PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Westpoint Cadets Asked To Respond "Enthusiastically" To Obama Speech


RINGLEADER
12-02-2009, 08:53 AM
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.

<B>Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, <U>the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech</U>. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.</B>

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Just in Time for the Campaign

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added.

It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.

Obama's Magic No Longer Works

But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama's magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker.

It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives -- their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.

Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."

In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

BigChiefFan
12-02-2009, 08:58 AM
Kind of hard to be enthusiastic about staring down death with Obama's news of more troops. Those are KIDS, that he's putting in harm's way for DRUGS. I'm not pleased with another bogus war to drain more money from the tax payers.

wild1
12-02-2009, 09:31 AM
I'm guessing that they don't feel he's fully committed to the mission, given his middling and calculation for a year on this issue.

If he's not enthusiastic about letting them accomplish the mission, why would they be?

InChiefsHell
12-02-2009, 09:38 AM
All the lefties where I work are dismayed. I'm a conservative, I'm dismayed. This dude managed to piss everyone off last night.

...awesome. :shake:

stevieray
12-02-2009, 09:40 AM
....they chould've used flashing applause signs

Donger
12-02-2009, 09:41 AM
I wonder who asked them to do that?

BucEyedPea
12-02-2009, 09:42 AM
So he's pulling a Bush here as well.

Chief Henry
12-02-2009, 09:44 AM
All the lefties where I work are dismayed. I'm a conservative, I'm dismayed. This dude managed to piss everyone off last night.


He's actually keeping a campaign promise. Just remind those lefties that
this is one campaign promise he's keeping.

thecoffeeguy
12-02-2009, 09:45 AM
Worse POTUS ever!

BigRedChief
12-02-2009, 09:55 AM
Worse POTUS ever!ROFL

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 10:01 AM
I have a high ranking friend in the AF stationed in Mo and from what I gather the military did actually have support for Bush. And he says at the beginning Obama was getting no less support. Now from what he says it is really a bad deal with military across branches having no respect for the prez.

There was a video of the cadets last night falling asleep. Proof they are human.

BucEyedPea
12-02-2009, 10:04 AM
I have a high ranking friend in the AF stationed in Mo and from what I gather the military did actually have support for Bush. And he says at the beginning Obama was getting no less support. Now from what he says it is really a bad deal with military across branches having no respect for the prez.

There was a video of the cadets last night falling asleep. Proof they are human.

Well, if I were a soldier in Afghanistan suffering being attacked, I'd feel the same way. It's not like they know what's really going on. So naturally they'd feel less protected.

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 10:08 AM
Lefty Mouthpiece Mathews calls West point the "enemy camp". At what point do lefties see how stupid that comes across?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BigChiefFan
12-02-2009, 10:14 AM
Lefty Mouthpiece Mathews calls West point the "enemy camp". At what point do lefties see how stupid that comes across?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
At what point, do you realize by using division, you've fallen right into their plan? DIVIDE and CONQUER. There is no right and left, it's big government versus states rights. Wake up.

CoMoChief
12-02-2009, 11:11 AM
Worse POTUS ever!

I don't believe in people being able to vote, if they can't even spell or use correct grammar.

CoMoChief
12-02-2009, 11:12 AM
I have a high ranking friend in the AF stationed in Mo and from what I gather the military did actually have support for Bush. And he says at the beginning Obama was getting no less support. Now from what he says it is really a bad deal with military across branches having no respect for the prez.

There was a video of the cadets last night falling asleep. Proof they are human.

the military hated Clinton too.

pikesome
12-02-2009, 12:03 PM
the military hated Clinton too.

And how.

When you have to order people not to say anything bad about you it's too late.

patteeu
12-02-2009, 12:32 PM
So he's pulling a Bush here as well.

Bush didn't have to ask. The enthusiasm was authentic.

Radar Chief
12-02-2009, 12:44 PM
And how.

When you have to order people not to say anything bad about you it's too late.

So, Bill Clinton is returning to the White House from a short trip home when he deplanes Air Force One with a piglet under each arm. The Marine guard and the bottom of the steps salutes and says, “Nice pigs, Mr. President.” Bill Clinton responded sharply, “These aren’t just pigs, these are authentic Arkansas razor backs. I got them for Hillary.” The soldier responded with another salute and said, “Good trade, Mr. President.”

Pennywise
12-02-2009, 01:08 PM
Lefty Mouthpiece Mathews calls West point the "enemy camp". At what point do lefties see how stupid that comes across?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Unfucking real.

KCWolfman
12-02-2009, 01:19 PM
Enemy camp????

The men he is sending to their possible death is the enemy camp?

petegz28
12-02-2009, 01:28 PM
I didn't see the speech but I hear it was pretty bad

Direckshun
12-02-2009, 01:31 PM
Lefty Mouthpiece Mathews calls West point the "enemy camp". At what point do lefties see how stupid that comes across?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Every leftwing blog I've hit today condemned Matthews.

See, we have no problem condemning our own for acting like idiots.

I've often received neg rep from liberals here in DC.

wild1
12-02-2009, 01:32 PM
I've often received neg rep from liberals here in DC.

Does that mean anything to you? :doh!:

Donger
12-02-2009, 01:34 PM
The host later acknowledged that "enemy camp" was perhaps the wrong phrase, but that his point about the location remains: "Maybe earlier tonight I used the wrong phrase, 'enemy camp,' but the fact of the matter is that he went up there to a place that's obviously military."

So, Matthews thinks that our military opposes Obama?

petegz28
12-02-2009, 01:35 PM
Matthews should apoligize immediately. Is he sucking so much Obama cock that he actually called them "the enemy camp" cause they were not enthused about Obama and his message?

Donger
12-02-2009, 01:37 PM
Matthews should apoligize immediately. Is he sucking so much Obama cock that he actually called them "the enemy camp" cause they were not enthused about Obama and his message?

Perhaps Matthews has some inside information to which we are not privy? Do we know if Obama views our military in that way?

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 01:38 PM
I didn't see the speech but I hear it was pretty bad


Hope your today was better than yesterday. Hang in there and something will come up and likely be even better.

petegz28
12-02-2009, 01:39 PM
Hope your today was better than yesterday. Hang in there and something will come up and likely be even better.

Thanks, HCF!

Dayze
12-02-2009, 01:49 PM
I ask the following question, not to stir up sh*t etc…but seriously, because I’m not 100% sure.

Doesn’t it take Congressional approval to go to war?
Or has the last 9 years, etc, been a ‘conflict’ – thereby eliminating the need for approval?

wild1
12-02-2009, 01:52 PM
I ask the following question, not to stir up sh*t etc…but seriously, because I’m not 100% sure.

Doesn’t it take Congressional approval to go to war?
Or has the last 9 years, etc, been a ‘conflict’ – thereby eliminating the need for approval?

congress voted to authorize the use of the military in these actions, although it is not a declared war in the way WW2 was

Donger
12-02-2009, 02:00 PM
I ask the following question, not to stir up sh*t etc…but seriously, because I’m not 100% sure.

Doesn’t it take Congressional approval to go to war?
Or has the last 9 years, etc, been a ‘conflict’ – thereby eliminating the need for approval?

BEP will be along shortly to give you a lecture. The words "War Powers Act" will probably be mentioned.

Calcountry
12-02-2009, 02:02 PM
Lefty Mouthpiece Mathews calls West point the "enemy camp". At what point do lefties see how stupid that comes across?

<EMBED height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=425 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 allowScriptAccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>I bet he felt a thrill going up his a**

Calcountry
12-02-2009, 02:03 PM
BEP will be along shortly to give you a lecture. The words "War Powers Act" will probably be mentioned.Perhaps it is high time the anti war right/left demand another vote on this.

BucEyedPea
12-02-2009, 02:04 PM
Doesn’t it take Congressional approval to go to war?
Yes it does.
Or has the last 9 years, etc, been a ‘conflict’ – thereby eliminating the need for approval?

No it's a metaphorical war like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty especially with how it's being conducted.

I responded to just to satisfied the conservative poster with the pornographic screen name.

Dayze
12-02-2009, 02:07 PM
Thanks for the info guys.

Lzen
12-02-2009, 02:47 PM
I don't believe in people being able to vote, if they can't even spell or use correct grammar.

the military hated Clinton too.

Heh.

Pestilence
12-02-2009, 02:56 PM
Heh.

You noticed that as well. LMAO

Donger
12-02-2009, 02:57 PM
Heh.

I don't get it.

Chocolate Hog
12-02-2009, 02:59 PM
Neo-cons heads must be spinning, Obama has beat them at there own game. I'm talking about the same bs the Neo-cons preech " We must fight them there or they'll fight us here, We must protect the Afghan borders while we leave Americas open". Also he's spending more then the neo-cons, so the Republican party should endorse president Obama.

fan4ever
12-02-2009, 03:03 PM
....they chould've used flashing applause signs

I was thinking more of a laugh track . . .

BucEyedPea
12-02-2009, 03:04 PM
Neo-cons heads must be spinning, Obama has beat them at there own game. I'm talking about the same bs the Neo-cons preech " We must fight them there or they'll fight us here, We must protect the Afghan borders while we leave Americas open". Also he's spending more then the neo-cons, so the Republican party should endorse president Obama.

Yup! Peas-in-a-pod they are. I'm so glad I decided not to vote for him, even knowing his socialist policies would be tried domestically. War and socialism with Bush. War and socialism with Obama. Thing is the Rs still think they're actually different.

Chocolate Hog
12-02-2009, 03:06 PM
Yup! Peas-in-a-pod they are. I'm so glad I decided not to vote for him, even knowing his socialist policies would be tried domestically. War and socialism with Bush. War and socialism with Obama. Thing is the Rs still think they're actually different.

I imagine someone will bring up Obama's healthcare plan while not mentioning Bush's spending on medicare, hey thats American politics.

fan4ever
12-02-2009, 03:12 PM
Every leftwing blog I've hit today condemned Matthews.

See, we have no problem condemning our own for acting like idiots.

I've often received neg rep from liberals here in DC.

Of course they've been condemning him; libs hate it when one of their own reveals their true beliefs.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! We're not supposed to hate the military, SHHHHHHHHHHHH!

patteeu
12-02-2009, 04:13 PM
Neo-cons heads must be spinning, Obama has beat them at there own game. I'm talking about the same bs the Neo-cons preech " We must fight them there or they'll fight us here, We must protect the Afghan borders while we leave Americas open". Also he's spending more then the neo-cons, so the Republican party should endorse president Obama.

Speaking on behalf of my like-minded friends, the neocons here, Obama says all the right things in one breath and then takes it all back with all the wrong things in the next. Based on what he says, he's as close to your side (withdraw and turn our attention inward) as he is to mine (fight them over there or they'll fight us here).

patteeu
12-02-2009, 04:19 PM
I imagine someone will bring up Obama's healthcare plan while not mentioning Bush's spending on medicare, hey thats American politics.

I've never hidden my opposition to the Bush prescription drug program, but comparing the two is like comparing a rickshaw to a Bentley. Yeah, you and I might be opposed to all forms of wheeled transportation on principle, but that doesn't change the fact that they're not all qualitatively the same and the price tags are dramatically different. Even when Bush was passing his rickshaw entitlement, democrats wanted a Buick.

KCWolfman
12-02-2009, 04:29 PM
Every leftwing blog I've hit today condemned Matthews.

See, we have no problem condemning our own for acting like idiots.

I've often received neg rep from liberals here in DC.

Good. Then 30 people who read those blogs will counteract the millions who watched Matthews.
Posted via Mobile Device

KCWolfman
12-02-2009, 04:31 PM
I imagine someone will bring up Obama's healthcare plan while not mentioning Bush's spending on medicare, hey thats American politics.

Yeah because Medicare adjustments (which was actually passed by a LIBERAL house and senate) is comparable to an insurance that could eventually cover more than 300 million Americans.
Posted via Mobile Device

BucEyedPea
12-02-2009, 04:32 PM
Yeah because Medicare (which was actually passed by a LIBERAL house and senate) is comparable to an insurance that could eventually cover more than 300 million Americans.
Posted via Mobile Device

Because prescription drug benefits is still not a conservative move and keeps drug costs up!

KCWolfman
12-02-2009, 04:51 PM
aBecause prescription drug benefits is still not a conservative move and keeps drug costs up!
Part D was passed by what party again?

Honestly, the concept has drained MCare coffers exponentially faster and driven many companies who have been in business for decades (like my own I worked for) completely out of business.
Posted via Mobile Device

ChiefaRoo
12-02-2009, 05:31 PM
Kind of hard to be enthusiastic about staring down death with Obama's news of more troops. Those are KIDS, that he's putting in harm's way for DRUGS. I'm not pleased with another bogus war to drain more money from the tax payers.

This is completely wrong. These "kids" are training to be warriors and leaders of other men and women. In many cases their families have long distinguished histories of being warriors. They know what it means to be be professional military.

Also,this war isn't bogus it is required so that AQ is denied a base of operations which would allow them to subjugate an entire people and launch attacks against the US, Europe and other muslim countries that are friendly to the USA. Pakistan has nukes. You don't want to crazy fanatics gaining a foothold next door.

I can't stand it when people use "kids" as a negative to describe our professional army. It's insulting and shows a complete lack of understanding of why these young people have decided to dedicate their lives being professional soldiers.

Obama got a subdued but polite reception out of respect for him and his office. These "kids" like most thinking Americans suspect that our current President may not be up to doing the job correctly in Afghanistan. We'll see.

ChiefaRoo
12-02-2009, 05:34 PM
Good. Then 30 people who read those blogs will counteract the millions who watched Matthews.
Posted via Mobile Device

Millions don't watch Matthews or MSNBC. Try tens of thousand or a couple hundred thousand at any given time. MSNBC = fail as a network.

BigChiefFan
12-02-2009, 06:13 PM
This is completely wrong. These "kids" are training to be warriors and leaders of other men and women. In many cases their families have long distinguished histories of being warriors. They know what it means to be be professional military.

Also,this war isn't bogus it is required so that AQ is denied a base of operations which would allow them to subjugate an entire people and launch attacks against the US, Europe and other muslim countries that are friendly to the USA. Pakistan has nukes. You don't want to crazy fanatics gaining a foothold next door.

I can't stand it when people use "kids" as a negative to describe our professional army. It's insulting and shows a complete lack of understanding of why these young people have decided to dedicate their lives being professional soldiers.

Obama got a subdued but polite reception out of respect for him and his office. These "kids" like most thinking Americans suspect that our current President may not be up to doing the job correctly in Afghanistan. We'll see.
Calling me wrong about my OPINION of those young adults is hilarious. Those are still TEENAGERS(at WEST POINT) and they are putting their asses on the line for a war based on lies. "Kids" is a figure of speech, and in NO WAY indicates an insult or negativity.

You're way out in left field, with your deduction. Good grief.

Saul Good
12-02-2009, 07:13 PM
I don't believe in people being able to vote, if they can't even spell or use correct grammar.

How do you feel about those who use superfluous commas?

Chocolate Hog
12-02-2009, 07:27 PM
Speaking on behalf of my like-minded friends, the neocons here, Obama says all the right things in one breath and then takes it all back with all the wrong things in the next. Based on what he says, he's as close to your side (withdraw and turn our attention inward) as he is to mine (fight them over there or they'll fight us here).

That's not really true, he's sent more troops over then he's brought home.

Saul Good
12-02-2009, 07:30 PM
That's not really true, he's sent more troops over then he's brought home.

Hence the disconnect between his words and his actions.

Chocolate Hog
12-02-2009, 07:34 PM
Hence the disconnect between his words and his actions.

Yes and a politicans words are meaningless its his actions (sending more troops) which makes him on Patteaus side.

Saul Good
12-02-2009, 07:47 PM
Yes and a politicans words are meaningless its his actions (sending more troops) which makes him on Patteaus side.

When his words are what got him elected, they aren't meaningless. Words enabled him to enact his actions. Besides, even if Patteeu wanted more troops in Afghanistan, I doubt that this was what he had in mind.

Norman Einstein
12-02-2009, 07:54 PM
the military hated Clinton too.
I don't think they hated him, they held no respect for him.

Norman Einstein
12-02-2009, 08:05 PM
The teleprompter man did just as he's always done. He read a speech written by someone else. Not one time while I was watching did he ever look straight out to the camera. His back and forth profile was evidence that his focus was on the teleprompters only.

Watch the video again and check his eyes, they aren't looking out at the cadets, merely posing as if they were, he was reading and acting as always.

Telling those kids to respond 'enthusiastically' to the president was totally wrong and if it was considered an order it may have been an illegal order. I saw basic disrespect for the president in the cadets, but I saw an equally bad disrespect from the president for the kids are destined to be leaders in our military.

When the president spoke of forming an alliance with Islamic countrys there seemed to be little smile on his face. That in itself is disturbing, not to acknowledge Islam, but to show a level of exuberance about a group that is home for radicals that would kill every westerner on the face of the planet if given the chance.

I hope his resolve is for the country rather than for the world, our best interests are not necessarily the same as the rest of the world, especially those that may be harboring our enemy.

One more point, in a war like situation you never tell the enemy about an end date for the hostilities. If we are going to have a draw down in 2011 it seems like there could be some digging in to wait out the departure of the troops and then it's back to business as usual. There is something wrong with the logic, or lack of logic, the president is using.

patteeu
12-02-2009, 08:41 PM
That's not really true, he's sent more troops over then he's brought home.

I'm not interested in his transport manifests. I'm interested in what he does to either win the war or get out. So far, he's been an equivocator.

ChiefaRoo
12-02-2009, 11:41 PM
Calling me wrong about my OPINION of those young adults is hilarious. Those are still TEENAGERS(at WEST POINT) and they are putting their asses on the line for a war based on lies. "Kids" is a figure of speech, and in NO WAY indicates an insult or negativity.

You're way out in left field, with your deduction. Good grief.

Well if you think this war is based on lies then the entire R and D parties are involved in the lie. Do you believe that? You sound like you're uninformed, a simpleton or a kook.

trndobrd
12-03-2009, 12:14 AM
Over there, over there,
Send the word, send the word over there
That the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming
The drums rum-tumming everywhere.
So prepare, say a prayer,
Send the word, send the word to beware -
We'll be over, we're coming over,
And we won't come back till it's July 2011 over there.

Pioli Zombie
12-03-2009, 05:47 AM
Worse POTUS ever!
I think you meant to say Wurst.
Posted via Mobile Device

Stinger
12-03-2009, 07:14 AM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20091201/i/r3812647092.jpg?x=400&y=288&q=85&sig=8SRLM8GmJTGry_OsqslHig--

A U.S. Army cadet reads a book entitled "Kill Bin Laden" as he waits with other cadets for U.S. President Barack Obama to deliver an address on U.S. policy and the war in Afghanistan at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York December 1, 2009. Obama is expected to announce a plan to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan over six months in a bid to beat back the Taliban and bring a quicker end to a costly and unpopular eight-year war

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-President-Barack-Obama-war-in-Afghanistan/photo//091201/ids_photos_ts/r3812647092.jpg/;_ylt=AhI7ufHGgttRsTk6R2MnvAnDr7sF

AndChiefs
12-03-2009, 07:19 AM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20091201/i/r3812647092.jpg?x=400&y=288&q=85&sig=8SRLM8GmJTGry_OsqslHig--

A U.S. Army cadet reads a book entitled "Kill Bin Laden" as he waits with other cadets for U.S. President Barack Obama to deliver an address on U.S. policy and the war in Afghanistan at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York December 1, 2009. Obama is expected to announce a plan to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan over six months in a bid to beat back the Taliban and bring a quicker end to a costly and unpopular eight-year war

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-President-Barack-Obama-war-in-Afghanistan/photo//091201/ids_photos_ts/r3812647092.jpg/;_ylt=AhI7ufHGgttRsTk6R2MnvAnDr7sF

That guy on the right looks angry...or perhaps constipated.

Radar Chief
12-03-2009, 08:11 AM
That guy on the right looks angry...or perhaps constipated.

Dude, he’s an officers candidate at West Point. Of course he’s constipated. ;)

wild1
12-03-2009, 08:25 AM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20091201/i/r3812647092.jpg?x=400&y=288&q=85&sig=8SRLM8GmJTGry_OsqslHig--

A U.S. Army cadet reads a book entitled "Kill Bin Laden" as he waits with other cadets for U.S. President Barack Obama to deliver an address on U.S. policy and the war in Afghanistan at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York December 1, 2009. Obama is expected to announce a plan to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan over six months in a bid to beat back the Taliban and bring a quicker end to a costly and unpopular eight-year war

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-President-Barack-Obama-war-in-Afghanistan/photo//091201/ids_photos_ts/r3812647092.jpg/;_ylt=AhI7ufHGgttRsTk6R2MnvAnDr7sF

I heard someone yesterday tell of her son who was actually in the audience. This photo may have been taken before the speech began, because they were brought in and cleared through security and made to wait in a process that took approximately 4 hours.

FWIW she also mentioned that the Prez's support among those her son knows on taking office was equal to Bush, that is to say relatively high, but has declined ever since.

patteeu
12-03-2009, 08:28 AM
Over there, over there,
Send the word, send the word over there
That the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming
The drums rum-tumming everywhere.
So prepare, say a prayer,
Send the word, send the word to beware -
We'll be over, we're coming over,
And we won't come back till it's July 2011 over there.

LMAO

RINGLEADER
12-03-2009, 08:28 AM
Neo-cons heads must be spinning, Obama has beat them at there own game. I'm talking about the same bs the Neo-cons preech " We must fight them there or they'll fight us here, We must protect the Afghan borders while we leave Americas open". Also he's spending more then the neo-cons, so the Republican party should endorse president Obama.

I would be more open to supporting the decision if he didn't profess to limit his support based on things like the cost. If his strategy is to go in and hold territory then he should give the General he put in place the troops he needs and not 80% of what he says he needs. He also seems to think that just because he wants the Afghan army to take forward positions to replace US troops that they won't switch sides the second we pull out (as they always do).

Anyway, you are right about one thing -- it's Obama's War now...

RINGLEADER
12-03-2009, 08:30 AM
That guy on the right looks angry...or perhaps constipated.

LOL. Was thinking the same thing.

wild1
12-03-2009, 08:30 AM
Over there, over there,
Send the word, send the word over there
That the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming
The drums rum-tumming everywhere.
So prepare, say a prayer,
Send the word, send the word to beware -
We'll be over, we're coming over,
And we won't come back till it's July 2011 over there.

ROFL

It doesn't sound much like the policy of an FDR or a Churchill, does it.

Taco John
12-03-2009, 09:51 AM
It doesn't sound much like the policy of an FDR or a Churchill, does it.

FDR and Churchill didn't engage in nation-building. Their objective was to get in and get out with victory as quickly as possible. Whatever anyone wants to say about Obama, the last administration failed America, and left office disgracefully with two open ended engagements that had no end in sight, and no clear path to victory anywhere to be found.

If our new policy in America is to nation-build, there HAS to be conditions attached to this style of war. We cannot nation-build endlessly while our own manufacturing base dries up at home and our wealth being created solely through a printing press and back room G8 deals.

I'm no fan of Obama, but I recognize the failed wars that he inherited and the no-win situation that he's in with them. The best that he can do is give the generals a chance to win - because that's what they say that they can do at these troop levels. But he can't leave that engagement open-ended. We simply cannot afford it.

Churchill wouldn't have made this speech because Churchill didn't engage in nation-building in the manner that we are today. Churchill wouldn't have left Afghanistan to languish while the enemy regrouped the way that Bush did. Churchill wouldn't have floundered around for the better part of four years with no strategy for victory but to dig in and look forward to passing the problem on to someone else. Churchill would not have wasted blood and treasure the way Bush has.

I would just as soon see Obama pull out of these countries, but if he did, the same people who are criticizing him now would be criticizing him then, and use it against him in 2012. Obviously, Bush showed that the way to hold on to power was to use a surge to create some form of tenuous equilibrium and then call it unmitigated success.

BigChiefFan
12-03-2009, 10:22 AM
Well if you think this war is based on lies then the entire R and D parties are involved in the lie. Do you believe that? You sound like you're uninformed, a simpleton or a kook. Sounds like you could stand to open your eyes a little more and see what's really going on in the world...

AmericanFreePress.net, November 24, 2008
CIA, Heroin Still Rule Day in Afghanistan
“U.S. Army planes leave Afghanistan carrying coffins empty of bodies, but filled with drugs.”
By Victor Thorn


RAWA: Since 2001 the opium cultivation increased over 4,400%. Under the US/NATO, Afghanistan became world largest opium producer, which produces 93% of world opium.Afghanistan now supplies over 90 percent of the world’s heroin, generating nearly $200 billion in revenue. Since the U.S. invasion on Oct. 7, 2001, opium output has increased 33-fold (to over 8,250 metric tons a year).

The U.S. has been in Afghanistan for over seven years, has spent $177 billion in that country alone, and has the most powerful and technologically advanced military on Earth. GPS tracking devices can locate any spot imaginable by simply pushing a few buttons.

Still, bumper crops keep flourishing year after year, even though heroin production is a laborious, intricate process. The poppies must be planted, grown and harvested; then after the morphine is extracted it has to be cooked, refined, packaged into bricks and transported from rural locales across national borders. To make heroin from morphine requires another 12-14 hours of laborious chemical reactions. Thousands of people are involved, yet—despite the massive resources at our disposal—heroin keeps flowing at record levels.

Common sense suggests that such prolific trade over an extended period of time is no accident, especially when the history of what has transpired in that region is considered. While the CIA ran its operations during the Vietnam War, the Golden Triangle supplied the world with most of its heroin. After that war ended in 1975, an intriguing event took place in 1979 when Zbigniew Brzezinski covertly manipulated the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan.Behind the scenes, the CIA, along with Pakistan’s ISI, were secretly funding Afghanistan’s mujahideen to fight their Russian foes. Prior to this war, opium production in Afghanistan was minimal. But according to historian Alfred McCoy, an expert on the subject, a shift in focus took place. “Within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world’s top heroin producer.”

When the history of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is written, Washington's sordid involvement in the heroin trade and its alliance with drug lords and war criminals of the Afghan Communist Party will be one of the most shameful chapters.

The Huffington Post, October 15, 2008Soon, as Professor Michel Chossudovsky notes, “CIA assets again controlled the heroin trade. As the mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant poppies as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories.”

Eventually, the Soviet Union was defeated (their version of Vietnam), and ultimately lost the Cold War. The aftermath, however, proved to be an entirely new can of worms. During his research, McCoy discovered that “the CIA supported various Afghan drug lords, for instance Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The CIA did not handle heroin, but it did provide its drug lord allies with transport, arms, and political protection.”

By 1994, a new force emerged in the region—the Taliban—that took over the drug trade. Chossudovsky again discovered that “the Americans had secretly, and through the Pakistanis [specifically the ISI], supported the Taliban’s assumption of power.”

These strange bedfellows endured a rocky relationship until July 2000 when Taliban leaders banned the planting of poppies. This alarming development, along with other disagreements over proposed oil pipelines through Eurasia, posed a serious problem for power centers in the West. Without heroin money at their disposal, billions of dollars could not be funneled into various CIA black budget projects. Already sensing trouble in this volatile region, 18 influential neo-cons signed a letter in 1998 which became a blueprint for war—the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

Fifteen days after 9-11, CIA Director George Tenet sent his top-secret Special Operations Group (SOG) into Afghanistan. One of the biggest revelations in Tenet’s book, At the Center of the Storm, was that CIA forces directed the Afghanistan invasion, not the Pentagon.

In the Jan. 26, 2003, issue of Time magazine, Douglas Waller describes Donald Rumsfeld’s reaction to this development. “When aides told Rumsfeld that his Army Green Beret A-Teams couldn’t go into Afghanistan until the CIA contingent had lain the groundwork with local warlords, he erupted, ‘I have all these guys under arms, and we’ve got to wait like little birds in a nest for the CIA to let us go in?’”

ARMITAGE A MAJOR PLAYER

But the real operator in Afghanistan was Richard Armitage, a man whose legend includes being the biggest heroin trafficker in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War; director of the State Department’s Foreign Narcotics Control Office (a front for CIA drug dealing); head of the Far East Company (used to funnel drug money out of the Golden Triangle); a close liaison with Oliver North during the Iran-Contra cocaine-for-guns scandal; a primary Pentagon official in the terror and covert ops field under George Bush the Elder; one of the original signatories of the infamous PNAC document; and the man who helped CIA Director William Casey run weapons to the mujahideen during their war against the Soviet Union. Armitage was also stationed in Iran during the mid-1970s right before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah. Armitage may well be the greatest covert operator in U.S. history.

On Sept. 10, 2001, Armitage met with the UK’s national security advisor, Sir David Manning. Was Armitage “passing on specific intelligence information about the impending terrorist attacks”? The scenario is plausible because one day later—on 9-11—Dick Cheney directly called for Armitage’s presence down in his bunker. Immediately after WTC 2 was struck, Armitage told BBC Radio, “I was told to go to the operations center [where] I spent the rest of the day in the ops center with the vice president.”

These two share a long history together. Not only was Armitage employed by Cheney’s former company Halliburton (via Brown & Root), he was also a deputy when Cheney was secretary of defense under Bush the Elder. More importantly, Cheney and Armitage had joint business and consulting interests in the Central Asian pipeline which had been contracted by Unocal. The only problem standing between them and the Caspian Sea’s vast energy reserves was the Taliban.

Since the 1980s, Armitage amassed a huge roster of allies in Pakistan’s ISI. He was also one of the “Vulcans”—along with Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Rabbi Dov Zakheim—who coordinated Bush’s geo-strategic foreign policy initiatives. Then, after 9-11, he negotiated with the Pakistanis prior to our invasion of Afghanistan, while also becoming Bush’s deputy secretary of state stationed in Afghanistan.

Our “enemy,” or course, was the Taliban “terrorists.” But George Tenet, Colin Powell, Porter Goss, and Armitage had developed a close relationship with Pakistan’s military head of the ISI—General Mahmoud Ahmad— who was cited in a Sept. 2001 FBI report as “supporting and financing the alleged 9-11 terrorists, as well as having links to al Qaeda and the Taliban.”

The line between friend and foe gets even murkier. Afghan President Hamid Karzai not only collaborated with the Taliban, but he was also on Unocal’s payroll in the mid-1990s. He is also described by Saudi Arabia’s Al-Watan newspaper as being “a Central Intelligence Agency covert operator since the 1980s that collaborated with the CIA in funding U.S. aid to the Taliban.”

Capturing a new, abundant source for heroin was an integral part of the U.S. “war on terror.” Hamid Karzai is a puppet ruler of the CIA; Afghanistan is a full-fledged narco-state; and the poppies that flourish there have yet to be eradicated, as was proven in 2003 when the Bush administration refused to destroy the crops, despite having the chance to do so. Major drug dealers are rarely arrested, smugglers enjoy carte blanche immunity, and Nushin Arbabzadah, writing for The Guardian, theorized that “U.S. Army planes leave Afghanistan carrying coffins empty of bodies, but filled with drugs.” Is that why the military protested so vehemently when reporters tried to photograph returning caskets

patteeu
12-03-2009, 02:10 PM
FDR and Churchill didn't engage in nation-building. Their objective was to get in and get out with victory as quickly as possible. Whatever anyone wants to say about Obama, the last administration failed America, and left office disgracefully with two open ended engagements that had no end in sight, and no clear path to victory anywhere to be found.

If our new policy in America is to nation-build, there HAS to be conditions attached to this style of war. We cannot nation-build endlessly while our own manufacturing base dries up at home and our wealth being created solely through a printing press and back room G8 deals.

I'm no fan of Obama, but I recognize the failed wars that he inherited and the no-win situation that he's in with them. The best that he can do is give the generals a chance to win - because that's what they say that they can do at these troop levels. But he can't leave that engagement open-ended. We simply cannot afford it.

Churchill wouldn't have made this speech because Churchill didn't engage in nation-building in the manner that we are today. Churchill wouldn't have left Afghanistan to languish while the enemy regrouped the way that Bush did. Churchill wouldn't have floundered around for the better part of four years with no strategy for victory but to dig in and look forward to passing the problem on to someone else. Churchill would not have wasted blood and treasure the way Bush has.

I would just as soon see Obama pull out of these countries, but if he did, the same people who are criticizing him now would be criticizing him then, and use it against him in 2012. Obviously, Bush showed that the way to hold on to power was to use a surge to create some form of tenuous equilibrium and then call it unmitigated success.

Those two didn't do much nationbuilding, but it was only because they were gone by the time the Marshall Plan and the corresponding nationbuilding efforts in the Pacific began in earnest. Not only did we implement a major nationbuilding effort in both of those theaters, we also built permanent bases and left troops in both places for decades, first as occupiers and later as partners in defense.

Taco John
12-03-2009, 02:39 PM
Well there you have it. FDR and Churchill didn't engage in nation-building.

patteeu
12-03-2009, 03:02 PM
Well there you have it. FDR and Churchill didn't engage in nation-building.

:LOL:

Duck Dog
12-04-2009, 07:23 AM
Lefty Mouthpiece Mathews calls West point the "enemy camp". At what point do lefties see how stupid that comes across?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Jeezus. I can't see how any respectful citizen could be a Dummycrat at this point.

Pennywise
12-04-2009, 09:12 AM
If I was a West Pointer I would have asked the Commander in Chief to ask the black hats in Jump school to stop referring to us as Cadidiots.

And to also abolish the term in Air Assault school of 'West Point Hookup', which is when you miss the loop around the d-ring and burn your hands off trying to hold on to the repel rope under rotor wash for a 100 ft. or so to the ground.

KCWolfman
12-04-2009, 09:15 AM
Well there you have it. FDR and Churchill didn't engage in nation-building.

FDR was dead when we occupied Germany and did so for decades after.