Comments on: Obama Shows Hawkish Side On Mideast Trip

CBSNews.com Reports: Democrat Talks Tough About Afghanistan To Show Skeptics He Can Be Strong Commander In Chief

[superdem]

It is very distressing to hear Obama going all hawkish on Afghanistan. It doesn''t matter if "that''s where the real fight" is - no one ever has, and no one ever will, defeat the Afghans in their own mountains. The Soviets proved the futility of trying to subdue the tribes, we cannot dream that we can do any more or have any different outcome than they did. Obama is sowing the seeds of his own Viet Nam from which he will have to withdraw. I suppose he cannot say anything else and expect to get elected, but the vehemence with which he discusses Afghanistan is disappointing. We will have to get out of Afghanistan, time will prove this to be true. It''s sad he sees so clearly in Iraq, but not at all in Afghanistan.

[Syndicate]

Why are there three articles on here portraying Obama as a saint and one portraying McCain as a devil? Its been consistently that way every day for a week now.

[superdem]

It is very distressing to hear Obama going all hawkish on Afghanistan. It doesn''t matter if "that''s where the real fight" is - no one ever has, and no one ever will, defeat the Afghans in their own mountains. The Soviest proved the futility of trying to subdue the tribes, we cannot dream that we can do any more or have any different outcome than they did. Obama is sowing the seeds of his own Viet Nam from which he will have to withdraw. I suppose he cannot say anything else and expect to get elected, but the vehemence with which he discusses Afghanistan is disappointing. We will have to get out of Afghanistan, time will prove this to be true. It''s sad he sees so clearly in Iraq, but not at all in Afghanistan.

[iamyipper]

Obama is still not a Commander in Cheif, he is a great opportunist since we are in a position to win the war. Now I fear he will ruin everything if he gets into office now that we are so close to the victory we deserve as soldiers and as a nation. The political advisors of terrorist organizations are wanting Obama elected president... to me that means he is a security liability as president. If our enemies advisors hate our commander in cheif, then great, they should, they should fear because he commands the greatest military power on the planet.

[jericho1337]

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

[bombadil4]

Oh no, here we go again. Let''s by all means be incredibly stupid and trade the "war" in Iraq for one in Afghanistan. Let''s keep in mind that the Afghans, whatever name we may be calling their fighters this time around, have kicked the a$$e$ of the British twice and more recently the Russians. Guess we may be stupid enough to bend over for our turn. Their "official" goverment could not be more corrupt and incompetent but is fairly solvent due to the flourishing opium trade. What are we doing other than sacrificing our sons and daughters to go off fighting some of the fiercest fighters on earth who also possess an intimate knowledge of some of the most severe terrain on earth. There is fierce debate going on in Canada about this, and here are some of the questions they are asking their government and we should too: What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada''s foreign policy objectives? What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced? What are the criteria to measure progress? What is the definition of success? And what is the clear exit strategy for this mission?

[wothah]

What is the answer to; Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, borders is extremely dangerous.

[ajmarine111]

He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan''s tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act.



So,.........we will start bombing Pakistan?

[ov442]

Romney said if Barack had been president in 2007, we wouldnt have had the surge and all its success.

Even though he left out the important clues that the Sunnis were being paid to work with us at that time, and the Shiites were in a cease fire, and many of the contentious neighborhoods had already been "ethnically cleansed".

But i retort, that if Obama was president in 2003, we''d never have Fraudulently invaded IRaq, we''d have focused iwth more troops and resources on Afghanistan, and caught bin laden and wiped out the Taliban and Al Quaida already

[ov442]

Romney said if Barack had been president in 2007, we wouldnt have had the surge and all its success.

Even though he left out the important clues that the Sunnis were being paid to work with us at that time, and the Shiites were in a cease fire, and many of the contentious neighborhoods had already been "ethnically cleansed".

But i retort, that if Obama was president in 2003, we''d never have Fraudulently invaded IRaq, we''d have focused iwth more troops and resources on Afghanistan, and caught bin laden and wiped out the Taliban and Al Quaida already

[sistatee-2009]

The uniformed men Obama is smiling at, he''ll curse them when he''s with his liberal friends.

[jsmithcsa]

It''s unfortunate, IMHO, that B Hussein still feels we need to guarantee a defeat in one war (altho'' there is a better chance we -- Iraq and the US -- will win than their was when Harry declared our defeat). I''m glad he went over there, of course, but it appears from the press that he did not do so with an open mind. Since there is a good shot that he will be our next president, this will be good for building his foreign policy experience.

Since the issue was brought up in the article, I will say that IMHO this trip will not make him "strong enough on national security". He needs to continue to work hard on this -- he has a long way to go.

[feelfree4u]

RE: "He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan''s tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act."

Just another fascist.

A Democrat Party one.

[gangesdak]

It is all set. GWB can sleep easy. Afghanistan will be Obama''s war. There will be no money left for home land improvement. Our children will have to die in Afghanistan in stead of Iraq. Move over contractors from Texas. Now contractors for war efforts will come from Chicago. We wanted change. We got it.

[miles1967-2009]

And the "surge" only appears to be working because we are giving money and arms to the Sunnis, who until recently were placing IEDS and shooting at U.S. soldiers. Arming your enemies and paying them a salary never works unless you plan on doing those for 100+ years like McCain wants to. Once we stop giving the Sunnis money, they will go right back to being insurgents against us, the Shias and anyone else. Wake up right-wing sheep, the Iraq fair is a colossal blunder that had no military/national security relevancy and has only fanned the flames of the already existing civil war. We should never have been involved in this type of nation building.

[bombadil4]

Oh no, here we go again. Let''s by all means be incredibly stupid and trade the "war" in Iraq for one in Afghanistan. Let''s keep in mind that the Afghans, whatever name we may be calling their fighters this time around, have kicked the a$$e$ of the British twice and more recently the Russians. Guess we may be stupid enough to bend over for our turn. Their "official" goverment could not be more corrupt and incompetent but is fairly solvent due to the flourishing opium trade. What are we doing other than sacrificing our sons and daughters to go off fighting some of the fiercest fighters on earth who also possess an intimate knowledge of some of the most severe terrain on earth. There is fierce debate going on in Canada about this, and here are some of the questions they are asking their government and we should too: What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada''s foreign policy objectives? What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced? What are the criteria to measure progress? What is the definition of success? And what is the clear exit strategy for this mission?

[likeitis5050]

It was an ideal photo opportunity for a candidate looking to convince skeptics of his patriotism



Hahahahahahahahahaaaaaa....(inhale)...bwhahahahaha (snort)...hahahahahahaaaa!!!!!!

[likeitis5050]

It was an ideal photo opportunity for a candidate looking to convince skeptics of his patriotism



Hahahahahahahahahaaaaaa....(inhale)...bwhahahahaha (snort)...hahahahahahaaaa!!!!!!

[realpatriot1]

He''s not saying anything that he hasn''t been saying all along.

[likeitis5050]

It was an ideal photo opportunity for a candidate looking to convince skeptics of his patriotism



Hahahahhahahahahahah.....(inhale)..bwhahahahahahahahah