in Chief vacationing around the world on his Apology and Anti-Capitolism Tour, we might hold a conversation.

Until then, just hold all of your envy for our freedoms and advances in check.

As it is, Obama simply lacks any backbone and is following true to form by voting "Present" just as he did on any crucial vote for the two years that he held office as a U.S. Senator.

I am sure he is eagerly awaiting another Cambridge Cop to do his job so that he can chastise and belittle them again just to throw media attention off of the piddle in his pants that is spreading.

If I remember rightly the Taleban were negotiating to hand over the terrorists but somehow that got fouled up. And we never did find out how far the Saudis were involved in it.

As I said, the generals can certainly advise on the military aspects but I think that must follow the political decisions that have to be made.

Do you think Obama is trying to be everything to everyone? I don't see it that way, but one thing is for sure, whatever decision he makes is going to be - apart from all the other obvious ramifications - a decider for his political future.

Baloney. That Taliban never had any intention of handing over Bin Laden and company. And you can bet Bush gave them an ultimatum before the attack. Maybe if Australia had been attacked, you wouldn't be such an apologist. Bin Laden was/is a major financial supporter of the Taliban.

I agree, civilian politicians need to make policy, but sitting on your *** while the troops over there need assistance isn't acceptable. If he doesn't want to do anything, then pull them all out, leave the Canadians, Brits and other NATO armies over there and accept the consequences. I agree that he needs to take time to come up with an exit strategy, but in the meantime he could be sending the troops what they need. FWIW, I was critical of Bush for the same thing, he didn't send enough people and proper equipment either. But to dither on that because of long term policy is bull****.

And no, he's not trying to be everything to everyone. He snubs Republicans right and left. No Republican members of Congress were at this last state dinner, it was primarily Hollywood and his supporters. Bush always invited major Democrats to every state dinner. In the realm of human events, a state dinner means little, but it says loads about his partisan attitude,

I think his political future is going to hinge on the economy here, not foreign policy. When Bush took Clinton's recession, he was held accountable from the day he took office. Obama's been in office now for 10 months and he still hasn't taken responsibility for anything. Democrats have never acknowledged their role in forcing Fannie Mae to make sub prime loans and such that created a lot of this mess. The media and Democrats ( same, same) blame Republicans soley for this financial crisis and that's not what happened. Republicans have a share in it, no doubt, but Barney Frank was quoted in about 2001 that Fannie Mae was financially stable, but needed to make more loans to low income people. They did and now they're defaulting. But no one wants to look at why the government pushed these loans to begin with.

I'm always amazed how Democrats are only concerned about the deficit when Republicans are in office. All during Bush's administration, the media and the Democrats (really the same people) were wringing their hands and crying about how our grandchildren will have to pay for all this. That hue and cry stopped immediately when Obama started ratcheting it up. The Democratic leadership couldn't care less about it as long as they have money to spend.

His stimulus was a disaster and they still are juggling numbers and flat out lying about the jobs it created. He's following the same policies that failed FDR for nearly 10 years. You cannot take money from one segment of the population and give it to another in the form of short term government jobs and expect the economy to improve. I just read that the real unemployment rate now is about 17% in this country when you factor in the people who ran out of unemployment insurance and have just given up. The recorded rate is about 12% last I saw.

The people of this country will toss a politician over the economy faster than they will for anything else. If history repeats itself, as it almost always does, we are now going to be in for inflation in a few years. He can only blame Bush so long and people are going to get tired of it. His approval rating now among white people is down to 39%. I suspect his supporters will start crying racism soon even though the majority of white people put him in office to begin with.

Carter lost more because of the economy than the Iran Hostage situation, although that was a factor. Reagan was reelected primarily because the economy was good. It was starting to falter under Bush I and he lost. Clinton, with all his warts was reelected because the economy was booming. People didn't care that he had the morals and honesty of a tomcat as long as they had jobs. Bush won, I believe because Gore was preaching that we had to reduce our economy (read lose jobs) to save the planet, but let India and China continue to pollute. I don't think Bush won as much as Gore lost. People weren't that choked up about Bush in 2004 because of Iraq, but again the economy trumped foreign policy. It was good then and people had jobs. Why risk that with some goofball like Kerry that was strutting around with his questionable medals and little else to offer?

People are getting weary of Obama's poor performance in the economy. As much as the media ballyhoo's Iraq and Afghanistan troop loses, more people are killed in any major city in this country on a monthly basis than die in either war. The media is again trying to drum up opposition to them, but you don't see the anything nearly like outrage they try to lead people to believe. It says something in this country when conservatives rather than liberals take to the streets.

Give Obama a bit of credit, he seems to be unwilling to piss lives away.


FLASH

You piss lives away when you let them be outnumbered and out gunned which is what's happening in Afghanistan.

Yeah, I'm not detecting any snide comments in that post. Sounds like they came straight from the Daily Kos via BBC.

When you people want to stop blaming all of the worlds ills on the USA, and appreciating our arrogant Bleeder in Chief vacationing around the world on his Apology and Anti-Capitolism Tour, we might hold a conversation.

Until then, just hold all of your envy for our freedoms and advances in check.

As it is, Obama simply lacks any backbone and is following true to form by voting "Present" just as he did on any crucial vote for the two years that he held office as a U.S. Senator.

I am sure he is eagerly awaiting another Cambridge Cop to do his job so that he can chastise and belittle them again just to throw media attention off of the piddle in his pants that is spreading.

I don't do talking points, I don't learn much that way.

I also don't do envy - I'm perfectly happy where I am ;)

FLASH

You piss lives away when you let them be outnumbered and out gunned which is what's happening in Afghanistan.

Just on that, it's probably about being outmaneouvered as well. But the military is a tool of foreign policy. Right now the tough decision is to go with the status quo until a well thought-through decision has been made. A bad decision could see the current situation deteriorate even worse than it is already.

As for me being an apologist. No, I'm not, I'm simply a realist.

And yes domestic situations are far more likely to bring down a government than foreign policy although being stuck in a couple of quagmires isn't the best. Afghanistan is a complete stuff-up. The West has backed a corrupt regime because the only other regime is viciously Islamist. How we get out of this is beyond me, I hope those who are faced with making the decision on strategy are up to it.

Just on that, it's probably about being outmaneouvered as well. But the military is a tool of foreign policy. Right now the tough decision is to go with the status quo until a well thought-through decision has been made. A bad decision could see the current situation deteriorate even worse than it is already.

Obviously, you've never been in a situation where you were out gunned and out numbered with people trying to kill you. I have. I can assure you that in that position, foreign policy doesn't mean jack **** to you.

Either put enough people there or take them out. Don't sit on your *** and think about it.

And you sound more like an apologist when you come up with the bull**** that the Taliban was negotiating handing over Bin Laden. You're looking for any reason to blame Bush for invading and taking them out. According to your thinking, the Japanese were surrendering when we dropped the a-bomb on them. At least a lot of history revisionists are have said although there is no shred of evidence to support that either.

What part of these people were directing attacks on the American people from there under the protection of the Taliban don't you get?

Maybe the part where Australia sends more foreign aid and Emergency relief to most other countries who are in need of it... and some not so much... than any of the rest of the countries on the planet? :skep:

Maybe some day the rest of the planet will cut us a break for fighting battles they should be fighting harder and attempting to stop Islamic Radicals from destroying the non-Islamic world and us along with it.

Obviously, you've never been in a situation where you were out gunned and out numbered with people trying to kill you. I have. I can assure you that in that position, foreign policy doesn't mean jack **** to you.

Either put enough people there or take them out. Don't sit on your *** and think about it.

And you sound more like an apologist when you come up with the bull**** that the Taliban was negotiating handing over Bin Laden. You're looking for any reason to blame Bush for invading and taking them out. According to your thinking, the Japanese were surrendering when we dropped the a-bomb on them. At least a lot of history revisionists are have said although there is no shred of evidence to support that either.

What part of these people were directing attacks on the American people from there under the protection of the Taliban don't you get?

Obviously, you've never been in a situation where you were out gunned and out numbered with people trying to kill you. I have. I can assure you that in that position, foreign policy doesn't mean jack **** to you.

And nor would I expect it to.

Either put enough people there or take them out. Don't sit on your *** and think about it.

Which is what the military appreciation of the situation would dictate. Unfortunately for the military they are beholden to the politicians who are using the military to prosecute foreign policy. The sad truth is that while the wellbeing of the military in the field is important it isn't as important as achieving those foreign policy objectives.

And you sound more like an apologist when you come up with the bull**** that the Taliban was negotiating handing over Bin Laden. You're looking for any reason to blame Bush for invading and taking them out. According to your thinking, the Japanese were surrendering when we dropped the a-bomb on them. At least a lot of history revisionists are have said although there is no shred of evidence to support that either.

What part of these people were directing attacks on the American people from there under the protection of the Taliban don't you get?

The forthcoming trials will probably give more information on the activities that led up to the atrocities.


New offer on Bin Laden
Minister makes secret trip to offer trial in third country

The Guardian, Wednesday 17 October 2001 03.22 BST
A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.
For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.
But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership.
The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister and a man who is often regarded as a more moderate figure in the regime.
He met officials from the CIA and Pakistan's ISI intelligence directorate in Islamabad on Monday. US officials pressed the minister for a sweeping change in the regime. "They are trying to persuade him to get the moderate elements together," another source said.

New offer on Bin Laden | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11)

Maybe the part where Australia sends more foreign aid and Emergency relief to most other countries who are in need of it... and some not so much... than any of the rest of the countries on the planet? :skep:

Maybe some day the rest of the planet will cut us a break for fighting battles they should be fighting harder and attempting to stop Islamic Radicals from destroying the non-Islamic world and us along with it.


Foreign policy is a bit like Al Capone's quip, you know the one about a smile and a gun?

The US it has to be said is a major contributor of foreign aid and Emergency relief and I acknowledge that it does so even to those nations which it doesn't particularly enjoy good relations with. I'm put in mind of the earthquake in Iran a few years ago. But the US has the capability as well as the will. I have no doubt though that many in the US, as they do here in my country where we are, per capita, a major contributor in foreign aid and Emergency relief, put up the cry “charity begins at home.”

The US has fought battles in its own interest for quite some years. Altruism isn't something that should drive foreign policy, it should be national self-interest. The US has historically had a belligerent foreign policy in its own hemisphere and latterly in the rest of the world. That foreign policy, whether it be by the use of the gun or by the use of food aid, has secured its interests and those of American corporations.

As for the Islamic radicals. So far not too good is it? Iraq has been transformed from a secular state to a Shi'ite theocracy posing as a democracy. It's now very good friends with Iran. Hello? Afghanistan is a mess. Yes I know, other nations have tried to occupy it for strategic advantage and have come a cropper. Such is the nature of the place. The very people who were useful in the west's foreign policy in driving out the Soviets from Afghanistan occupied the vacuum left behind. The Taleban were “freedom fighters” when they were shooting at the Soviets, now they're the enemy because they're shooting at our troops. The law of unintended consequences, do you think that's something Obama is trying to avoid?

The Taleban were “freedom fighters” when they were shooting at the Soviets, now they're the enemy because they're shooting at our troops.

Not quite correct. Your time line is a little off. They became our enemy when they supported, backed and harbored our enemies.

Then the shooting started!

Not quite correct. Your time line is a little off. They became our enemy when they supported, backed and harbored our enemies.

Then the shooting started!

For me they were always the enemy, I can't stomach that sort of religious tyranny they brought to "government" in Afghanistan.

I noticed this forum has been dead a while. Maybe I can pull out the pattles and give it a jolt! So anyone see that the Obozo Admin was given an "F" on protecting the United States against Bio-Terrorism? Also, in the recent MA elections, where (R) Scott Brown beat (D) Martha Cloakly in the heavily dominated Democratic state, on the top three lists of reason voters choose Scott Brown over the Democratic was because of the Obozo's Admin's soft approach to terrorism. Americans are quickly seeing the ultra liberal agenda being pushed my the Obozo admin and Democrat's in Washington and are overwheling rejecting it. Its going to be a blood bath for demos in Nov, and come 2012, GOODBYE Obama!!!!