Afghanistan will sink Obama's Presidency

[Ardent15]

No one in hundreds, if not thousands of years has ever been able to conquer the nation known as the "Graveyard of Nations."

And Obama thinks he can create a stable democratic government there, and maintain the peace between the warring tribes, and defeat the Taliban AND al-Qaeda.

If you thought Iraq was hubris...you ain't seen nothin' yet!

This was Bush's war, and now it's Obama's war. His strategy will backfire, and many, many lives will be lost, at a great cost both financially and morally.

When was the last time we engaged in a justifiable war? Not for several generations. Afghanistan will break Obama's Presidency.

[ProSense]

1. Utter nonsense. n/t

[Ardent15]

2. Sure it is.

You are entitled to your own opinion. Just don't apologize to me when the nation turns against this foreign policy of war.

[ProSense]

4. "Just don't apologize to me when the nation turns against this foreign policy of war."

A bit of wishful thinking?

[rug]

18. It may sink ProSense first. She's good but she's not that flexible.

[tallahasseedem]

12. +1

[sendero]

21. Factual truth..

... but even after the failure is blatantly apparent, idiots like you will deny it.

[Mari333]

3. the cost alone is bankrupting this country

and until it ends it will continue to do so.

corporate warmongers own most of the politicians.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Deservedly so. LBJ redux.

[gimama]

6. I agree..Obama's Presidency..

& OUR Country.

I am against his escalation of Troops, the increase in contractors, the increased use of drones, the creep into Pakistan, the continued abuse of power & detainees, the escalation of civilian AND military deaths..the continued WASTE of LIVES & resources.

This is not the change I voted for & believed in.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Here's the flaw in your reasoning. It's in the first line of your OP.

We aren't trying to Conquer the nation of Afghanistan, the "Graveyard of Nations".

Neither are we looking for regime change (not that you suggested that).

This is an effort to bring stability to the region, to empower the majority against a thuggish minority.

It may well fail. Lord knows that the odds are against success.

But I give President Obama credit for having realistic expectations.

:patriot:

[Mari333]

9. there are regions all over the world that need stability

and why just pick this one region over all the others?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/oil-pipelines-are-the-new_n_178715.html


money money money money multinational corporate money money money money

[NYC_SKP]

10. Ask George Bush.

[Fumesucker]

11. Obama is POTUS now, he is the one responsible, ask him.. n/t

[Mari333]

13. yep.

he picked Bush's generals to continue the same damned corporate policies.

[NYC_SKP]

17. And, as he promised and as any genuine leader would do, taking care of business toward withdrawal.

He will never be responsible for how we got there, but he's responsible for using the best set of strategies he can muster to accomplish SOMETHING productive and to leave it a better place, if only slightly, than when Bush/Cheney decided to piss all over their people.

[Fumesucker]

19. How many hundreds of billions of dollars is only "slightly* better worth?

And how many American lives?

[OutNow]

8. Hey Hey LBJ How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?

The LBJ exhibit at the U of Texas in Austin is a great place to visit. His accomplishments are presented is a very impressive way. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the war on Poverty, etc.

Unfortunately, LBJ's legacy is scorched by the war in Southeast Asia. Sure you might say that it was really Kennedy's war or the case might be made that it was Eisenhower's war. Nope, it was LBJ's war and it ruined his administration.

Does history repeat itself? Sadly, it does.

[jtuck004]

14. I don't think any place or person will "sink": his presidency.

If it gets sunk, it will be because he did it. Either by action or inaction. I don't have a ton of faith in his advisors, and I think he is listening to them. But that is his responsibilty, no one else's. So we will see.

And don't sell the American people short. We have proven that we can get behind a war, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that we were wrong to start it, and continue to rationalize it to ourselves beyond all limits. Then we contine justifying war by "who associated with whom", and clearly fighting a fight to occupy a country in which people who are not our enemies are only fighting us because we are occupying it, even though it appears that we have no national security interest whatsoever in keeping it going. In that respect, we are overachievers.

So I don't see us overwhelmingly "turning against" war.

[customerserviceguy]

15. Your comment about a justifiable war

reminds me of the fact that a war is considered justifiable when it is utterly won by one party.

We haven't had that happen since WWII. OK, maybe Grenada was in that category (funny how nobody talks about it any more) but we haven't had the will or the means to fight WWII-style in a couple of generations.

[doc03]

16. I don't think so I think he will come up with bin Laden soon. n/t

[Edweird]

20. It will definitely help bankrupt our country. I think the admin (and Congress)

has more to be concerned about, accountability wise, from the 'insurance care' debacle than Afghanistan.

[MellowDem]

22. No...

Plenty of nations have conquered and ruled over Afghanistan. And Obama just wants to create a stable environment, then get out.

And if he loses the presidency, it will be because of the economy (and healthcare).

[lamp_shade]

23. Ya... right... conquer the nation. Good grief.

[ShortnFiery]

24. That and the shitty health care bill he's forcing the HOUSE to pass. eom