Obama General Discussion

[BVS]

He was given a shit situation, in shit situations you're always damned if you do, damned if you don't...

That's what I think about it.

 

[Strongbow]

What is it that you would like to hear?

What you thought of the Presidents speeches on these issues?

I find it easier to post when there's something I disagree with. If I agree with what's happening, I'm not inclined to comment.

Good point. So I guess we could say that the silence might mean FYM is strongly supportive of the Presidents policies on these issues. Perhaps Little San Francisco is turning into Little Missouri.

 

[Strongbow]

He was given a shit situation, in shit situations you're always damned if you do, damned if you don't...

That's what I think about it.

Do you support the Obama surge of 40,000 troops into Afghanistan over the next 6 months?

 

[maycocksean]

What you thought of the Presidents speeches on these issues?



Good point. So I guess we could say that the silence might mean FYM is strongly supportive of the Presidents policies on these issues. Perhaps Little San Francisco is turning into Little Missouri.

The stereotyping is tiresome. I'd appreciate being considered an individual--one, incidentally, who has always been pretty clear about my support for the war in Afghanistan--rather than part of this "faceless liberal horde" you keep referring to on FYM. Really, I've found more nuance and divergent viewpoints among the so-called left-leaning posters here than I have among the handfull of conservatives.

Do you support the Obama surge of 40,000 troops into Afghanistan over the next 6 months?

I do.

 

[Bluer White]

Anyone here that was for the Iraq surge, and is against the Afghan surge? (like me?)

 

[Strongbow]

The stereotyping is tiresome. I'd appreciate being considered an individual--one, incidentally, who has always been pretty clear about my support for the war in Afghanistan--rather than part of this "faceless liberal horde" you keep referring to on FYM..

I was not refering specifically to you, just to the forum in general. That this is a place that generally leans to the left, sometimes hard left, is not really disputed.

Really, I've found more nuance and divergent viewpoints among the so-called left-leaning posters here than I have among the handfull of conservatives.

Well, that actually might just be because there is more of them and only a few conservatives.

I've seen threads opened where people discuss an issue and literally ever single person is on the same side of the debate. Just think how often that would happen if there were no right leaning posters in here.

I've also been in threads where I was literally the only person on the otherside of the debate. Trust me, these things are easier to see when your in the minority.

As a test of how objective and left leaning this place is, I'm thinking of starting a thread asking only non-Bush supporters what they liked about Bush's policies.

I can list policies by every President since World War II that I supported even if I did not vote for that President, but there are dozens in here that probably have never said one good thing about the Bush administration.

 

[INDY500]

Did they give the Heisman Trophy to Barack Obama tonight?

 

[maycocksean]

Anyone here that was for the Iraq surge, and is against the Afghan surge? (like me?)

Interesting. Why do you oppose this surge?

 

[Diemen]

Really? I only bring this up because its rather unusual for this place.

I don't think you got the point of my post.

 

[AliEnvy]

but there are dozens in here that probably have never said one good thing about the Bush administration.

And most are not about to start now by acknowledging that Obama's foreign policy is a virtual continuation of the Bush doctrine. They will simply continue to blame Bush.

A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. Just more deceiving.

 

[Bluer White]

Interesting. Why do you oppose this surge?

First off I'm never going to say the U.S. military "can't" do it, but here's why the Afghan surge is different than Iraq. The mountain terrain isn't an advantageous place for the U.S. to fight. The Taliban and any Al Qaeda can simply retreat deeper into Pakistan if things get too hot and wait us out. The Afghan population is scattered all over the place, making it hard to clear and hold an area.

Culturally the Taliban are not going away soon, they live there. The country lacks the infrastructure, educated population, and natural resources for a decent economy. Their only cash crop is an illegal substance!

It will take six months for the troop build-up, and the president has given them a year or so before beginning some kind of draw down. It's not enough time to fix these problems and I question if any amount of time could fix them. Other than that, it's a great candidate for nation-building

 

[VintagePunk]

And most are not about to start now by acknowledging that Obama's foreign policy is a virtual continuation of the Bush doctrine. They will simply continue to blame Bush.

A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. Just more deceiving.

I've already stated that during the presidential campaign, I disagreed with the arbitrary troop pull-out dates, and I hoped that once Obama was elected, he'd use intelligence and critical thinking capabilities to adjust his plan as needed. He didn't disappoint me. He's cleaning up Bush's mess, just like he should.

First off I'm never going to say the U.S. military "can't" do it, but here's why the Afghan surge is different than Iraq. The mountain terrain isn't an advantageous place for the U.S. to fight. The Taliban and any Al Qaeda can simply retreat deeper into Pakistan if things get too hot and wait us out. The Afghan population is scattered all over the place, making it hard to clear and hold an area.

Culturally the Taliban are not going away soon, they live there. The country lacks the infrastructure, educated population, and natural resources for a decent economy. Their only cash crop is an illegal substance!

It will take six months for the troop build-up, and the president has given them a year or so before beginning some kind of draw down. It's not enough time to fix these problems and I question if any amount of time could fix them. Other than that, it's a great candidate for nation-building

You bring up some very good points. But what is the alternative? Just give up?

 

[Strongbow]

The mountain terrain isn't an advantageous place for the U.S. to fight.

True, but the majority of the population live in area's that are relatively lower in elevation than much of the terrain along the border with Pakistan. The provinces with the most coalition casualties, Helmand and Kandahar, are actually relatively flat compared to the rest of Afghanistan.

The Taliban and any Al Qaeda can simply retreat deeper into Pakistan if things get too hot and wait us out.

The Pakistani military has been very active in 2009 in finding, killing and capturing Taliban in the tribal area's of Pakistan. The tribal area's of Pakistan are not the "safe area's" that they once were.

The focus of the surge is to protect and build the strength of the Afghan population, pursuing the Taliban and Al Quada is secondary to that. If large elements do attempt to hide in Pakistan, it will only make this key part of the surge easier for the coalition.

Even if this was a serious option for the Taliban, waiting out the coalition would only mean that they would then be facing a credible Afghan military and police force supported by the population once they returned.

The insurgency cannot succeed and thrive without the population. Hiding in Pakistan in a sense is self-defeating provided the coalition is able to build the Afghan population up enough to support and defense itself.

The Afghan population is scattered all over the place, making it hard to clear and hold an area.

This is true and is also a key difference with Iraq. But provided the goal of building an Afghan security force of 400,000 military and police is achieved, it can eventually be done. The Surge will be working on the main population area's not every single little villiage. As the main population area's become more secure and sustainable development is achieved, the mission can then be moved and expanded to the less populated area's of the country.

Culturally the Taliban are not going away soon, they live there.

True, but the same could be said for any insurgency in history.

The country lacks the infrastructure, educated population, and natural resources for a decent economy. Their only cash crop is an illegal substance!

True, but much of the same things could be said about Pakistan although not to the degree of Afghanistan, yet Pakistan is considered to be a functioning country with a government and security force strong and stable enough to deal with its internal problems, without the need for foreign troops to be deployed there to help the situation. As distasteful as it might sound, getting Afghanistan to the level of where Pakistan is today would be a huge victory. It would mean that Afghanistan would have a government and military that could largely provide for and defend its people without the need of foreign troops on the ground there.

It will take six months for the troop build-up, and the president has given them a year or so before beginning some kind of draw down. It's not enough time to fix these problems and I question if any amount of time could fix them. Other than that, it's a great candidate for nation-building

Six months is just as fast as the Iraq surge, and it will actually be very difficult to meet that deadline given the much more difficult logistical requirments for supplying and deploying troops to Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq.

There is a goal to start withdrawing some troops 18 months from now, but that goal can be pushed back. Any withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground, not some arbitrary deadline at this point. 18 months is clearly not enough to do and fix everything, but much can be accomplished in that time.

Provided enough time and resources, there is no country or culture that is immune to the effects of security, good governence, sustainable development, and globalization.

 

[Bluer White]

I agree w/ your points, and I hope it's successful. The particular military leaders we have in charge now are brilliant.

I'm just much less optimistic than I was about the Iraq surge. Which makes me wonder why the folks who strongly opposed the Iraq Surge aren't going batshit crazy about this new one.

 

[phillyfan26]

Provided enough time and resources, there is no country or culture that is immune to the effects of security, good governence, sustainable development, and globalization.

This sentence is so incredibly vague that is actually says absolutely nothing.

 

[Strongbow]

This sentence is so incredibly vague that is actually says absolutely nothing.

Its just saying that there is no country or culture that is immune to forces that cause change. Do you disagree?

Do you support Obama's surge of sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan over the next 6 months?

 

[phillyfan26]

Its just saying that there is no country or culture that is immune to forces that cause change. Do you disagree?

Do you support Obama's surge of sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan over the next 6 months?

I can't agree or disagree because it's so vague. "Forces that cause change?" I mean, that's completely subjective.

I have not formed an opinion on Obama's foreign policy plan. I've been out of the loop on that for the last couple of months.

 

[Irvine511]

Which makes me wonder why the folks who strongly opposed the Iraq Surge aren't going batshit crazy about this new one.

i knew this was the subtext.

i'll give you some reasons:

1. most of us, at least myself, understood why we were in Afghanistan and have long pointed to it as the actual war we should be involved in, as opposed to Mr. Bush's Wild Ride in Iraq.

2. i feel confident that Obama makes decisions out of logic and reason, not impatience and vindictiveness; thus, Obama may make many decisions that i disagree with, but i feel better about his own conclusion. this is what adults do, and GWB was most assuredly not an adult (at least not until Gates took over in 2006).

i still don't feel "the surge" achieved it's aims in Iraq, and i'm not optimistic about Afghanistan. i generally agree with your assessment of the military situation. however, i understand Obama's reasons, and i hope he's right.

 

[Strongbow]

I can't agree or disagree because it's so vague. "Forces that cause change?" I mean, that's completely subjective.

Well, lets start with education. Do you think education can be considered something that can change a society? 88% of Afghanistans women cannot read or write. Its been found in Pakistan that women who are literate are much less likely to have sons that grow up to join extremist groups or become sucide bombers.

An Afghan village that has never had running water, electricity, or a school gets all three as well as security to protect the village. How could one say that is not going to make a difference in the lives of the people there?

 

[Strongbow]

i knew this was the subtext.

i'll give you some reasons:

1. most of us, at least myself, understood why we were in Afghanistan and have long pointed to it as the actual war we should be involved in, as opposed to Mr. Bush's Wild Ride in Iraq.

Well much of the discussion in December 2006 and January 2007 was not focused on the question of the invasion of Iraq, but whether the Surge would be an effective strategy for solving Iraq's problems at the time.

i still don't feel "the surge" achieved it's aims in Iraq, and i'm not optimistic about Afghanistan.

Here is what David Sanger recently reported about Obama and his administrations feelings about the Iraq surge in December 2009:

WASHINGTON - President Obama strongly opposed President George W. Bush’s surge in Iraq during his presidential campaign, and even now he has never publicly acknowledged that it was largely successful.

But in the White House Situation Room a little more than a month ago, he told his aides, “It turned out to be a good thing.” And as many of Mr. Obama’s own advisers have recounted in recent days in interviews, the decision on the surge of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan by next summer was at least partly inspired by the success of the effort in Iraq, which Mr. Bush’s aides say is their best hope that historians will give them some credit when the history of a highly problematic war is written.

In fact, Iraq analogies have been flying back and forth so furiously in recent days that Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, the only holdover from the Bush-era cabinet, told Congress, “This is the second surge I’ve been up here defending.”

NYT: Similarities to Iraq surge mask Afghan risks - The New York Times- msnbc.com


How can you look at where Iraq was in January 2007 and where Iraq is now in December 2009, and say that the surge did not work, or at least have a very significant impact on the situation?

The United States military, General Patreus, General McCrystal, Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates, and Barack Obama are certainly NOT operating on the assumption that the surge in Iraq failed, or had no sigificant impact.

It is precisely the huge success of the surge strategy in Iraq which has provided much of the momentum and support around the surge for Afghanistan.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Did anyone watch the Oprah special last night? (probably not because it's Oprah). He gave himself a B+ and said (with a laugh) that if health care passes before the end of the year it would be an A-. He was also on 60 Minutes last night.

He and Michelle have such a natural, easy way with each other. They seem to have a relationship that's truly enviable.

 

[AliEnvy]

^ I watched it for a while before dozing off. They are great to watch interviewed together, very natural and genuine.

Obama's going to get a ton of Whitehouse 'drop by' and Air Force One ride requests now.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think she brings out the best aspects of him

I didn't think he should have given himself a B+..maybe just say that's up to the American people or like Charlie Gibson suggested, an incomplete. Maybe it was just a silly question-like what kind of tree would you be. But you can decline to answer-I think the President can say no to O. Maybe he's the only one who can and still be living.

I have to admit that I was thinking about those silly tabloid stories about Oprah having a thing for Obama and Michelle being upset about it. No catfight ensued. Well at least not on camera

 

[AliEnvy]

lol I didn't know there were tabloid stories about that but I did notice Oprah had that goofy high-school crush look about her the whole time she was with him but I just figured, who wouldn't??

B+ was as a direct yet safe answer as you can get.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I did notice Oprah had that goofy high-school crush look about her the whole time she was with him but I just figured, who wouldn't??

I would. O had so much makeup on too That can be a tell tale sign. It looked really bad in HD.

I asked my mother if Oprah would go for him if he was single and dump Stedman and she said yes, definitely. I think definitely yes as well. If we ever had a hot single President that would be so good on so many levels.

 

[AliEnvy]

Note to Mrs. Obama to beware of MrsSpringsteen!

 

[Irvine511]

I asked my mother if Oprah would go for him if he was single and dump Stedman and she said yes, definitely.

i think Oprah only has eyes for Gayle.

 

[U2DMfan]

Will Obama be insane enough to sign a HC bill with the mandated coverage?

Because if I had to pick one form of political suicide for him, this would be it.
He'd be better off doing almost anything else.

I honestly can't believe it's still in the fucking bill.

As much as it pains me to say, I actually caught myself agreeing with Olbermann's special comment tonight. No, I don't totally share his opinion about the public option (not comfortable with the cost/strain on resources, w/o major tax hike) but I agree 100% with what he said about Lieberman (what a fantastic douche he is) Obama (getting his ass handed to him, politically) and Congress (generally speaking).

But mostly about how Obama might be sealing his fate if he signs a bill with that mandate in it. He might even have a Dem primary challenger in 2012. Because this can easily, easily be argued as a tax hike (not to mention the context of this economy and all his other problems). It's political arsenic by itself (ask Bush 41) but coupled with everything together, he would be done for.

Maybe even a lame-duck for the next 3 years. I'm serious, because the '10 campaigns will begin after the new year and the political hammering will begin, his Dems will have to move away from him (if he signs an 'effective tax hike') and his agenda would then be static. He wouldn't be able to get anything done. Well, more simply, if he loses the House or the Senate in '10, you can kiss those last two years goodbye anyways.

Would he be this stupid or is he waiting for something to happen before he can have it taken out? I really don't know.

On the flipside, he can get healthcare reform, even if it means w/o a public option and claim a monumental political victory. It's just baffling to me right now...

 

[Canadiens1131]

On the flipside, he can get healthcare reform, even if it means w/o a public option and claim a monumental political victory. It's just baffling to me right now...

With the White House (Robert Gibbs) officially calling Howard Dean a boob I feel really bad about where this presidency is headed to be honest.

 

[Irvine511]

Lieberman is a fantastic douche. that is for certain.