How many more people have to die after Obama declares defeat

We know that we are going to lose Afghanistan since Obama announced that we are leaving. The rules of engagement have cost lives. Our enemy knows our intentions and is waiting. Our allies are getting themselves out or getting on the side of our enemies.

For those of you who have ever (that means just once) complained about the number of people that died under Bush then you have to condemn Obama in even stronger langauge since we are declaring defeat and any loss of life is meaningless.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...istmas-message

We know that we are going to lose Afghanistan since Obama announced that we are leaving. The rules of engagement have cost lives. Our enemy knows our intentions and is waiting. Our allies are getting themselves out or getting on the side of our enemies.

For those of you who have ever (that means just once) complained about the number of people that died under Bush then you have to condemn Obama in even stronger langauge since we are declaring defeat and any loss of life is meaningless.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...istmas-message Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I find it amazing the things you can piss and about. If he wasn't drawing down the troops you would be bitching about losing lives in a lost cause.

We know that we are going to lose Afghanistan since Obama announced that we are leaving. The rules of engagement have cost lives. Our enemy knows our intentions and is waiting. Our allies are getting themselves out or getting on the side of our enemies.

For those of you who have ever (that means just once) complained about the number of people that died under Bush then you have to condemn Obama in even stronger langauge since we are declaring defeat and any loss of life is meaningless.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...istmas-message Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Afghanistan is a bottomless shithole of a country that we should have gotten out of no more than a year after we arrived. That one is on Bush. Obama should've gotten us out of Afghanistan no later than six months after we left Iraq. That one is on Obama. There is no military solution in Afghanistan. There never has been, there never will be. Ask the British, ask the Russians, ask us. We should leave. Now.

I am always amused by idiots like you (and Shrub) who forget the idiom that wars are a lot easier to start than they are to stop. So...Professor....share your strategy about how to "win" the war in Afghanistan. Or, how best extricate ourselves from it? How do our troops leave? In the middle of the night via some massive airlift that would be logistically impossible? Based on all the ridiculous things you've posted up about Benghazi we know that, as SecDef Gates stated, you and the rest of the mouthbreathers have a cartoonish view of military capabilities. So...what should we do General?

As usual, you're a fucking dunce.

JDIDIOT dirt doesn't deal in solutions. Nor does he deal in fact.

We know that we are going to lose Afghanistan since Obama announced that we are leaving. The rules of engagement have cost lives. Our enemy knows our intentions and is waiting. Our allies are getting themselves out or getting on the side of our enemies.

For those of you who have ever (that means just once) complained about the number of people that died under Bush then you have to condemn Obama in even stronger langauge since we are declaring defeat and any loss of life is meaningless.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...istmas-message Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So we just stay there forever, die in the desert, spends billions to kill some people, and what exactly will our "victory" look like? P.S. Unless you went to the Army War College and obtained the rank of a General Officer, why should we listen to you, anyway?

P.S. Unless you went to the Army War College and obtained the rank of a General Officer, why should we listen to you, anyway? Originally Posted by Bert Jones

JD went to the Navy and achieved the rank of Semen.

Ahhh, the coalition of the clueless has arrived. I was navy for most of my career. So general is inappropriate and kind of stupid.

Did you see anywhere where I proposed a "winning" strategy? Only in your feeble minds I suppose. When you go into a country like Afghanistan you can't play by the same rules of winning as other countries. You go in, destroy the bad guys with whatever it takes, and leave. Bush had a goal, the miltary had a mission, and the very fact that Bush would not publicly entertain retreat gave our enemy pause. That was Bush, this is Obama. Almost from day one Obama started talking about leaving. As soon as he opened his mouth he gave our enemy hope. Maybe he did stand by and allow our special ops people to kill terrorists but our enemy knew that they just had to wait out the feckless commander in chief. So you lose some "leaders" but you can expect to win the war. What military commander would turn that down? Like Clinton before him Obama does not know how to be a military commander and will never understand how to use military force. Note how many commanders have been purged for Obama to find some political yes-men to promote. His legacy of loss will stay with the military for years just like what LBJ and Jimmy
Carter did.

So we just stay there forever, die in the desert, spends billions to kill some people, and what exactly will our "victory" look like? P.S. Unless you went to the Army War College and obtained the rank of a General Officer, why should we listen to you, anyway? Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Note the liberal mind. He distains the military until he wants to use it to win a argument. For record, and your education, lower ranked officers go to the war colleges (there is more than one) and hope to become generals some day. Also, who do you think puts together the strategies in the Pentagon? Its not the generals. They have staffers who research, plan, and forward their plans to the generals. The generals read them, make notes, and become experts of those plans written by someone else. If a war breaks out in that region then that general and his staff become the go-to guys just like Schwarzkopf in the Gulf War.

Ahhh, the coalition of the clueless has arrived. I was navy for most of my career. So general is inappropriate and kind of stupid.

Did you see anywhere where I proposed a "winning" strategy? Only in your feeble minds I suppose. When you go into a country like Afghanistan you can't play by the same rules of winning as other countries. You go in, destroy the bad guys with whatever it takes, and leave. Bush had a goal, the miltary had a mission, and the very fact that Bush would not publicly entertain retreat gave our enemy pause. That was Bush, this is Obama. Almost from day one Obama started talking about leaving. As soon as he opened his mouth he gave our enemy hope. Maybe he did stand by and allow our special ops people to kill terrorists but our enemy knew that they just had to wait out the feckless commander in chief. So you lose some "leaders" but you can expect to win the war. What military commander would turn that down? Like Clinton before him Obama does not know how to be a military commander and will never understand how to use military force. Note how many commanders have been purged for Obama to find some political yes-men to promote. His legacy of loss will stay with the military for years just like what LBJ and Jimmy
Carter did. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes, as I suspected, you have no idea what to do in Afghanistan other than to "destroy the bad guys with whatever it takes." A marvelously non-specific answer which confirms that you are a whiney buffoon without any sort of a solution to the problem you want to whine about. Dunce.

Specific answer? What are you saying you little, silly birch? You want to name the general or units involved. Your comment shows that you are not serious and you can't defend your claims. If we are getting specific, I would change out the Commander in Chief. Are you with me?

Specific answer? What are you saying you little, silly birch? You want to name the general or units involved. Your comment shows that you are not serious and you can't defend your claims. If we are getting specific, I would change out the Commander in Chief. Are you with me? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I'll try again and type slow.....

And, how should that new POTUS conduct the war to an outcome that you would deem to be acceptable you fucking clueless moron? Do you understand the question now?

Be specific. Something beyond "destroy our enemies".......because we've been trying that one for a decade.

Ahhh, the coalition of the clueless has arrived. I was navy for most of my career. So general is inappropriate and kind of stupid.

Did you see anywhere where I proposed a "winning" strategy? Only in your feeble minds I suppose. When you go into a country like Afghanistan you can't play by the same rules of winning as other countries. You go in, destroy the bad guys with whatever it takes, and leave. Bush had a goal, the miltary had a mission, and the very fact that Bush would not publicly entertain retreat gave our enemy pause. That was Bush, this is Obama. Almost from day one Obama started talking about leaving. As soon as he opened his mouth he gave our enemy hope. Maybe he did stand by and allow our special ops people to kill terrorists but our enemy knew that they just had to wait out the feckless commander in chief. So you lose some "leaders" but you can expect to win the war. What military commander would turn that down? Like Clinton before him Obama does not know how to be a military commander and will never understand how to use military force. Note how many commanders have been purged for Obama to find some political yes-men to promote. His legacy of loss will stay with the military for years just like what LBJ and Jimmy
Carter did. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes the collation of the clueless has arrived, and you are the leader. That was one place of several we had no reason to be there other than putting a spy satellite over it and anything that looked like a training camp for terrorists send a cruse missile. Never should had boots on the ground.

October 7, 2001 "Operation Enduring Freedom".....who thought of that.......begins! More than 7 years later GW Bush leaves office. We never got an Afghanistan "Mission Accomplished" moment from GW............and we have stayed much too long under Obama.

So we just stay there forever, die in the desert, spends billions to kill some people, and what exactly will our "victory" look like? P.S. Unless you went to the Army War College and obtained the rank of a General Officer, why should we listen to you, anyway? Originally Posted by Bert Jones

The fighting is on mountains not in a desert. Yea, it's a little different than Iraq.

Ahhh, the coalition of the clueless has arrived. I was navy for most of my career. So general is inappropriate and kind of stupid.

Did you see anywhere where I proposed a "winning" strategy? Only in your feeble minds I suppose. When you go into a country like Afghanistan you can't play by the same rules of winning as other countries. You go in, destroy the bad guys with whatever it takes, and leave. Bush had a goal, the miltary had a mission, and the very fact that Bush would not publicly entertain retreat gave our enemy pause. That was Bush, this is Obama. Almost from day one Obama started talking about leaving. As soon as he opened his mouth he gave our enemy hope. Maybe he did stand by and allow our special ops people to kill terrorists but our enemy knew that they just had to wait out the feckless commander in chief. So you lose some "leaders" but you can expect to win the war. What military commander would turn that down? Like Clinton before him Obama does not know how to be a military commander and will never understand how to use military force. Note how many commanders have been purged for Obama to find some political yes-men to promote. His legacy of loss will stay with the military for years just like what LBJ and Jimmy
Carter did. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well, maybe we should bomb them from the ships, Navy man?