If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Romney: "Obama is 'naive' for saying exactly when we're leaving Afghanistan." Leon Panetta: "Uhm, 50 NATO nations, President Obama and President Bush all agree that you're an idiot"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 177
    More: Dumbass, Afghanistan, President Obama, President Bush, NATO  
•       •       •

4475 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 May 2012 at 2:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-05-27 02:11:25 PM
The country should be ran like a business. Listening to these foreign interests is counter-intuitive. We don't cater to them. We cater to the shareholders (read: taxpayers.)
 
2012-05-27 02:12:46 PM
They said Obama was naive to tell Pakistan that he would take out Bin Laden with or without their assistance.

How'd that work out again?

"Naive" is pretty much the definition of anyone thinking about voting for Gordon Gekko here.

Saying what you are going to do and then doing is how you garner credibility in this world.

Apparently, the GOP have forgotten this.
 
2012-05-27 02:13:02 PM
Why does Leon Panetta, President Obama and President Bush all hate a true, Reaganist, hard working patriotic Conservative like Romney?
 
2012-05-27 02:14:30 PM
Mitt Romney is exactly like that wacky character in every 80s sitcom who doesn't speak English as a native language, and every time they open their mouths, some hilarious misspeak or malapropism comes flying out.
 
2012-05-27 02:14:32 PM
Does Romney have a reason why we shouldn't have a plan for leaving Afghanistan?
 
2012-05-27 02:15:44 PM

qorkfiend: Does Romney have a reason why we shouldn't have a plan for leaving Afghanistan?


The 34th rule of acquisition?
 
2012-05-27 02:16:36 PM
There you go, Romney can clearly unite people together in their disdain of Romney.
 
2012-05-27 02:16:45 PM

quatchi: They said Obama was naive to tell Pakistan that he would take out Bin Laden with or without their assistance.

How'd that work out again?

"Naive" is pretty much the definition of anyone thinking about voting for Gordon Gekko here.

Saying what you are going to do and then doing is how you garner credibility in this world.

Apparently, the GOP have forgotten this.


Romney is Gordon Gekko, Paulie Walnuts AND Joe Isuzu combined.
 
2012-05-27 02:17:21 PM
This kind of rhetoric could force Romney , should he win, to keep troops in Afghanistan longer, and with no clear goals. People will die, for no particular reason. Romney is okay with American soldiers dying uselessly if it helps him get elected; that's just the kind of man he is.
 
2012-05-27 02:18:32 PM
Romney's foreign policy experience stems from his extensive background cycling around Paris during the Viet Nam war.
 
2012-05-27 02:19:21 PM
I like how he thinks that we could just suddenly get rid of all the troops and equipment there that we'd need to take with us...overnight. (Which, while sort-of strawman, is kind of what he infers by it being naive to give indication on when we are leaving) Yeah, we'll fly out every last person, send in every helicopter ever made to lift out all the equipment and also give no hints that we are leaving, SO HEY NO PACKING! Business as usual until the very last second.

Hell, if we want the Taliban to be dissolved we should see if Rmoney could oversee Bain Capital to acquire it.
 
2012-05-27 02:20:01 PM

qorkfiend: Does Romney have a reason why we shouldn't have a plan for leaving Afghanistan?


well, if we leave afghanistan, then we have no reason to keep spending massive amounts on the military.
 
2012-05-27 02:21:29 PM

qorkfiend: Does Romney have a reason why we shouldn't have a plan for leaving Afghanistan?


This is the same criticism that they used about Iraq. You can have a plan to leave, but you can't ever tell anyone the date of the plan, the contents of the plan, or do anything procedurally that appears to be part of this plan, as it shows weakness to our enemies. Essentially, you have to be able to teleport all forces out of the country in a flash, or your plan is unacceptable to the GOP.
 
2012-05-27 02:22:52 PM

qorkfiend: Does Romney have a reason why we shouldn't have a plan for leaving Afghanistan?


His donors as KBR wouldn't like their loss of income.

Republican Party => Perpetual War
Republican Party => Perpetual War
Republican Party => Perpetual War
 
2012-05-27 02:23:11 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Romney's foreign policy experience stems from his extensive background cycling around Paris during the Viet Nam war.


Is interesting that Romney was in favor of the Viet Nam draft. Especially since he was exempt from it.
wow
just wow
 
2012-05-27 02:24:29 PM

namatad: Is interesting that Romney was in favor of the Viet Nam draft. Especially since he was exempt from it.


Not "especially since". "Because".
 
2012-05-27 02:25:24 PM
I thought department officials were supposed to keep out of politics.

/change!!!
 
2012-05-27 02:26:27 PM
Will they really and truly vote in a candidate (or even vote FOR one, knowing their boy will flop) whose cult preaches that he's a god? That we're all - wait a moment, this is getting too ridiculous to keep typing over.

Want to get scared? Just peep at the Wikipedia summary of the LDS, and then look at Rmoney's own history. And consider how anyone but a real coon hunter or KKK devotee would consider holding their nose and voting for such a gold-plated weird-o.
 
2012-05-27 02:27:12 PM

Free_Chilly_Willy: I thought department officials were supposed to keep out of politics.

/change!!!


When you have a presidential candidate attacking and attempting to undermine the current activities of departments, it is wholly appropriate for the people responsible to respond, you jackass.
 
2012-05-27 02:29:57 PM
While not disagreeing with the sentiment, I would be worried that your Secretary of Defense doesn't know who your allies are. There are only 28 NATO members, I am guessing that he was referring to members of the NATO led ISAF, which has around 50 contributing countries.
 
2012-05-27 02:30:33 PM
I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?
 
2012-05-27 02:30:40 PM
Ok, so what was Romney's plan then? If announcing when you are leaving is naive, I assume you don't announce when you are leaving? Leaving aside the tactical implications of that, what does he expect that to accomplish? Say they magically pulled it off, does he think the Taliban isn't going to notice they are gone? Or that the allies aren't going to notice that they suddenly are lacking a lot of support?
 
2012-05-27 02:32:47 PM

SpeedyBB: Want to get scared? Just peep at the Wikipedia summary of the LDS, and then look at Rmoney's own history. And consider how anyone but a real coon hunter or KKK devotee would consider holding their nose and voting for such a gold-plated weird-o.


You realize if he wins the election, according to the LDS, Romney gets his own planet just like the old testament God.
 
2012-05-27 02:33:49 PM

sirgrim: The country should be ran like a business. Listening to these foreign interests is counter-intuitive. We don't cater to them. We cater to the shareholders (read: taxpayers.)


We should outsource everything, cut costs so our suppliers and vendors go out of business, and increase income inequality?

Yea. Great plan there.
 
2012-05-27 02:36:02 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


Where Obama fails it is in taking overly conservative positions, therefore they can't attack his actual weaknesses without attacking themselves.
 
2012-05-27 02:36:16 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


To kinda allude to the Obama being Carter Comparison:

Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan.

In other words, Carter was flawed and Reagan was able to exploit it to his advantage and win over voters who were disgruntled with Carter. Romney hasn't been able to do that yet. Especially if he can't fire up the base like Reagan did.
 
2012-05-27 02:38:21 PM
We don't need to know when we're leaving Afghanistan.
We need to know how they plan to leave it in a manner that doesn't lead to a Taliban resurgence and a new regional disaster.
 
2012-05-27 02:39:55 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


Romney is an incompetent? Obama's foreign policy is widely excepted as successful to this point so attacking that strength doesn't work? Concerned?
 
2012-05-27 02:40:13 PM
Why in the world do you go to the people that you're fighting with and tell them the day you're pulling out your troops?"

Romney was too busy duct taping the buttocks of nerdy kids to pay attention in World History class.
 
2012-05-27 02:40:27 PM

way south: We don't need to know when we're leaving Afghanistan.
We need to know how they plan to leave it in a manner that doesn't lead to a Taliban resurgence and a new regional disaster.


That's why we need to train the troops in Afghanistan and leave it to them to figure it out. Because otherwise we'll have to be a perpetual babysitter for Afghanistan (which I think the GOP would be ok with TBH).
 
2012-05-27 02:40:30 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


Romney is literally an empty suit with no real firm position on any hot topic. He isn't credible to anyone, and it's hilarious to watch his former opponents endorse him while smiling through their teeth. My bf's father said, "I don't like Romney but if that's who they pick, he's got my vote"; my parents feel the same way. The republicans don't like him, but they have to. It's like getting an ugly ass sweater on Christmas day from your aunt Aileen when you thought you were getting a pony, or in this case an elephant. Meanwhile, obamas just laughing his ass off, biding his time until he has to start campaigning because, well... Romneys doing it for him already.
 
2012-05-27 02:40:40 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


R-money is wealthy, purchased the candidacy, surrounded himself with sycophants that only know how to agree with him, but is a crappy politician.

I await his violent meltdown where he lets loose his well documented bad temper and, on camera, attempts to choke to death a reporter in Tampa Bay, very likely a woman.
 
2012-05-27 02:41:13 PM

way south: We don't need to know when we're leaving Afghanistan.
We need to know how they plan to leave it in a manner that doesn't lead to a Taliban resurgence and a new regional disaster.


um
There is no way that the taliban wont take over the day after we leave. That was a given on the day we went in. Unless we are planning on killing everyone living in afghanistan and on the paki border ...
 
2012-05-27 02:41:30 PM

Rann Xerox: Romney is Gordon Gekko, Paulie Walnuts AND Joe Isuzu combined.


[donotwant]

When Obama announced a tentative timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan on the anniversary of OBL's death I thought to myself... Well, THIS makes a nice change from back in the bad ole BushCo days when generals were forced into early retirement for even using the words "Exit" and "Strategy" in the same sentence.
 
2012-05-27 02:42:56 PM

way south: We need to know how they plan to leave it in a manner that doesn't lead to a Taliban resurgence and a new regional disaster.


WTF. While there, the US has led to a Taliban resurgence and a regional disaster
 
2012-05-27 02:44:44 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


The fact that the Majority of Romney's attacks are vague generalizations about things (this is his most specific) and not include any alternative. When you attack a position (as opposed to attacking a person), you must put up an alternative in order for the attack to be truly effective.

If Romney had said, "Announcing a withdrawal date is a bad idea because it tells the terrorists they just have to wait until this date to attack. Instead we should announce that as of [insert date] we will begin drawing down our troop levels based on the situation with the final end of operations based on events in the country" it would be much better as it a) attacks Obama's position and b) provides an alternative for people to rally around and is vague enough to be easily defended now and in the future if it fails to happen.
 
2012-05-27 02:45:38 PM

Bhruic: Ok, so what was Romney's plan then? If announcing when you are leaving is naive, I assume you don't announce when you are leaving? Leaving aside the tactical implications of that, what does he expect that to accomplish? Say they magically pulled it off, does he think the Taliban isn't going to notice they are gone? Or that the allies aren't going to notice that they suddenly are lacking a lot of support?


Romney's used to buying out a company while chumming up to the regional directors and having them tell all the employees that their company has a new vision and is heading in new and bold directions and things are going to be a lot better very soon, all the while completely intending on unceremoniously firing everybody in the cheapest way possible. Not quite sure how that translates to foreign policy, specifically, but I'd imagine it would be at least just as horrific.
 
2012-05-27 02:46:25 PM
So how are we supposed to leave? Will the Army just drop a smoke bomb and sneak out while the Taliban is coughing? Don't you think they might notice when we start to pack up and leave?
 
2012-05-27 02:47:03 PM
Yeah alumni!
 
2012-05-27 02:47:31 PM

Xyphoid: if we want the Taliban to be dissolved we should see if Rmoney could oversee Bain Capital to acquire it.


:D
 
2012-05-27 02:47:48 PM

way south: We don't need to know when we're leaving Afghanistan.
We need to know how they plan to leave it in a manner that doesn't lead to a Taliban resurgence and a new regional disaster.


We could stay there for a hundred years and it wouldn't change a thing. There is absolutely nothing we can do to make Afghanistan a decent place to live or anything other than a complete clusterfark. It may be that in the far future the Afghanis will get their shiat together, but this will never happen while the nation is occupied by foreign powers. Sometimes there is no really satisfactory alternative and the best you can hope for is the least bad one.
 
2012-05-27 02:48:13 PM

Delay: TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?

R-money is wealthy, purchased the candidacy, surrounded himself with sycophants that only know how to agree with him, but is a crappy politician.

I await his violent meltdown where he lets loose his well documented bad temper and, on camera, attempts to choke to death a reporter in Tampa Bay, very likely a woman.


Yuppo, I feel we are well on our way to an on-camera Mittfrontation of epic proportions.

25.media.tumblr.com

/What a GIS for 'Mittfrontation' might yield.
//Hot like an angry Mitt.
 
2012-05-27 02:48:33 PM

Delay: way south: We need to know how they plan to leave it in a manner that doesn't lead to a Taliban resurgence and a new regional disaster.

WTF. While there, the US has led to a Taliban resurgence and a regional disaster


But to be fair, we kinda dropped the ball on that when we went from fighting Al Qadea to fighting countries that were mean to the President's daddy.
 
2012-05-27 02:48:49 PM
Why is R-money running, again? Is his heart into this?
 
2012-05-27 02:50:46 PM

Coco LaFemme: Mitt Romney is exactly like that wacky character in every 80s sitcom who doesn't speak English as a native language, and every time they open their mouths, some hilarious misspeak or malapropism comes flying out.


balki_bartokamous.jpg
 
2012-05-27 02:50:55 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Why is R-money running, again? Is his heart into this?


Acquisition.
 
2012-05-27 02:51:21 PM
This just in: Fark Romney
 
2012-05-27 02:51:32 PM
Romney is seriously bad at foreign policy. Even worse than Bush. There's this, his Russian gaff, playing into Iran's saber-rattling, looking to military solutions first for every problem in the world, firing his foreign policy spokesman for being gay, and on and on.

What's worse is that foreign policy is one of the things the president has the most control over and Romney thinks that his his strong suit is the economy, which is one of the things the president has the least control over.
 
2012-05-27 02:53:54 PM
Why in the world do you go to the people that you're fighting with and tell them the day you're pulling out your troops?"

Well Willard, if you hadn't spent the Vietnam War preaching to the heathen French, you might realize there is no subtle way to withdraw that much men and materiel from a foreign country without even illiterate goat-herders noticing.

"Hmm, the ISAF forces are shutting down their smaller, more remote firebases and outposts and withdrawing to the major FOBs and LSAs. The number of outgoing convoys has quadrupled, while incoming convoys have decreased by half. Departing units aren't being relieved by fresh troops. They're also giving away tons of brand new shiat to the Afghan National Army."

"Huh, that's pretty much what happened when the Americans pulled out of Iraq. Do you think they're finally leaving our homeland?"

"Nah, it's just a weird coincidence. Hey, let's go shoot some little girls in the head for learning to read."
 
2012-05-27 02:57:58 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Romney's foreign policy experience stems from his extensive background cycling around Paris during the Viet Nam war.


Here's Romney's Vietnam experience:

www.addictinginfo.org

Willard Romney is the guy in the white slacks and blazer. He's literally protesting IN FAVOR of the Vietnam War - while as a draft-age college student. Those deferments are a wonderful thing aren't they Willard?
 
2012-05-27 02:58:57 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


Romney just isn't very good at this. And most of the areas that Obama is vulnerable on, the GOP has even less popular stances. Criticizing drone strikes and "Obama's wars" and entitlement spending is all well and good, unless you are also campaigning on a more muscular foreign policy (including invading Iran) and trying to keep the old people that receive these entitlements in line.

And Romney can't really go down the religion path, or the "campaigner in chief" path or the "Obama just doesn't get the average American wink wink" path.
 
2012-05-27 03:00:47 PM

quatchi:

/What a GIS for 'Mittfrontation' might yield.
//Hot like an angry Mitt.


That looks a lot more like Romney's pooping face.
 
2012-05-27 03:05:01 PM

BSABSVR: quatchi:

/What a GIS for 'Mittfrontation' might yield.
//Hot like an angry Mitt.

That looks a lot more like Romney's pooping face.


I thought that was this one:

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-27 03:06:08 PM
MoRmoney to Merica: What would Dick Cheney do about Afghanistan at this point? He'd do what I'd do, Strap it to the roof of my car and drive around for a few hours until it pooped itself, then "hose it down" and drive around some more.
 
2012-05-27 03:07:25 PM
Yes, yes. Naive for advocating a timetable in Iraq. Naive for talking about going in to Pakistan. Naive for refocusing on Afghanistan. Naive for a timetable in Afghanistan.

And yet, no matter how little experience he has in foreign policy...it is still more experience than Romney. Added in to the fact that he has several foreign policy successes.

Why, on Earth, would Romney make this a plan of attack?

I mean, I guess that's all there is when you have to choose to advocate extremely conservative social positions and Bush's economic positions.
 
2012-05-27 03:07:44 PM

thamike: BSABSVR: quatchi:

/What a GIS for 'Mittfrontation' might yield.
//Hot like an angry Mitt.

That looks a lot more like Romney's pooping face.

I thought that was this one:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x353]


Penis goes where?
 
2012-05-27 03:08:10 PM
Romney: "Why in the world do you go to the people that you're fighting with and tell them the day you're pulling out your troops?"

Why would you tell your offspring they have until the end of the month to find a job and pay their own bills?
 
2012-05-27 03:09:04 PM

thamike: BSABSVR: quatchi:

/What a GIS for 'Mittfrontation' might yield.
//Hot like an angry Mitt.

That looks a lot more like Romney's pooping face.

I thought that was this one:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x353]


"When I win I'm gonna show this country my O-face. Oh! Oh! Oh!"
 
2012-05-27 03:09:48 PM

moops: Soup4Bonnie: Romney's foreign policy experience stems from his extensive background cycling around Paris during the Viet Nam war.

Here's Romney's Vietnam experience:

[www.addictinginfo.org image 634x495]

Willard Romney is the guy in the white slacks and blazer. He's literally protesting IN FAVOR of the Vietnam War - while as a draft-agedodging college student. Those deferments are Sending poor people to die while your parents use their wealth to protect you from meeting the same fate is a wonderful thing aren't they isn't it, Willard?

 
2012-05-27 03:11:19 PM

Sgt Otter: Why in the world do you go to the people that you're fighting with and tell them the day you're pulling out your troops?"

Well Willard, if you hadn't spent the Vietnam War preaching to the heathen French, you might realize there is no subtle way to withdraw that much men and materiel from a foreign country without even illiterate goat-herders noticing.

"Hmm, the ISAF forces are shutting down their smaller, more remote firebases and outposts and withdrawing to the major FOBs and LSAs. The number of outgoing convoys has quadrupled, while incoming convoys have decreased by half. Departing units aren't being relieved by fresh troops. They're also giving away tons of brand new shiat to the Afghan National Army."

"Huh, that's pretty much what happened when the Americans pulled out of Iraq. Do you think they're finally leaving our homeland?"

"Nah, it's just a weird coincidence. Hey, let's go shoot some little girls in the head for learning to read."


Maybe his plan is to just leave everyone there and just act like they don't exist and send nothing else in, it'll prevent that whole "we're leaving" thing and everyone will be surprised. He'll work out those other details later, if he can get around to it. That's a way to end a war.
 
2012-05-27 03:12:04 PM

namatad: There is no way that the taliban wont take over the day after we leave. That was a given on the day we went in.


The ISAF is only pulling out combat troops. The training and advisory structure is staying. We're only pulling out in a way---there will be plenty of military trainers and drones sticking around.
 
2012-05-27 03:12:11 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Why would you tell your offspring they have until the end of the month to find a job and pay their own bills?


I'm reasonably sure R-money never had that conversation with his parents. He would have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2012-05-27 03:14:50 PM

BSABSVR: Oh! Oh! Oh!"


www.findadeath.com
 
2012-05-27 03:15:03 PM

Bhruic: Ok, so what was Romney's plan then? If announcing when you are leaving is naive, I assume you don't announce when you are leaving? Leaving aside the tactical implications of that, what does he expect that to accomplish? Say they magically pulled it off, does he think the Taliban isn't going to notice they are gone? Or that the allies aren't going to notice that they suddenly are lacking a lot of support?


Cardboard cut out soldiers. Inflatable tanks. Some fireworks.

Basically, anything you saw in Home Alone.
 
2012-05-27 03:16:48 PM

Gwyrddu: There you go, Romney can clearly unite people together in their disdain of Romney.


As opposed to unite people apart, I suppose.
 
2012-05-27 03:21:49 PM

malaktaus: This kind of rhetoric could force Romney , should he win, to keep troops in Afghanistan longer, and with no clear goals. People will die, for no particular reason. Romney is okay with American soldiers dying uselessly if it helps him get elected; that's just the kind of man he is.


No kind of rhetoric is going to force Romney to do anything. It doesn't matter what he says or promises. The goal is to get him elected. Once he's in the Oval Office the Etch a Sketch will be shaken and he will do exactly as he pleases, with or without reference to what he's said before. What exactly will he do? We won't know that until he's elected, and shame on you for even asking.
 
2012-05-27 03:25:34 PM
He's upset because Bain Capital is invested heavily in selling weapons to BOTH sides.
 
2012-05-27 03:35:17 PM
Romney said. "His secretary of defense said that on a certain date ... we're going to pull out our combat troops from Afghanistan. Why in the world do you go to the people that you're fighting with and tell them the day you're pulling out your troops?"

Oh, wait...you're serious?

/laughing even harder
 
2012-05-27 03:35:52 PM

sirgrim: The country should be ran like a business. Listening to these foreign interests is counter-intuitive. We don't cater to them. We cater to the shareholders (read: taxpayers.)


Just once I'd like a politician making this argument not to have been either a complete failure or completely amoral muffuger in business. Doubtful I'd find someone like that in the GOP these days.
 
2012-05-27 03:35:57 PM
Well duh.

When you're willing to literally say ANYTHING to get elected, like Mitt Romney is and always has been, then words have no actual meaning to you. Because of this he's going to say stupid shiat which has no basis in reality all the damn time, and has been.

Facts and principles have nothing to do with the words that come out of his mouth. He's using words to create a fictional narrative which he hopes will be appealing enough to get him elected. Throughout the campaign he will continue to say just anything he can think of, though I'd imagine a few months from now he'll have to pick a narrative to stick with.... somewhat. But this early it's "all bets are off" every time he opens his mouth.
 
2012-05-27 03:37:55 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: qorkfiend: Does Romney have a reason why we shouldn't have a plan for leaving Afghanistan?

The 34th rule of acquisition?


Does he have issues with the 35th?
 
2012-05-27 03:40:38 PM

quatchi: They said Obama was naive to tell Pakistan that he would take out Bin Laden with or without their assistance.

How'd that work out again?

"Naive" is pretty much the definition of anyone thinking about voting for Gordon Gekko here.

Saying what you are going to do and then doing is how you garner credibility in this world.

Apparently, the GOP have forgotten this.


GOP credibility was buried under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
 
2012-05-27 03:42:16 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


Obama isn't infallible, and I don't think anyone here, even his most ardent supporter, thinks that. The problem is that Romney doesn't know how to attack him without it coming back to him. Health care? Romney had something exactly like the national health care plan when he was governor of Massachusetts. Economy? As governor, he was the 47th worst at job creating in his state. Foreign policy? He has no foreign policy experience whatsoever, and Obama's been (one of) the best foreign policy presidents in the last 45 years. Social issues? Obama got rid of DADT and has endorsed gay marriage.

Romney is farking clown shoes and he knows it.
 
2012-05-27 03:43:52 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


Since we're taking a decidedly Star Trek themed gimmick to mock Romney (he's an android, he's Ferengi, he's a Ferengi Android I expect to pop up eventually) I'll just sound as Worf-like as possible and say that Obama needs an enemy that is worthy of his political mettle and has honor; Mittens lacks these and more.
 
2012-05-27 03:44:20 PM

Coco LaFemme: Obama isn't infallible


img267.imageshack.us
 
2012-05-27 03:45:01 PM

Free_Chilly_Willy: I thought department officials were supposed to keep out of politics.

/change!!!


Wow, that's hilarious. Leon Panetta rips Romney's ignorance a new one, and the only defense you can come up with is "No fair, Panetta isn't allowed to hit back!"

The more I hear from you and your buddies, the better I feel about November.
 
2012-05-27 03:45:58 PM
Man, Republicans sure are pissed Obama's had the best foreign policy out of any president in thirty years aren't they?
 
2012-05-27 03:51:41 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

You know who else agreed in advance about the end of hostilities?

/amateurs
 
2012-05-27 03:52:10 PM

Mithiwithi: Free_Chilly_Willy: I thought department officials were supposed to keep out of politics.

/change!!!

Wow, that's hilarious. Leon Panetta rips Romney's ignorance a new one, and the only defense you can come up with is "No fair, Panetta isn't allowed to hit back!"

The more I hear from you and your buddies, the better I feel about November.


To be fair to Panetta, he could probably use the "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills" defense.
 
2012-05-27 03:54:26 PM

T-Servo: You know who else agreed in advance about the end of hostilities?


APPEASERS!!
 
2012-05-27 03:55:45 PM

sirgrim: The country should be ran like a business.


Privatize the profits and socialize the losses?
 
2012-05-27 04:09:33 PM

Bhruic: Ok, so what was Romney's plan then?


It can be whatever you want it to be.
 
2012-05-27 04:12:36 PM
You guys summed it up, and now I get it.

Romney sucks.
 
2012-05-27 04:13:26 PM

malaktaus: This kind of rhetoric could force Romney , should he win, to keep troops in Afghanistan longer, and with no clear goals. People will die, for no particular reason. Romney is okay with American soldiers dying uselessly if it helps him get elected; that's just the kind of man he is.


Nah, if I trust Romney with anything, it's that he wouldn't feel remotely obligated to follow through with his campaign promises.
 
2012-05-27 04:13:51 PM

Coco LaFemme: TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?

Obama isn't infallible, and I don't think anyone here, even his most ardent supporter, thinks that. The problem is that Romney doesn't know how to attack him without it coming back to him. Health care? Romney had something exactly like the national health care plan when he was governor of Massachusetts. Economy? As governor, he was the 47th worst at job creating in his state. Foreign policy? He has no foreign policy experience whatsoever, and Obama's been (one of) the best foreign policy presidents in the last 45 years. Social issues? Obama got rid of DADT and has endorsed gay marriage.

Romney is farking clown shoes and he knows it.


Obama's weak points are from the left, so no good for Romney. Except for rags in the UK publishing article after article saying "Everyone is disappointed in Obama" while omitting the obvious point that any of the criticisms they list would be multiplied tenfold under Romney.
 
2012-05-27 04:14:29 PM

missiv: quatchi: They said Obama was naive to tell Pakistan that he would take out Bin Laden with or without their assistance.

How'd that work out again?

"Naive" is pretty much the definition of anyone thinking about voting for Gordon Gekko here.

Saying what you are going to do and then doing is how you garner credibility in this world.

Apparently, the GOP have forgotten this.

GOP credibility was buried under Dwight D. Eisenhower.


Strewth!

/Like Ike.

Also, just to put too fine a point on the above when I said "they" said it was naive for Obama say he'd take out OBL in Pakistan I meant pretty much "everyone".

Hillary, Biden, half the Dem candidates, every single GOP candidate to a man including Mitt, of course, who now hilariously tries to make it look now like his saying no back then was really him saying yes.

Mitt "Many people believed as I did it was naive on the part of the president, at that time the candidate, to say he would go into Pakistan" Romney simply has no foreign policy cred at this point.

Not a shred of cred.
 
2012-05-27 04:20:34 PM
Someone in the Republican party should be standing up and objecting to the massive outpouring of dollars that are going right down the toilet. No sense keeping up the charade if everyone and their fox terrier knows Romney is going to lose.
What are we at, a couple billion now spent to unseat the Kenyan?
 
2012-05-27 04:23:43 PM
I think the problem is that Mitt likes firing people, and he doesn't like to give them more than 2 weeks notice.
 
2012-05-27 04:27:48 PM

wippit: A Dark Evil Omen: qorkfiend: Does Romney have a reason why we shouldn't have a plan for leaving Afghanistan?

The 34th rule of acquisition?

Does he have issues with the 35th?


His positronic matrix isn't designed to accommodate simultaneous conflicting ideas. He'll only be able to shift to that position if Obama takes up his current one.
 
2012-05-27 04:37:06 PM

quatchi: missiv: quatchi: They said Obama was naive to tell Pakistan that he would take out Bin Laden with or without their assistance.

How'd that work out again?

"Naive" is pretty much the definition of anyone thinking about voting for Gordon Gekko here.

Saying what you are going to do and then doing is how you garner credibility in this world.

Apparently, the GOP have forgotten this.

GOP credibility was buried under Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Strewth!

/Like Ike.

Also, just to put too fine a point on the above when I said "they" said it was naive for Obama say he'd take out OBL in Pakistan I meant pretty much "everyone".

Hillary, Biden, half the Dem candidates, every single GOP candidate to a man including Mitt, of course, who now hilariously tries to make it look now like his saying no back then was really him saying yes.

Mitt "Many people believed as I did it was naive on the part of the president, at that time the candidate, to say he would go into Pakistan" Romney simply has no foreign policy cred at this point.

Not a shred of cred.


Gov Rmoney went to the Gov. Palin school of foreign policy. Everest will give a degree to anyone.
 
2012-05-27 04:47:11 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: qorkfiend: Does Romney have a reason why we shouldn't have a plan for leaving Afghanistan?

The 34th rule of acquisition?


Yeah, I'm okay without Romney and rule 34 being combined in any way, shape, or form.

Oh, crud.
 
2012-05-27 04:51:30 PM
I honestly can't believe Romney's campaign is stupid enough to even try to engage Obama's on foreign policy. Romney has zero experience, he's obviously not even the least bit interested in the subject, he lacks even the basic understanding of key issues, and his party has become associated to some of the biggest foreign policy blunders in decades...and that's all before you even touch upon Obama's accomplishments. Add to that he ought to be focused only on the Economy and I honestly haven't a farking clue how to explain this decision.

Is it just a reflexive need to discuss it since it's been a GOP strongpoint since Bush the Lesser ruined that run? Is this just Romney going off message again? Is his campaign just so poorly run they honestly think Romney (of all people) can turn this into a winning issue?

I know there are still over 5 months to the election, but Romney's campaign is as bush league as ever. They've bounced from education to foreign policy to the economy within a week, and been pummled at each turn by Obama's campaign. There one moment of glory came when Booker ran his mouth, and where the fark did that get them? Nowhere.
 
2012-05-27 05:04:59 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Is it just a reflexive need to discuss it since it's been a GOP strongpoint since Bush the Lesser ruined that run? Is this just Romney going off message again? Is his campaign just so poorly run they honestly think Romney (of all people) can turn this into a winning issue?


Mitt Romney's campaign is run from the top down. He says something, and they scramble to justify it. He doesn't listen to anyone but himself, and he thinks he is the smartest man in the room. He's quite clearly not.
 
2012-05-27 05:11:44 PM

whidbey: What are we at, a couple billion now spent to unseat the Kenyan?


That capital is now running free in the Obama economy now that it's been pried from the grasping claws of the one percent. It wasn't doing anyone any good sitting in a vault in Bern.
 
2012-05-27 05:38:52 PM

Mentat: So how are we supposed to leave? Will the Army just drop a smoke bomb and sneak out while the Taliban is coughing? Don't you think they might notice when we start to pack up and leave?


Yea, but we won't tell them when that last troop will leave. That makes all the difference in the world.
 
2012-05-27 05:45:41 PM
In a convoluted way, I think Romney thinks that if he can pressure Obama into not pulling out of Afghanistan then when Romney is elected he can pull the troops out of Afghanistan and be the hero.
 
2012-05-27 05:53:21 PM

IoSaturnalia: whidbey: What are we at, a couple billion now spent to unseat the Kenyan?

That capital is now running free in the Obama economy now that it's been pried from the grasping claws of the one percent. It wasn't doing anyone any good sitting in a vault in Bern.


That is a rather good point. Maybe the Supreme Court did think Citizens United through.

/spoiler alArt they didn't.
 
2012-05-27 06:08:30 PM

PonceAlyosha: Shrugging Atlas: Is it just a reflexive need to discuss it since it's been a GOP strongpoint since Bush the Lesser ruined that run? Is this just Romney going off message again? Is his campaign just so poorly run they honestly think Romney (of all people) can turn this into a winning issue?

Mitt Romney's campaign is run from the top down. He says something, and they scramble to justify it. He doesn't listen to anyone but himself, and he thinks he is the smartest man in the room. He's quite clearly not.


That actually makes a shiat ton of sense to me.

He's got the best people money can buy but his campaign is still hilariously off course and unprofessional. My guess is that his people could do a lot better than they are doing but their hands are tied because nobody wants to be the guy to tell Emperor Romney that he's not wearing any clothes.

/Magical underwear notwithstanding.
 
2012-05-27 06:33:21 PM

Xyphoid: Maybe his plan is to just leave everyone there and just act like they don't exist and send nothing else in, it'll prevent that whole "we're leaving" thing and everyone will be surprised. He'll work out those other details later, if he can get around to it. That's a way to end a war.


sssh. Be vewy quiet. Vewy, vewy quiet. It's his secret plan for every issue.

Do nothing.
 
2012-05-27 06:36:38 PM

qorkfiend: Does Romney have a reason why we shouldn't have a plan for leaving Afghanistan?


Because Obama has a plan for leaving Afghanistan.
 
2012-05-27 06:59:58 PM

PonceAlyosha: Mitt Romney's campaign is run from the top down. He says something, and they scramble to justify it. He doesn't listen to anyone but himself, and he thinks he is the smartest man in the room. He's quite clearly not.


I have to be honest....for some reason this just didn't occur to me, at least not to the extreme nature that is probably the case. Given what we've come to know about Romney, I can see a guy that's simply unwilling to listen to ANYONE on his payroll. It's probably just impossible for him to take any sort of guidance from anyone 'beneath' him.

With that in mind, the VP pick ought to be a real winner. You're not going to see anyone that Romney would view as better than him in some area. You'll get a Romney light sychophant, and not someone that could really shore up any of the numerous areas in which Romney would need help to actually govern the country were he to somehow win.

It's one thing I always liked hearing about Biden when he was being vetted by the Obama campaign. He flat out said he wanted a seat at the table, and would not settle for a situation where his voice wasn't heard. I cannot imagine a scenario where Romney would even tolerate such suggestions.

I love the tell all books that come out after each election cycle, and I just can't wait to hear the behind the scenes dirt from Romney's campaign.
 
2012-05-27 07:26:46 PM
Mentat:
So how are we supposed to leave? Will the Army just drop a smoke bomb and sneak out while the Taliban is coughing? Don't you think they might notice when we start to pack up and leave?

If your only objective in invading a country is how to get out, you should not invade. Even GWB knew that, and went after Saddam instead. Even the Soviet Union, with border access to Afghanistan, was simply tied up there for almost a decade, unable to accomplish anything useful. Additionally, with the exception of having an atmosphere, most of it is practically indistinguishable from the surface of the freaking moon -- you can bet that any more useless piece of real estate is covered either with ocean or glacier. But, this is Obama's war, where he chose to fight; get out of Iraq, and fight in Afghanistan.

Romney is absolutely correct: giving a date in advance is incredibly stupid (stupid rather than naive.) That is, it is incredibly stupid if one has any hope of accomplishing a specific goal. What was it that Obama hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan, BTW? Apparently, just go in, and get the fark out before the death tolls reach Viet Nam levels.
 
2012-05-27 07:35:51 PM
clambam:
No kind of rhetoric is going to force Romney to do anything. It doesn't matter what he says or promises. The goal is to get him elected. Once he's in the Oval Office the Etch a Sketch will be shaken and he will do exactly as he pleases, with or without reference to what he's said before. What exactly will he do? We won't know that until he's elected, and shame on you for even asking.

As in Obama's immediate elimination of the PATRIOT Act, and closing of Gitmo on the first day... and, of course, never letting unemployment get above 8%.

(That last would have worked, but they're not letting him redefine "unemployment" fast enough...)
 
2012-05-27 07:53:12 PM

GeneralJim: Mentat: So how are we supposed to leave? Will the Army just drop a smoke bomb and sneak out while the Taliban is coughing? Don't you think they might notice when we start to pack up and leave?
If your only objective in invading a country is how to get out, you should not invade. Even GWB knew that, and went after Saddam instead. Even the Soviet Union, with border access to Afghanistan, was simply tied up there for almost a decade, unable to accomplish anything useful. Additionally, with the exception of having an atmosphere, most of it is practically indistinguishable from the surface of the freaking moon -- you can bet that any more useless piece of real estate is covered either with ocean or glacier. But, this is Obama's war, where he chose to fight; get out of Iraq, and fight in Afghanistan.

Romney is absolutely correct: giving a date in advance is incredibly stupid (stupid rather than naive.) That is, it is incredibly stupid if one has any hope of accomplishing a specific goal. What was it that Obama hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan, BTW? Apparently, just go in, and get the fark out before the death tolls reach Viet Nam levels.


Obama didn't "get us into" Afghanistan. We were there when he took office. What he's hoped to accomplish since then is getting us out of Afghanistan, and to do that, he needed to set an exit date. And once that was done, it's not like it could be kept secret--to remove a standing army the size of the one in Afghanistan can hardly be done on the QT.

Our only "goal" in Afghanistan was to kill bin Laden--since then, it's been changed more often than a normal person changes his socks. The remainder of your comments only show that you have no grasp of military tactics, regardless of your handle.
 
2012-05-27 07:56:48 PM
Criticism of mid-to-long term planning in foreign policy as naive is pretty funny coming from a guy who's already announced that on Day 1 he'd threaten China.
 
2012-05-27 08:04:01 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


Romney's in a bad position, because he's Mitt Romney. In a match up between a generic Democrat and Republican, the Republican will nearly always poll better on military issues and foreign policy, and on the national debt. The inherent biases of voters to assume that's what the Republicans are good at, is an important component of any Republican Presidential strategy. Romney tries, though the Republicans are going to have a difficult time convincing voters that Obama is weak on terrorism or foreign policy, and Romney can't speak on either issue without sounding like he's just reading a list of talking points... which could be horrible if he doesn't improve by the debates.

Similarly, on the economy, they can complain about the "Reagan Recovery" being faster than the Obama Recovery, but it doesn't play especially well, given that Reagan did it by exploding government spending, tripling the debt, and increasing the number of jobs within the federal government. Its pretty easy to boost an economy if Congress will let you do all those things. Also, I don't think Republicans want to be reminded of Black Monday or the Savings and Loan scandals, as they try to claim that the financial sector can self regulate. They NEED Romney's experience at Bain Capital to be viewed as a positive, but the Obama campaign seems to have a handle on how to fight that.

On social issues, its usually best for Republicans to change the subject as quickly as possible, but as a Mormon, Romney has more reason than most to fear social issues. He doesn't want his religion to become a focal point of the campaign, and taking any side of an issue has risks -- the conservative response will scare off the moderate voters he needs in some big swing states, but a more moderate response will alienate the Republican base, and go against the teachings of his church. The non-religious social issues he has tried to find a voice on, he keeps falling flat. The Republican party wants to rail against "Obamacare" this year, but "Romneycare" in Massachusetts is so similar its ridiculous, and railing against your own plan is pretty tone deaf, as is his fumbling on education issues.

In short, Romney has to go for vague, generic attacks because he's FAR too vulnerable once specifics are involved. And this far before an election, that's an OK strategy anyway. Throw everything possible at the President and see if you can get anything to stick. And if they can gain traction on anything at all, they'll spend the next 5 months refining that attack and battering it into the heads of voters in every swing state. And even though nothing is sticking yet, simply hearing constant negative comments about Obama (even if they don't seem like strong arguments) will lower people's opinions of Obama somewhat, which is a huge requirement to any chance of a Romney victory.

/to;dr- Romney's a weak candidate to use to sell the Republican message this year, and its not really clear that he believes most of that message anyway
 
2012-05-27 08:36:02 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


What, in politics or in policy? In policy Obama's weaknesses are, "being too Republican." In politics Obama's weaknesses are almost 100% artificially manufactured by the GOP and they are weaknesses Mitt Romney personally shares.
 
2012-05-27 08:38:16 PM

GeneralJim: Mentat: So how are we supposed to leave? Will the Army just drop a smoke bomb and sneak out while the Taliban is coughing? Don't you think they might notice when we start to pack up and leave?
If your only objective in invading a country is how to get out, you should not invade. Even GWB knew that, and went after Saddam instead. Even the Soviet Union, with border access to Afghanistan, was simply tied up there for almost a decade, unable to accomplish anything useful. Additionally, with the exception of having an atmosphere, most of it is practically indistinguishable from the surface of the freaking moon -- you can bet that any more useless piece of real estate is covered either with ocean or glacier. But, this is Obama's war, where he chose to fight; get out of Iraq, and fight in Afghanistan.

Romney is absolutely correct: giving a date in advance is incredibly stupid (stupid rather than naive.) That is, it is incredibly stupid if one has any hope of accomplishing a specific goal. What was it that Obama hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan, BTW? Apparently, just go in, and get the fark out before the death tolls reach Viet Nam levels.


Are you seriously trying to get us to believe that it was Obama who got us into Afghanistan? Because there's just no words for that kind of retardation.
 
2012-05-27 08:47:14 PM
You can always know what a Republican's position will be by just asking the question "of the available options, which would hurt America the most?"

Works without fail.
 
2012-05-27 08:53:26 PM

sirgrim: The country should be ran like a business. Listening to these foreign interests is counter-intuitive. We don't cater to them. We cater to the shareholders (read: taxpayers campaign contributors.)


FTFPolitics
 
2012-05-27 08:54:23 PM

GeneralJim: If your only objective in invading a country is how to get out, you should not invade. Even GWB knew that, and went after Saddam instead.


GWB is the one who invaded Afghanistan, you dipshiat.
 
2012-05-27 08:56:19 PM

TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?


Because where Obama has failed is where he agreed and/or compromised with the Republicans. They can't call him out on his failures because they'd have failed even worse, and they know it, and they know we know it.
 
2012-05-27 09:28:15 PM
"Without getting into the campaign rhetoric of what [Romney]'s asserting, I think you've got 50 nations in NATO that agree to a plan in Afghanistan,"

NATO Member Countries
NATO is an Alliance that consists of 28 independent member countries. Country by country, this page offers an overview of the links to national information servers and to the website of national delegations to NATO.

Man, I bet the Russians are going to be pissed when they fugure out Obama has almost doubled NATO membership right under their noses..

I like most people on this thread would like for the troops to come home as early as possible, but it is a legitimate question to ask if Afghanistan will be "stable enough" for our troops to come home in 2014. Let's all hope things progress to the point they can, if not sooner.
 
2012-05-27 09:41:56 PM
Gyrfalcon:
Obama didn't "get us into" Afghanistan. We were there when he took office. What he's hoped to accomplish since then is getting us out of Afghanistan, and to do that, he needed to set an exit date. And once that was done, it's not like it could be kept secret--to remove a standing army the size of the one in Afghanistan can hardly be done on the QT.

Talk about missing every point... I did not say Obama got us into Afghanistan. That was, however his choice of war -- he wanted us to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, uh, why? Oh, yeah, 'cause it was going better than Afghanistan.

And, the point you are missing about setting a date is NOT that they would see us going, the point is that if you give a date, they know all they have to do is wait until we're gone. Are you ALL too dim to see that? If it's not on the DNC talking points, it flies right over you, and takes a dump on your freaking heads. Pathetic.

HAVING a date to leave is one thing. If the point is to leave, it only makes sense. But you do NOT broadcast that date. In the broadest sense, you don't broadcast that date for the same reason you don't tell them which roads you will be using, or give them your flight plans for the air cover aircraft. Any information you give an enemy about your military logistics is a bad thing, and WILL cost lives. And you are criticizing my military knowledge? Jesus.
 
2012-05-27 09:50:31 PM
propasaurus:
Are you seriously trying to get us to believe that it was Obama who got us into Afghanistan? Because there's just no words for that kind of retardation.

No.
 
2012-05-27 09:51:15 PM

GeneralJim: Mentat: So how are we supposed to leave? Will the Army just drop a smoke bomb and sneak out while the Taliban is coughing? Don't you think they might notice when we start to pack up and leave?
If your only objective in invading a country is how to get out, you should not invade. Even GWB knew that, and went after Saddam instead. Even the Soviet Union, with border access to Afghanistan, was simply tied up there for almost a decade, unable to accomplish anything useful. Additionally, with the exception of having an atmosphere, most of it is practically indistinguishable from the surface of the freaking moon -- you can bet that any more useless piece of real estate is covered either with ocean or glacier. But, this is Obama's war, where he chose to fight; get out of Iraq, and fight in Afghanistan.

Romney is absolutely correct: giving a date in advance is incredibly stupid (stupid rather than naive.) That is, it is incredibly stupid if one has any hope of accomplishing a specific goal. What was it that Obama hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan, BTW? Apparently, just go in, and get the fark out before the death tolls reach Viet Nam levels.


If you don't know how to get out of a war, you probably shouldn't get into one.
 
2012-05-27 09:56:04 PM

GeneralJim: Gyrfalcon: Obama didn't "get us into" Afghanistan. We were there when he took office. What he's hoped to accomplish since then is getting us out of Afghanistan, and to do that, he needed to set an exit date. And once that was done, it's not like it could be kept secret--to remove a standing army the size of the one in Afghanistan can hardly be done on the QT.
Talk about missing every point... I did not say Obama got us into Afghanistan. That was, however his choice of war -- he wanted us to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, uh, why? Oh, yeah, 'cause it was going better than Afghanistan.

And, the point you are missing about setting a date is NOT that they would see us going, the point is that if you give a date, they know all they have to do is wait until we're gone. Are you ALL too dim to see that? If it's not on the DNC talking points, it flies right over you, and takes a dump on your freaking heads. Pathetic.

HAVING a date to leave is one thing. If the point is to leave, it only makes sense. But you do NOT broadcast that date. In the broadest sense, you don't broadcast that date for the same reason you don't tell them which roads you will be using, or give them your flight plans for the air cover aircraft. Any information you give an enemy about your military logistics is a bad thing, and WILL cost lives. And you are criticizing my military knowledge? Jesus.


Saying "We'll be out in 2014" is hardly the same thing as giving out details about the closure of a specific FOB or supply base. We're not fighting the Nazis.

You seem to have this idea that we're in an entrenched war with an actual front and clear battle lines and a declared enemy. We're fighting an asymmetric war in their country. All they have to do is wait till we're gone anyway. That's the strategy of any insurgency, to outlast the invaders. It's also the strategy of any army fighting an opponent without a clear goal.

As to your other points: again, you make it sound like we're doing a WWII-style pull-out over a wide front. The roads we'll use, and the aircover we'll need? What century did you get your training in, the 17th? The pull-back will be done slowly, over a period of months to years, like the one in Iraq, to avoid precisely the thing you're so worried about. Small numbers of troops can be withdrawn without needing lots of artillery cover or air support. Even I know that. And of course, you DON'T broadcast the date you're closing any individual FOB.

The goal is to have ALL the troops withdrawn by 2014, not to wait till that date and then stage a massive withdrawal. But I presume a von Clausewitzian genius like yourself would realize this.
 
2012-05-27 10:02:37 PM

GeneralJim: Gyrfalcon: Obama didn't "get us into" Afghanistan. We were there when he took office. What he's hoped to accomplish since then is getting us out of Afghanistan, and to do that, he needed to set an exit date. And once that was done, it's not like it could be kept secret--to remove a standing army the size of the one in Afghanistan can hardly be done on the QT.
Talk about missing every point... I did not say Obama got us into Afghanistan. That was, however his choice of war -- he wanted us to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, uh, why? Oh, yeah, 'cause it was going better than Afghanistan.

And, the point you are missing about setting a date is NOT that they would see us going, the point is that if you give a date, they know all they have to do is wait until we're gone. Are you ALL too dim to see that? If it's not on the DNC talking points, it flies right over you, and takes a dump on your freaking heads. Pathetic.

HAVING a date to leave is one thing. If the point is to leave, it only makes sense. But you do NOT broadcast that date. In the broadest sense, you don't broadcast that date for the same reason you don't tell them which roads you will be using, or give them your flight plans for the air cover aircraft. Any information you give an enemy about your military logistics is a bad thing, and WILL cost lives. And you are criticizing my military knowledge? Jesus.


otoh, if you don't set a firm date, the locals will continue to be dependent on you and expect you to be there forever. At some point we need to motivate the Afghani government and military to deal with the country outside of Kandahar... sometimes the only way it seems to get them to understand they can't lean on us for combat roles for yet another decade is to just flatly tell them so.
 
2012-05-27 10:06:03 PM

Coco LaFemme: TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right?


Obama isn't perfect; but he is the least of the problems we have in Washington at this point.
 
2012-05-27 10:32:24 PM
HeartBurnKid:
GeneralJim: If your only objective in invading a country is how to get out, you should not invade. Even GWB knew that, and went after Saddam instead.

GWB is the one who invaded Afghanistan, you dipshiat.

Oh, FFS. Do I have to spell out the whole thing for you? Can't any of you read?

Bush toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then just sort of left it hanging. He put his focus on Iraq, which was a winnable war. Part of Obama's schtick was to say that he chose to fight in Afghanistan rather than Iraq; he would clear out of Iraq, and fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 
2012-05-27 10:35:59 PM
Mentat:
If you don't know how to get out of a war, you probably shouldn't get into one.

How about WINNING the damned thing? Setting clear, achievable goals, and meeting them. I know that's not in the leftist lexicon, but it's the way to go...
 
2012-05-27 10:40:53 PM
Gyrfalcon:
The roads we'll use, and the aircover we'll need? What century did you get your training in, the 17th?

Yeah, Montgolfier Military Academy. Seriously, 17TH century air support? And the rest of your biatch list is equally coherent. And again, a date to leave is military intelligence. Don't hand it out at a press conference. That's the point, not ancient aviation. ADHD much?
 
2012-05-27 10:43:48 PM

GeneralJim: HeartBurnKid: GeneralJim: If your only objective in invading a country is how to get out, you should not invade. Even GWB knew that, and went after Saddam instead.

GWB is the one who invaded Afghanistan, you dipshiat.
Oh, FFS. Do I have to spell out the whole thing for you? Can't any of you read?

Bush toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then just sort of left it hanging. He put his focus on Iraq, which was a winnable war. Part of Obama's schtick was to say that he chose to fight in Afghanistan rather than Iraq; he would clear out of Iraq, and fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Yeah, I read just fine. And here's what you wrote:

GeneralJim: If your only objective in invading a country is how to get out, you should not invade. Even GWB knew that, and went after Saddam instead


So I'll say it again:

GWB IS THE ONE WHO INVADED AFGHANISTAN, YOU DIPshiat!


There is no stretch of the imagination where you could call either Iraq or Afghanistan Obama's war. Obama didn't "choose" either one; his "schtick", as it were, was always that he was going to clean up the messes Bush left and get us the fark out. Afghanistan took longer to clean up than Iraq, and everybody with a brain knew that was the case, since Bush left it neglected for so damn long, but that doesn't mean Obama "chose" it, only that he chose not to leave it as an unstable territory being fought over by warlords and terrorists.
 
2012-05-27 10:44:47 PM
Gyrfalcon:
The goal is to have ALL the troops withdrawn by 2014, not to wait till that date and then stage a massive withdrawal. But I presume a von Clausewitzian genius like yourself would realize this.

Of course. And, I would have thought one like you would know that you DON'T give the enemy your plans, except as a threat, as in "If your troops are not out of the Afghan hills by October 1, we will nuke them." If you tell the enemy your plans, they must be intense, specific, and impossible for the enemy to prevent, even with the knowledge of what they are. I would have thought you would understand that, but apparently I would be wrong.
 
2012-05-27 11:05:14 PM

GeneralJim: And, the point you are missing about setting a date is NOT that they would see us going, the point is that if you give a date, they know all they have to do is wait until we're gone.


So, if we give them a date, they stop making trouble for our soldiers and only start shiat after we're gone and have no further investment?

And you think this is a bad idea?
 
2012-05-27 11:08:12 PM

GeneralJim: Bush toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then just sort of left it hanging. He put his focus on Iraq, which was a winnable war. Part of Obama's schtick was to say that he chose to fight in Afghanistan rather than Iraq; he would clear out of Iraq, and fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Odd I remember Bush setting a date for withdrawal and Obama meeting that date. How naive of Bush to tell the Iraqis and the world of his plans.
 
2012-05-27 11:09:59 PM

GeneralJim: Gyrfalcon: The goal is to have ALL the troops withdrawn by 2014, not to wait till that date and then stage a massive withdrawal. But I presume a von Clausewitzian genius like yourself would realize this.
Of course. And, I would have thought one like you would know that you DON'T give the enemy your plans, except as a threat, as in "If your troops are not out of the Afghan hills by October 1, we will nuke them." If you tell the enemy your plans, they must be intense, specific, and impossible for the enemy to prevent, even with the knowledge of what they are. I would have thought you would understand that, but apparently I would be wrong.


So, who IS the "enemy"? Who shall we tell to leave? The Afghan people? What were our goals that we are not meeting?

What would YOU like to accomplish in Afghanistan, if you were in charge of the whole mess? Seriously, I'm curious. We're fighting an insurgency, I'd really like to know how your military genius would fight a guerrilla army that doesn't want to leave.
 
2012-05-27 11:13:08 PM
Hey General, thanks for putting all your responses in green! It makes it easy to spot the self-serving lies. With respect to your response to my comments, it's easy to cherrypick unfilfilled campaign promises (while ignoring the ones he did fulfill), a little harder to understand your problem with him not doing the things you didn't want him to do. As to the 8% unemployment issue, all I can say is:

1. He doesn't have a time machine, much as you think he does, so he couldn't know how bad things would get.
2. Had he predicted 10% unemployment he would have done the country a grave disservice since such a dismal assessment would have undercut confidence even more, and you would now be complaining, rightly for a change, about self-fulfilling prophecies.
3. Employment reached its nadir within three months of Obama's administration. It was headed down in any case and God himself could not have reversed the trend instaneously, as you seem to expect. Under the circumstances, given the utter recalcitrance demonstrated by the repubs on every issue including job creation, Obama has done a pretty good job.

Obama's big mistake, in my opinion, was not employing more of the Chicago-style politics you volks like to accuse him of. A little more old-fashioned arm-twisting and a veiled threat or two might have gone a long way in showing the repubs the error of their ways. From my point of view, the conversation should have gone like this:

We are in a serious recession. We need to do some deficit spending to prime the pump and get the economy back on its feet.
No! We will not agree to deficit spending under any circumstances!
Fine, I'm closing all the military bases in your state and shutting down all the government development grants and civil engineering projects. Explain that to your constituents.
 
2012-05-27 11:18:31 PM

GeneralJim: and, of course, never letting unemployment get above 8%.


Link

Sigh

GeneralJim: (That last would have worked, but they're not letting him redefine "unemployment" fast enough...)


You really are frothy tonight jim.
 
2012-05-27 11:31:24 PM
"For example, it would be naive for me to tell you how many milliseconds will elapse after I'm sworn in that I repeal all capital gains tax and implement a fifteen percent sales tax. It might be one, it might be ten."
 
2012-05-27 11:32:07 PM
Hm, the GeneralNuisance stopped answering, I wonder why.
 
2012-05-28 12:24:58 AM
firefly212:
otoh, if you don't set a firm date, the locals will continue to be dependent on you and expect you to be there forever. At some point we need to motivate the Afghani government and military to deal with the country outside of Kandahar... sometimes the only way it seems to get them to understand they can't lean on us for combat roles for yet another decade is to just flatly tell them so.

Congratulations... That's the closest to a valid reason yet. And, for that to "justify" news coverage of it as less than idiotic, one would have to assume that anything told to our allies would almost immediately be known to the enemy -- probably a reasonable assumption in Afghanistan.
 
2012-05-28 12:26:26 AM

GeneralJim: Mentat: If you don't know how to get out of a war, you probably shouldn't get into one.
How about WINNING the damned thing? Setting clear, achievable goals, and meeting them. I know that's not in the leftist lexicon, but it's the way to go...


And how would you win the Afghan War? I'm sure Alexander the Great and the British Empire are just dying to hear your advice.
 
2012-05-28 12:35:07 AM
HeartBurnKid:
There is no stretch of the imagination where you could call either Iraq or Afghanistan Obama's war. Obama didn't "choose" either one; his "schtick", as it were, was always that he was going to clean up the messes Bush left and get us the fark out.

Gee, your memory only works in talking points. How unpleasant. This is how:
WHEN he was campaigning to be president, Barack Obama said over and over again that Afghanistan was the necessary war, the one that was justified by al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 but which had been starved of resources because of the unnecessary war in Iraq.
From The Economist
 
2012-05-28 12:39:46 AM
t3knomanser:
GeneralJim: And, the point you are missing about setting a date is NOT that they would see us going, the point is that if you give a date, they know all they have to do is wait until we're gone.

So, if we give them a date, they stop making trouble for our soldiers and only start shiat after we're gone and have no further investment?

And you think this is a bad idea?

Well, if that is OKAY, then it was a total fark-up ever to start anything there. And, that is yet another place where BHO and GWB agreed, although Obama thought Iraq took focus away from Afghanistan -- both saw it as NECESSARY. Now, of course, Obama is playing it down since it didn't work out.
 
2012-05-28 12:55:38 AM
Halli:
Odd I remember Bush setting a date for withdrawal and Obama meeting that date. How naive of Bush to tell the Iraqis and the world of his plans.

The difference being that Iraq was, by and large, pacified, under it's own control, and in charge of the situation. Afghanistan? Not so much.

But this is a "victory" in the same way that unemployment is dropping: the metrics are changed and narrowed to the point where the numbers say it's a victory. In reality, we're leaving the country to immediately collapse as soon as we're gone.

You don't seem to remember much of this. Read this BHO-friendly summary from the NYT.
 
2012-05-28 01:10:34 AM
Halli:
Odd I remember Bush setting a date for withdrawal and Obama meeting that date. How naive of Bush to tell the Iraqis and the world of his plans.

To be fair, yes, I was against GWB announcing a firm date as well, despite the fact that things seemed to be going well. Even throwing in a "as long as the situation remains stable and makes progress" or some such other weasel words would have made it much better.
 
2012-05-28 01:28:38 AM
Gyrfalcon:
So, who IS the "enemy"? Who shall we tell to leave? The Afghan people?
Who shall we tell to leave? WTF? Whatever you're smoking, please share.

What were our goals that we are not meeting?
Compare Obama's campaign speeches with current plans.
 
2012-05-28 01:30:00 AM
There's only one guy around here whose military judgement I trust, and he's a "Sgt." not a "General."
 
2012-05-28 01:51:43 AM

Shrugging Atlas: PonceAlyosha: Mitt Romney's campaign is run from the top down. He says something, and they scramble to justify it. He doesn't listen to anyone but himself, and he thinks he is the smartest man in the room. He's quite clearly not.

I have to be honest....for some reason this just didn't occur to me, at least not to the extreme nature that is probably the case. Given what we've come to know about Romney, I can see a guy that's simply unwilling to listen to ANYONE on his payroll. It's probably just impossible for him to take any sort of guidance from anyone 'beneath' him.

With that in mind, the VP pick ought to be a real winner. You're not going to see anyone that Romney would view as better than him in some area. You'll get a Romney light sychophant, and not someone that could really shore up any of the numerous areas in which Romney would need help to actually govern the country were he to somehow win.

It's one thing I always liked hearing about Biden when he was being vetted by the Obama campaign. He flat out said he wanted a seat at the table, and would not settle for a situation where his voice wasn't heard. I cannot imagine a scenario where Romney would even tolerate such suggestions.

I love the tell all books that come out after each election cycle, and I just can't wait to hear the behind the scenes dirt from Romney's campaign.


I think Shrugging Atlas might have put his/her finger on why the entire Republican Party seems out of sorts currently: we're no longer dealing with the architects of the Southern Strategy, but the people who came after who think it'll work in any situation and have absorbed that attitude so much that they can't see reality. It's obvious they're fighting against the Obama they think they know and not the one that exists and is kicking their asses on the message, and are too stupid to take the advice of anybody who doesn't have a golden spoon in their mouths.
 
2012-05-28 01:54:53 AM
clambam:
Hey General, thanks for putting all your responses in green! It makes it easy to spot the self-serving lies.

Self serving lies? What an ass. No doubt YOU will have a bunch of lies in this, only they'll be leftist or Obama serving, no doubt. Boring.

With respect to your response to my comments, it's easy to cherrypick unfilfilled campaign promises (while ignoring the ones he did fulfill), a little harder to understand your problem with him not doing the things you didn't want him to do. As to the 8% unemployment issue, all I can say is:

1. He doesn't have a time machine, much as you think he does, so he couldn't know how bad things would get.

That's the POINT, dumbass. He TOLD us he knew that unemployment wouldn't get to 8%, as long as we gave all his buddies a trillion dollars to blow. Pork spending doesn't create real jobs - what a shocker.

2. Had he predicted 10% unemployment he would have done the country a grave disservice since such a dismal assessment would have undercut confidence even more, and you would now be complaining, rightly for a change, about self-fulfilling prophecies.

That's obvious bullshiat. Unemployment got bad WITHOUT a prediction for it, so it would not have been a self-fulfilling prophesy.


3. Employment reached its nadir within three months of Obama's administration. It was headed down in any case and God himself could not have reversed the trend instaneously, as you seem to expect. Under the circumstances, given the utter recalcitrance demonstrated by the repubs on every issue including job creation, Obama has done a pretty good job.

What Obama has done is do a good job of driving people out of the workforce. That way, they don't count as unemployed. TA-DAH! It doesn't help at all, but it lets brainless types, like yourself, point out how good things have gotten.

www.residualforces.com


This is the opposite of the unemployment figures, which get jacked around so much to make them look better they have whiplash. See ANY improvement starting in 2009? Neither do I. I see it getting worse, almost immediately after the election, when businesses quit hiring, anticipating Obama policy, and it only got worse, going into a steeper dive with Obama's policies. (Oh, and that up-tick at the beginning of 2010? Short-term census workers.)

And, while I certainly don't expect a rational policy to help "instantaneously" as you almost put it, Reagan managed to reverse even Carter's problems within three years or so, and within a few months it was obvious that Reagan's plan was working, but it was done slowly to avoid massive inflation, including a prime rate at 21% -- that's why it took a couple years to improve. Obama's pork parade did nothing, so he did it again. Still nothing. I see you're back to "blame Bush" as a strategy. I am disappoint.



Obama's big mistake, in my opinion, was not employing more of the Chicago-style politics you volks like to accuse him of. A little more old-fashioned arm-twisting and a veiled threat or two might have gone a long way in showing the repubs the error of their ways. From my point of view, the conversation should have gone like this:

We are in a serious recession. We need to do some deficit spending to prime the pump and get the economy back on its feet.

No! We will not agree to deficit spending under any circumstances!

Bull farking shiat, you lying sack. WAY too much deficit was authorized. Our debt has gone up more in the Obama administration than in the rest of the country's history.

This is one of the places where you CAN criticize Bush with accuracy. He should NEVER have let the Democratic Congress get away with all that spending shiat -- HE should have vetoed it.

But, even if criticism of Bush is justified, Obama is not in a place to take advantage of that. If Bush was wrong to let the Dem's spend wildly, and support big-time crooks on Wall Street, and he was, Obama doing several TIMES as much is not in a position to complain.



Fine, I'm closing all the military bases in your state and shutting down all the government development grants and civil engineering projects. Explain that to your constituents.

You seem to think this is already a fascist dictatorship. It would take a second Obama term, and LOTS of useful idiots like yourself, to give the President unConstitutional dictatorial powers.
 
2012-05-28 01:56:05 AM
Anyone ever notice that:
upload.wikimedia.org

Looks Like:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-28 02:05:05 AM
Halli:
GeneralJim: and, of course, never letting unemployment get above 8%.

Link

Sigh

That what his prediction was. If you're reduced to picking nits -- or letting someone else pick them -- about "predict" versus "promise" it only shows how badly it was hosed up.

If the Obama camp were to say "Hey, we honestly thought setting fire to a trillion dollars like that would help. We were wrong, and it apparently made things worse instead," I could cut them a little slack.

But I have YET to see these assholes take responsibility for a SINGLE thing, unless it's an improvement. ANY time something goes wrong, it's time to crank up the blame machine.

And, here's the chart, with reality added on in red:


reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-05-28 02:12:29 AM
Gyrfalcon:
Hm, the GeneralNuisance stopped answering, I wonder why.

Well, just make some shiat up -- that's the usual response.
 
2012-05-28 02:25:40 AM
Mentat:
GeneralJim: Mentat: If you don't know how to get out of a war, you probably shouldn't get into one.

How about WINNING the damned thing? Setting clear, achievable goals, and meeting them. I know that's not in the leftist lexicon, but it's the way to go...

And how would you win the Afghan War? I'm sure Alexander the Great and the British Empire are just dying to hear your advice.

Obama has honest-to-God experts on hand. Like, say, General McChrystal. Here, EDUCATE YOURSELF.
 
2012-05-28 02:32:45 AM
propasaurus:
There's only one guy around here whose military judgement I trust, and he's a "Sgt." not a "General."

Well, sure, they DO plan all the big battles.

kisrael.com
 
2012-05-28 02:56:25 AM

GeneralJim: propasaurus: There's only one guy around here whose military judgement I trust, and he's a "Sgt." not a "General."
Well, sure, they DO plan all the big battles.

[kisrael.com image 321x210]


Also, he's not an arrogant lying asshole.
 
2012-05-28 05:47:25 AM

malaktaus: This kind of rhetoric could force Romney , should he win, to keep troops in Afghanistan longer, and with no clear goals. People will die, for no particular reason. Romney is okay with American soldiers dying uselessly if it helps him get elected; that's just the kind of man he is.


Surely that is what you expect from the GOP - think of Reagan negotiating with a hostile foreign government run by religious nuts for them to keep Americans hostage until he can win an election.
 
2012-05-28 06:45:08 AM

GeneralJim: Halli: GeneralJim: and, of course, never letting unemployment get above 8%.

Link

Sigh
That what his prediction was. If you're reduced to picking nits -- or letting someone else pick them -- about "predict" versus "promise" it only shows how badly it was hosed up.

If the Obama camp were to say "Hey, we honestly thought setting fire to a trillion dollars like that would help. We were wrong, and it apparently made things worse instead," I could cut them a little slack.

But I have YET to see these assholes take responsibility for a SINGLE thing, unless it's an improvement. ANY time something goes wrong, it's time to crank up the blame machine.

And, here's the chart, with reality added on in red:

[reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com image 640x372]


Still a lie jim. What does your magic book say about lying?

GeneralJim: What Obama has done is do a good job of driving people out of the workforce. That way, they don't count as unemployed. TA-DAH! It doesn't help at all, but it lets brainless types, like yourself, point out how good things have gotten.


There is less participation because of retiring boomers. These talking points were debunked last year jim.

GeneralJim: Halli: Odd I remember Bush setting a date for withdrawal and Obama meeting that date. How naive of Bush to tell the Iraqis and the world of his plans.
The difference being that Iraq was, by and large, pacified, under it's own control, and in charge of the situation. Afghanistan? Not so much.

But this is a "victory" in the same way that unemployment is dropping: the metrics are changed and narrowed to the point where the numbers say it's a victory. In reality, we're leaving the country to immediately collapse as soon as we're gone.

You don't seem to remember much of this. Read this BHO-friendly summary from the NYT.


Yes Afghanistan is a shiathole that can't be fixed. Welcome to 2000 years of history jim.
 
2012-05-28 06:56:38 AM

Mantour: Why does Leon Panetta, President Obama and President Bush all hate a true, Reaganist, hard working patriotic Conservative like Romney?


If Canada was going to let Mitt be president, we would rope the dog down on the hood and start saying eh and aboot.

namatad: qorkfiend: Does Romney have a reason why we shouldn't have a plan for leaving Afghanistan?

well, if we leave afghanistan, then we have no reason to keep spending massive amounts on the military.


Oh come on, we find ways. The pentagon has been in mid-life crisis, corvette buying mode for the past 3 decades and it won't ever stop.

dywed88: TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?

The fact that the Majority of Romney's attacks are vague generalizations about things (this is his most specific) and not include any alternative. When you attack a position (as opposed to attacking a person), you must put up an alternative in order for the attack to be truly effective.

If Romney had said, "Announcing a withdrawal date is a bad idea because it tells the terrorists they just have to wait until this date to attack. Instead we should announce that as of [insert date] we will begin drawing down our troop levels based on the situation with the final end of operations based on events in the country" it would be much better as it a) attacks Obama's position and b) provides an alternative for people to rally around and is vague enough to be easily defended now and in the future if it fails to happen.


They said the same thing with iraq. Regardless of when we leave, at some point in time, our role is not going to be the same as it is today. That date doesn't matter as much as the fact that it will happen.

And really romney's statement was that he were going to pick a date and everyone else would be holding the bag when we shut the door behind us. That is what is happening and that is what romney was rightly called out on.

quatchi: Delay: TimonC346: I'm a liberal, and definitely voting for Obama, but I still want to know why Romney's chosen points to attack have been either barely effective or completely ineffective. Obama isn't infallible, right? Or is he just Romney-resistant?

R-money is wealthy, purchased the candidacy, surrounded himself with sycophants that only know how to agree with him, but is a crappy politician.

I await his violent meltdown where he lets loose his well documented bad temper and, on camera, attempts to choke to death a reporter in Tampa Bay, very likely a woman.

Yuppo, I feel we are well on our way to an on-camera Mittfrontation of epic proportions.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 478x269]

/What a GIS for 'Mittfrontation' might yield.
//Hot like an angry Mitt.


I am hoping for an emo romey in tampa. I really want to see him break down on stage if delegates vote against. A babbling romney bashing the gop because they don't like his religion or believe that he is conservative enough would delight me so.
 
2012-05-28 06:57:09 AM

GeneralJim: HeartBurnKid: GeneralJim: If your only objective in invading a country is how to get out, you should not invade. Even GWB knew that, and went after Saddam instead.

GWB is the one who invaded Afghanistan, you dipshiat.
Oh, FFS. Do I have to spell out the whole thing for you? Can't any of you read?

Bush toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then just sort of left it hanging. He put his focus on Iraq, which was a winnable war. Part of Obama's schtick was to say that he chose to fight in Afghanistan rather than Iraq; he would clear out of Iraq, and fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Ok I'm usually a passive observer on these posts but sometimes I read something that I feel must be corrected. It seems to me that you subscribe to the neo-con school of shortsighted geopolitics. It was this misguided focus on Iraq that has put our country in the precarious position that it is in. If Bush and his neo-con buddies hadn't been dicking around in Iraq and instead focused on Afghanistan, we might have found our position much more favorable. Think for a minute.....Osama was a military commander running from the field of battle at Tora Bora. Can you image what a tactical and political victory that would have been? We could have inflicted such a blow to Al Queda then that their influence today, along with those enemies in Pakistan, would be greatly diminished. You say Iraq was a "winnable" war. Tell. That to the families of those servicemen who lost their lives there. Or the tens of thousands of those Iraqi civilians who we liberated. But the worst thing about this mistake in Iraq? The rise of Iran. Another policy blunder that proves that Neo-cons should never again be allowed to dictate the fortunes of our nation.
 
2012-05-28 07:31:38 AM

propasaurus: GeneralJim: propasaurus: There's only one guy around here whose military judgement I trust, and he's a "Sgt." not a "General."
Well, sure, they DO plan all the big battles.

[kisrael.com image 321x210]

Also, he's not an arrogant lying asshole.


This "General" is about as much a general as Capn Crunch is a Captain.
 
2012-05-28 08:01:39 AM

GeneralJim: clambam: Hey General, thanks for putting all your responses in green! It makes it easy to spot the self-serving lies.
Self serving lies? What an ass. No doubt YOU will have a bunch of lies in this, only they'll be leftist or Obama serving, no doubt. Boring...


Ad, literally, infintum. Wow, you sure have a lot of time on your hands. Are you paid for this? Phew.
 
2012-05-28 09:05:01 AM
So President Obama supports a defined mission with set goals for the military. Mitt Romney feels that President Obama is "naive" for that and supports an open ended war with no clear defined mission or goals, where your actions are dictated by the "enemy". I think history has clearly shown which is more successful when deploying U.S. troops. Especially in situations as Afganistan where you are not fighting a nation-state but rather a "culture" which has been ingrained for centuries.
 
2012-05-28 09:08:47 AM

heavymetal: So President Obama supports a defined mission with set goals for the military. Mitt Romney feels that President Obama is "naive" for that and supports an open ended war with no clear defined mission or goals, where your actions are dictated by the "enemy". I think history has clearly shown which is more successful when deploying U.S. troops. Especially in situations as Afganistan where you are not fighting a nation-state but rather a "culture" which has been ingrained for centuries.


This is the issue Obama really needs to bait Romney into taking a stronger position on. If Obama make Romney into not only the pro-big business candidate [which in any other election wouldn't be as much of a dealbreaker]. but also into being an obviously pro-war candidate, well, he'd be even more proper farked then previously projected.
 
2012-05-28 09:12:31 AM

GeneralJim: HeartBurnKid: There is no stretch of the imagination where you could call either Iraq or Afghanistan Obama's war. Obama didn't "choose" either one; his "schtick", as it were, was always that he was going to clean up the messes Bush left and get us the fark out.
Gee, your memory only works in talking points. How unpleasant. This is how:WHEN he was campaigning to be president, Barack Obama said over and over again that Afghanistan was the necessary war, the one that was justified by al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 but which had been starved of resources because of the unnecessary war in Iraq.
From The Economist


And?

He was right; we actually had a reason to invade Afghanistan. We had no reason to invade Iraq. And that doesn't change the fact that both of them were started by GWB, and Obama didn't "choose" either one. But he sure as hell finished Afghanistan.
 
2012-05-28 09:15:53 AM

GeneralJim: Compare Obama's campaign speeches with current plans.


He said we'd finish the job there and get out. And the job is finished; OBL is dead, Al-Qaeda is in tatters, and Afghanistan has something approaching a stable government. Why shouldn't we get out now?
 
2012-05-28 09:24:12 AM

sirgrim: We cater to the shareholders (read: taxpayers.)


So you are fine with the larger shareholder (bigger taxpayers) being given privileged access and perks then?

Failed states are run like corporations.
 
2012-05-28 10:08:28 AM

GeneralJim: Obama has honest-to-God experts on hand. Like, say, General McChrystal. Here, EDUCATE YOURSELF.


Again, if Alexander the Great couldn't figure out how to do it, why should I believe a random link offered by an internet troll is going to offer a solution?
 
2012-05-28 11:03:39 AM
And another thread successfully shiat all over with stinky green diarrhea.
Good jorb, trollfeeders.
 
2012-05-29 08:41:54 AM

soj4life: I am hoping for an emo romey in tampa. I really want to see him break down on stage if delegates vote against. A babbling romney bashing the gop because they don't like his religion or believe that he is conservative enough would delight me so.


An Emo Romney breakdown in full public view?

Tivoable, even?

*thinks about this delightful scenario*

Oh yeah, that's the stuff.

Babbling something about "Stupid non-morMan's world!" and how he's gonna go off buy himself a $10,000 cheesecake and eat it ALL (while cutting himself a little) would make it absolutely perfect for me but I may be asking for a little much there.

A total West World-esque melt-down of epic proportion will suffice.

/Totes not greedy.
 
2012-05-30 08:25:20 AM
Halli:
And, here's the chart, with reality added on in red:

[reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com image 640x372]

Still a lie jim. What does your magic book say about lying?

I'm used to 'tards screaming "liar" when they don't like what I say. Hell, you've done it. But this is the chart Obama used, predicting unemployment with and without the "stimulus," with what actually happened added. Any you whine about lying, while adding an ad hominem originating in your religious intolerance as well? Are you retarded, as in literally?

The only stupider claim of lying I have ever seen was when someone said something, and I asked a question about it, sort of like "When did this program start?" and the poster all-capped LIAR! at me. For asking a question? Holy crap, that's weird. You need to tweak your technique just a tad if you want to beat that. But keep trying... you are OH. SO. CLOSE.
 
2012-05-30 08:33:15 AM

GeneralJim: Halli: And, here's the chart, with reality added on in red:

[reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com image 640x372]

Still a lie jim. What does your magic book say about lying?
I'm used to 'tards screaming "liar" when they don't like what I say. Hell, you've done it. But this is the chart Obama used, predicting unemployment with and without the "stimulus," with what actually happened added. Any you whine about lying, while adding an ad hominem originating in your religious intolerance as well? Are you retarded, as in literally?

The only stupider claim of lying I have ever seen was when someone said something, and I asked a question about it, sort of like "When did this program start?" and the poster all-capped LIAR! at me. For asking a question? Holy crap, that's weird. You need to tweak your technique just a tad if you want to beat that. But keep trying... you are OH. SO. CLOSE.


Link

Still a lie jim. Magic book says that is bad.
 
2012-05-30 08:35:55 AM
Halli:
GeneralJim: What Obama has done is do a good job of driving people out of the workforce. That way, they don't count as unemployed. TA-DAH! It doesn't help at all, but it lets brainless types, like yourself, point out how good things have gotten.

There is less participation because of retiring boomers. These talking points were debunked last year jim.

So, you're claiming that people are NOT dropping out of the workforce out of discouragement? LIAR.

Some people ARE taking retirement early to avoid layoff or firing. Some people ARE going to school to use G.I. benefits, or company benefits, encouraged by lack of work. Then, suddenly, they're no longer unemployed. At least, they're no longer COUNTED as unemployed. And there are over a million people who have just quit looking for work after a long search, who also don't count as unemployed. Making any of these categories count as if one more person had work is dishonest playing with numbers for political purposes.
 
2012-05-30 08:41:01 AM
Halli:
But this is a "victory" in the same way that unemployment is dropping: the metrics are changed and narrowed to the point where the numbers say it's a victory. In reality, we're leaving the country to immediately collapse as soon as we're gone.

You don't seem to remember much of this. Read this BHO-friendly summary from the NYT.

Yes Afghanistan is a shiathole that can't be fixed. Welcome to 2000 years of history jim.

Careful! You're going to run someone down moving the goalposts that fast. THE POINT, Rain Man, is that Obama said that Afghanistan was the "right" war, and that we had to win it, and that he would. Now he is tucking tail and abandoning it, and the line becomes "Pshaw, THAT shiathole? Can't be fixed. What did you expect?" LIAR.
 
2012-05-30 08:57:49 AM

GeneralJim: Halli: GeneralJim: What Obama has done is do a good job of driving people out of the workforce. That way, they don't count as unemployed. TA-DAH! It doesn't help at all, but it lets brainless types, like yourself, point out how good things have gotten.

There is less participation because of retiring boomers. These talking points were debunked last year jim.
So, you're claiming that people are NOT dropping out of the workforce out of discouragement? LIAR.

Some people ARE taking retirement early to avoid layoff or firing. Some people ARE going to school to use G.I. benefits, or company benefits, encouraged by lack of work. Then, suddenly, they're no longer unemployed. At least, they're no longer COUNTED as unemployed. And there are over a million people who have just quit looking for work after a long search, who also don't count as unemployed. Making any of these categories count as if one more person had work is dishonest playing with numbers for political purposes.


Some people eh? You must have a citation for that.

GeneralJim: Halli: But this is a "victory" in the same way that unemployment is dropping: the metrics are changed and narrowed to the point where the numbers say it's a victory. In reality, we're leaving the country to immediately collapse as soon as we're gone.

You don't seem to remember much of this. Read this BHO-friendly summary from the NYT.

Yes Afghanistan is a shiathole that can't be fixed. Welcome to 2000 years of history jim.
Careful! You're going to run someone down moving the goalposts that fast. THE POINT, Rain Man, is that Obama said that Afghanistan was the "right" war, and that we had to win it, and that he would. Now he is tucking tail and abandoning it, and the line becomes "Pshaw, THAT shiathole? Can't be fixed. What did you expect?" LIAR.


Had to win doesn't mean it can be done. You moran.
 
2012-05-30 09:49:09 AM
pacmanner:
If Bush and his neo-con buddies hadn't been dicking around in Iraq and instead focused on Afghanistan, we might have found our position much more favorable.

With this much of what you wrote, at least, I agree. I have said, from the time of the Iraq invasion, that invading Iraq was appropriate, but NOT until after we cleaned up Afghanistan however far we planned.

But, you take it too far. Blaming the "rise of Iran," whatever that means to you, on us being in Iraq seems a great deal like more "blame anything bad that happens from somewhere around 1970 on GWB" rhetoric.

Us being in Iraq focused Islamic Militant attention on our presence there. Coincidentally, that left THEM occupied with Iraq, and without the resources to pursue us say, in the U.S. itself. It may well be that if we had simply gone after the Taliban in Afghanistan, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil would have continued. There's no "control planet" we can use to see, obviously.

For us, however, Iraq drained resources which could, and probably SHOULD have been used in eradicating the Taliban from Afghanistan. Hindsight shows that we should have included Pakistan, as well.

Had MY advice been sought, it would have been to state clearly that we were going to gut the Taliban, but that we had no interest in staying in Afghanistan. Then, match actions to words, kick their collective ass, and leave. Give everyone a couple months for leave, etc., and THEN go kick Saddam's ass. Then, politely inquire about Ghaddaffi's schedule for the next few months to schedule HIS invasion with the least disruption of his social calendar. But, nobody asked. Imagine that.

However, as I see it, the resource drain was THE problem with the timing of the Iraq invasion. I don't see the web of influence stuff you outlined. Just sayin'. And, Obama went out of his way to cozy up to the Afghan War, while saying he would drag us out of Iraq, pretty much irrespective of the consequences. So the attempts to paint Obama as "saddled with Bush's war" in Afghanistan are as pathetic as the attempts to say the USAPATRIOT Act was all Bush's. Once Obama signed the damned thing as President of the United States, it's HIS.

 
2012-05-30 05:02:19 PM
HeartBurnKid:
He was right; we actually had a reason to invade Afghanistan. We had no reason to invade Iraq. And that doesn't change the fact that both of them were started by GWB, and Obama didn't "choose" either one. But he sure as hell finished Afghanistan.

Really? We're still there. Oh, I get it... This is like that Nobel Peace Prize thing, right? He's TALKED about leaving, so that's enough. But, it sure is EASY to "end a war" when all you have to do is walk away and let everyone working with you get killed. Leftists in the U.S. have had that as an apparent policy since Viet Nam.

But, you don't get to weasel out of the "Obama's War" thing at all. He campaigned on Afghanistan being the "right war" and the just fight, and a necessary victory. That makes it his, whether or not he was the one to initiate the military action. Unless, of course, you are claiming he was lying his ass off in the campaign. If you care to make that argument, I would find it difficult to counter. Are you going there?
 
2012-05-30 05:31:48 PM
HeartBurnKid:
GeneralJim: Compare Obama's campaign speeches with current plans.

He said we'd finish the job there and get out. And the job is finished; OBL is dead, Al-Qaeda is in tatters, and Afghanistan has something approaching a stable government. Why shouldn't we get out now?

Seriously? You must have supported Bush's "Mission Accomplished" bit then -- just as much justification for THAT. Just SAYING things are okay doesn't cut it. Besides, you're at cross-talking-points with the weiner above, who is announcing that Afghanistan is a total s
NEWS FLASH: Obama announces the end of unemployment. Full employment was achieved this month, as unemployment was redefined as at least twenty-five years of no income following at least twenty-five years employed with the same employer. This month's statistics show twelve people unemployed in the United States in the month of May. In a sweeping gesture, President Obama announced that those twelve people will be given government jobs at the lowest pay grade, with no attendance required, to bring the unemployment number to zero.

This would work for you, I take it. Then, you could say that Obama inherited an economy with near 8% unemployment, and eliminated unemployment in his first term. Wunderbar.
 
2012-05-30 05:36:31 PM
GeneralJim:
Seriously? You must have supported Bush's "Mission Accomplished" bit then -- just as much justification for THAT. Just SAYING things are okay doesn't cut it. Besides, you're at cross-talking-points with the weiner above, who is announcing that Afghanistan is a total s

Whoops... Premature enpostulation. It should continue....

. . . who is announcing that Afghanistan is a total shiathole, and has been for thousands of years, and nothing can be done about it. So, which is it? Is Afghanistan totally "fixed," and a virtual paradise due to the ministrations of the Messiah, or is it a worthless shiathole beyond redemption? To me, at least, these two descriptions seem somewhat at odds...
 
2012-05-30 05:40:42 PM

GeneralJim: s being in Iraq focused Islamic Militant attention on our presence there. Coincidentally, that left THEM occupied with Iraq, and without the resources to pursue us say, in the U.S. itself. It may well be that if we had simply gone after the Taliban in Afghanistan, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil would have continued. There's no "control planet" we can use to see, obviously.


While that argument has been popular as a post-war justification for invading Iraq, it's pretty much nonsense. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was a franchise operation, there was no need to much if any resources into when you have a whole army of disgruntled fired soldiers and civil servants (and everyone got some military training in Iraq) willing to take on the fight. Al-Qaeda was quite able to carry out several international terrorist attacks all while the Iraq war was going.
 
2012-05-30 05:45:16 PM
Mentat:
GeneralJim: Obama has honest-to-God experts on hand. Like, say, General McChrystal. Here, EDUCATE YOURSELF.

Again, if Alexander the Great couldn't figure out how to do it, why should I believe a random link offered by an internet troll is going to offer a solution?

Oh, you're going with "I don't like you, so I don't have to deal with something you link... Sort of like the climate threads, where if a skeptical blog mentions peer-reviewed science, that somehow "taints" the science, and it no longer counts. In other words, you will only listen to far-leftist propaganda, and will jam your fingers in your ears and make loud humming noises if you hear anything from any other source. That explains a lot.

But, seriously, where TF do you get off calling General McChrystal an "internet troll?" Because, what is there is HIS information, not mine. He was brought in to "fix" our engagement in Afghanistan, whatever it took. He analyzed the situation, and told them what it would take -- but the solutions was not one that fit the leftist talking points, so they set out to undermine Gen. McChrystal. And, here you are, doing much the same. Only listen to double-plus-good duckspeak from "reliable sources," Comrade Moron.
 
2012-05-30 05:48:40 PM
Halli:
Still a lie jim. Magic book says that is bad.

So, what does your little red book say about falsely claiming others are lying?
 
2012-05-30 05:51:42 PM
Halli:
Had to win doesn't mean it can be done. You moran.

So, you are saying that Obama deliberately led us into a situation where we were destined to lose with his fancy campaign rhetoric? Wouldn't that be treason?

I don't believe it, but I'd probably be willing to cede the point if you want to paint Obama as a treasonous bastard, just for the lulz. Dumbass.
 
2012-05-30 05:59:26 PM
Gwyrddu:
Al-Qaeda in Iraq was a franchise operation, there was no need to much if any resources into when you have a whole army of disgruntled fired soldiers and civil servants (and everyone got some military training in Iraq) willing to take on the fight.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-30 06:03:47 PM

GeneralJim: 4.bp.blogspot.com

I was in a rush and didn't have time to correct for grammar, Here it again, FTFM.


While that argument has been popular as a post-war justification for invading Iraq, it's pretty much nonsense. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was a franchise operation, there was no need to put much if any resources into the conflict when you have a whole army of disgruntled fired soldiers and civil servants (and every male in Iraq has some military training) willing to fight against the Americans. Al-Qaeda was quite able to carry out several international terrorist attacks all while the Iraq war was going on.
 
2012-05-30 06:23:52 PM

GeneralJim: Halli: Still a lie jim. Magic book says that is bad.
So, what does your little red book say about falsely claiming others are lying?


I provided a link that debunked your lies. You keep on peddling bs.

GeneralJim: Halli: Had to win doesn't mean it can be done. You moran.
So, you are saying that Obama deliberately led us into a situation where we were destined to lose with his fancy campaign rhetoric? Wouldn't that be treason?

I don't believe it, but I'd probably be willing to cede the point if you want to paint Obama as a treasonous bastard, just for the lulz. Dumbass.


Really? Obama started the Afghanistan war? Are you a farking retard?
 
Displayed 177 of 177 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report