luke warm Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 *now* we're cooking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 *now* we're cooking Cooking what, quiche? Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Obama said the threat of al-Qaida and its terrorist affiliates has not gone away. As a consequence, he said, "it's important for us to stay on the offensive." Yet he emphasized that the U.S, working with its coalition partners, cannot simply win the war militarily. "Real men don't lose wars" - Dick "The Bastard" Cheney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 What is this thread about? I looked at the news article but didn't see anything new and I don't understand the cooking reference. Is the title sarcastic or serious? I'm lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Gotta win the peace, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 What is this thread about? Tetosterone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 If the point is that we should not go in half-assed if we are to go in at all, I agree. Beyond that I'm almost as lost as han. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 The Pakistan/Afghan war is tough. Clearly we are never going in full force, never. How we define victory, our goals or success seems cloudy at best. In the meantime Military families suffer. If the extreme options are:1) 500,000 troops with full draft no college exemption2) full pull out3) other? "In the coming days, he is expected to announce his broader rethinking of U.S. strategy and goals in the war, including changed tactics and lowered expectations for the difficult conflict." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Big Whoopee. We are sending in 17K more troops into an area where we have no strategy, no objectives and no chance of a military "win". In my book, that is nothing over which to rejoice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Big Whoopee. We are sending in 17K more troops into an area where we have no strategy, no objectives and no chance of a military "win". In my book, that is nothing over which to rejoice. Winston: My understanding, perhaps wrong, is our objective is we do not want attacks launched from Afghan/paki that result in 3000 dead in USA homeland. This may be impossible.....given...cheap nukes...super cheap bio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Hey Winston, you read "real men don't eat quiche"? It's a great book! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Big Whoopee. We are sending in 17K more troops into an area where we have no strategy, no objectives and no chance of a military "win". In my book, that is nothing over which to rejoice. Winston: My understanding, perhaps wrong, is our objective is we do not want attacks launched from Afghan/paki that result in 3000 dead in USA homeland. This may be impossible.....given...cheap nukes...super cheap bio Whats a few more (hundred, thousand, million, billion) deaths in a world where we have so many to spare? Say that the US sent troops to Darfur to protect the genocide victims and to punish the Sudanese government for their transgressions.....what? sovereignty issues you say? How about the US sent troops to the Brazilian rainforest to stop poachers and subsistence farmers from destroying the rainforest eco-system (and the earth's lungs as it were). Or maybe they send their divisions into Colombia to root out the drug lords and destroy the coca plants in the fields? I guess that someone has to protect the opium supply in Afghanistan... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Big Whoopee. We are sending in 17K more troops into an area where we have no strategy, no objectives and no chance of a military "win". In my book, that is nothing over which to rejoice. Winston: My understanding, perhaps wrong, is our objective is we do not want attacks launched from Afghan/paki that result in 3000 dead in USA homeland. This may be impossible.....given...cheap nukes...super cheap bio If Pakistan is lost, we are speaking about real nukes(oppossite the "real" nukes of Irak) in the hand of peoble, which may or may not use those weapons,and some of those wont care, if they die in the processof using those So, we dont talk about only 3000 dead in USA homeland,we talk about a serious worldwide thread. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.