Predictions on Obama's Afganistan decision?

[PSYOP]

Since politics comes first, last, and only to this president I feel his decision on Afganistan will be:

1. He will increase the force by around 20,000 soldiers.

2. He will claim a new strategy that focuses on training the Afgan forces in a smarter more efficient manner. Yes, it's vague but so was hope and change and much of what he says.

3. He and his cult administration will come out and claim he has taken into account the input from many different sides and compromised by giving each a little of what they recommended.

As I said he is not baseing his decision on what is needed for victory in Afganistan but what will make him look good to his cult followers.

What do you feel the administration will do?

[MadazzVeteran]

Since politics comes first, last, and only to this president I feel his decision on Afganistan will be:

1. He will increase the force by around 20,000 soldiers.

2. He will claim a new strategy that focuses on training the Afgan forces in a smarter more efficient manner. Yes, it's vague but so was hope and change and much of what he says.

3. He and his cult administration will come out and claim he has taken both into account the input from many different sides and compromised by giving each a little of what they recommended.

As I said he is not baseing his decision on what is needed for victory in Afganistan but what will make him look good to his cult followers.

What do you feel the administration will do?

1. 10-15,000
2. New strategy that will focus on negotiations with the Tolly Bahn ala Hi Larry Clinton
3. Time table for total exfil before November 2012 so he can look good to his admiring public
4. Blame it on Bush for another 3 years, looks very good on his leftist resume

Or I could be totally wrong, he could run up the French National Flag (a white bedsheet), declare victory and leave Stan and the boys behind.

[agent_86]

He just gave up. We will retreat in shame.

Bring the the soldiers home.

It's officially a half-assed effort, and will cost lives for no real result.

[VirusX999]

Stay the course.

[roger teekell]

Well in 2008 Obama said THIS...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/politics/14campaign.html

“I continue to believe that we’re under-resourced in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama said on Sunday, speaking to reporters after addressing a Latino group here. “That is the real center for terrorist activity that we have to deal with and deal with aggressively.”


However NOW he seems to be swaying from his commitment to deal with THE CENTER OF TERRORIST activity Aggresively..

I guess we elected a guy that is unwilling to stick to his guns..

Go figure.

[fjccommish]

At this point there are two options that lead to one type of success or another:

- Send the troops the commanders on the ground request. The success would be victory.

- Withdraw the troops, cut and run. The success would be the safety of the soldiers now there without enough support and in an impossible situation.

Either commit to winning the war or stop pretending to fight it.

[PSYOP]

1. 10-15,000
2. New strategy that will focus on negotiations with the Tolly Bahn ala Hi Larry Clinton
3. Time table for total exfil before November 2012 so he can look good to his admiring public
4. Blame it on Bush for another 3 years, looks very good on his leftist resume

Or I could be totally wrong, he could run up the French National Flag (a white bedsheet), declare victory and leave Stan and the boys behind.

Yes, I left out the blame Bush part. forgive me.

[agent_86]

At this point there are two options that lead to one type of success or another:

- Send the troops the commanders on the ground request. The success would be victory.

- Withdraw the troops, cut and run. The success would be the safety of the soldiers now there without enough support and in an impossible situation.

Either commit to winning the war or stop pretending to fight it.

Yep yep.

[Long Island Bob]

1. declare peace with the taliban
2. cut
3. run

[deportalllibs]

Let me tell you how this is going to go. Obama and the democrats are going to 'redefine' the mission...for two reasons.

1. This will allow them to send fewer troops than the generals have requested. Perhaps far fewer.

2. As soon as politically possible this will allow them to declare mission accomplished based on the new mission definition so they can cut and run out of there like the yellow bellies they are.

One truth out of this Obama administration, he is proving every liberal stereotype true.

[agent_86]

Redeploy to Okinawa...?

[LouC]

No more troops, more drones, hope the situation will change on its own, after he gets "his precious" Universal Health Care passed or defeated he will initiate the withdrawal claiming we have done all that can be done.

[roger teekell]

Oh and he also said THIS...from the same link.

“On my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war,” Mr. Obama wrote, adding: “Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.”


I guess eliminating the SAFE HAVEN for terrorists isn't very high onhis list of things to do..

[Crossriflesonblue]

who knows.....that's the problem....

[Long Island Bob]

http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-obama-rips-pakistan-for-making-peace-treaties-with-the-taliban/

during the campaign (in the video at the link), Barack Obama, "rips" Pakistan for making peace with theTaliban, a tactic he is currently said to be very close to adopting.

[Crossriflesonblue]

http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-obama-rips-pakistan-for-making-peace-treaties-with-the-taliban/

during the campaign (in the video at the link), Barack Obama, "rips" Pakistan for making peace with theTaliban, a tactic he is currently said to be very close to adopting.


Thing is his rap on the Paks was correct but with his latest dithering and BS statements he has given the Paks an opening to ease the pressure that they have been applying in Swat lately....he is his own worse enemy....

[george kaplan]

Since politics comes first, last, and only to this president I feel his decision on Afganistan will be:

1. He will increase the force by around 20,000 soldiers.

2. He will claim a new strategy that focuses on training the Afgan forces in a smarter more efficient manner. Yes, it's vague but so was hope and change and much of what he says.

3. He and his cult administration will come out and claim he has taken into account the input from many different sides and compromised by giving each a little of what they recommended.

As I said he is not baseing his decision on what is needed for victory in Afganistan but what will make him look good to his cult followers.

What do you feel the administration will do?

The administration will do everything necessary to ensure the most beautiful sound on Earth at sunset echoes through every neighborhood in Ourmerica as soon as possible.

[MadazzVeteran]

Yes, I left out the blame Bush part. forgive me.

Ah, you knew it all along, you just quickly overlooked it that's all. However, that is really one of his "Strategic Objectives".

[Antrel]

Let me tell you how this is going to go. Obama and the democrats are going to 'redefine' the mission...for two reasons.

1. This will allow them to send fewer troops than the generals have requested. Perhaps far fewer.

2. As soon as politically possible this will allow them to declare mission accomplished based on the new mission definition so they can cut and run out of there like the yellow bellies they are.

One truth out of this Obama administration, he is proving every liberal stereotype true.As far as foreign policy is concerned, you're damn right he's keeping up with the liberal traditions and stereotypes. We would only be so lucky if he withdrew forces from Afghanistan, and declared a victory over 8 years old. But because of his liberal foreign policy, you won't see the troops reduced, and I suspect a deployment of 20,000 - 30,000 additional troops.

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, and what direct links in terms of training and financing the hijackers had with al-Queda in Afghanistan specifically are speculatory. Regardless, while you can make a mild case for the eradication of al-Queda in Afghanistan, virtually nothing stands to strategically endorse the expulsion of the Taliban, and the subsequent counter-insurgency operations. As I've parroted quite a few times this week alone on these forums, SOF, CAS, and air strikes served as the most efficient methods to eliminating al-Queda in Afghanistan, in a matter of a few short weeks. Operations sustained quite well with the Taliban still seated, and operations that can continue to have an effect regardless of the Afghan government. A major ground operation was and is not only unnecessary, but extremely detrimental to our nation's resources, and the security of the lives of those deployed for OEF-A.

If many of you would stop relying on the same media you chastise frequently, and do some independent, unbiased research, you'd see our initial successes, and understand why they can persist without sacrificing 869 lives. I'm against military operations in Afghanistan on all levels, but if you're going to insist on it, at least be somewhat educated on the matter. Big bangs for big bucks with big losses doesn't always add up to "victory," as much as we all may look forward to a little bit of "big war."

[northshoreguy]

they are already setting this up ...

so, now the mouthpiece for POTUS is educating us on how things really are ... after all afghanistan & the taliban are not really that big of a deal in the big picture ... they are after all confined to that geographical area .... it's al-queda that we have to worry about and they have no real home base (not afghanistan, not anywhere) ....

.... so i'd conclude we they will cut & run in the most politically expedient manner possible.

:flag:

[Long Island Bob]

Thing is his rap on the Paks was correct but with his latest dithering and BS statements he has given the Paks an opening to ease the pressure that they have been applying in Swat lately....he is his own worse enemy....

maybe his teleprompter should no longer be making foreign policy decisions.

repeat for those who missed it:
http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-obama-rips-pakistan-for-making-peace-treaties-with-the-taliban/

during the campaign (in the video at the link), Barack Obama, "rips" Pakistan for making peace with theTaliban, a tactic he is currently said to be very close to adopting.

[agent_86]

As far as foreign policy is concerned, you're damn right he's keeping up with the liberal traditions and stereotypes. We would only be so lucky if he withdrew forces from Afghanistan, and declared a victory over 8 years old. But because of his liberal foreign policy, you won't see the troops reduced, and I suspect a deployment of 20,000 - 30,000 additional troops.

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, and what direct links in terms of training and financing the hijackers had with al-Queda in Afghanistan specifically are speculatory. Regardless, while you can make a mild case for the eradication of al-Queda in Afghanistan, virtually nothing stands to strategically endorse the expulsion of the Taliban, and the subsequent counter-insurgency operations. As I've parroted quite a few times this week alone on these forums, SOF, CAS, and air strikes served as the most efficient methods to eliminating al-Queda in Afghanistan, in a matter of a few short weeks. Operations sustained quite well with the Taliban still seated, and operations that can continue to have an effect regardless of the Afghan government. A major ground operation was and is not only unnecessary, but extremely detrimental to our nation's resources, and the security of the lives of those deployed for OEF-A.

If many of you would stop relying on the same media you chastise frequently, and do some independent, unbiased research, you'd see our initial successes, and understand why they can persist without sacrificing 869 lives. I'm against military operations in Afghanistan on all levels, but if you're going to insist on it, at least be somewhat educated on the matter. Big bangs for big bucks with big losses doesn't always add up to "victory," as much as we all may look forward to a little bit of "big war."

A lot of limbless Afghan women would probably not agree with your assessment.

[Long Island Bob]

“Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”

[Antrel]

A lot of limbless Afghan women would probably not agree with your assessment.And I'm sure many would. Numerous women's advocate groups are calling for an ISAF withdrawal. Some recent bills, including a measure that requires women to have sex with their husbands once every four nights, are a post-Taliban disservice to women's rights. There are also numerous families who have fallen victims to ISAF bombings and the dangerous divide fueled largely by a COIN operation that shouldn't exist that would argue on behalf of their own security. You can't just gauge progression on whether an Afghan woman can walk to the market wearing eye liner. There are real time circumstances, lives on the line. I would never in my life ask for another country to come in, engage my oppressive government, create circumstances of extreme risk for my family and loved ones, on behalf of my own freedom and privelages. If the Afghan women want it, they'll fight for it. Frankly, this is entirely irrelevent to the point I was making, and the discussion of strategic, and in many ways economic, efficiency regarding operations in Afghanistan.

[chip]

Hes elected.

He doesnt have to pretend he cares anymore.

[Antrel]

Honestly, anybody who's going to criticize Obama for placing unnecessary risk on the lives of those serving in OEF while they themselves call for the deployment of additional thousands of troops can go scratch. That goes for anybody who criticized Bush's tactics in Afghanistan and likewise support a surge of troops. The "war for the sake of war" mentality is as outdated as it is dangerous.

[roger teekell]

Honestly, anybody who's going to criticize Obama for placing unnecessary risk on the lives of those serving in OEF while they themselves call for the deployment of additional thousands of troops can go scratch. That goes for anybody who criticized Bush's tactics in Afghanistan and likewise support a surge of troops. The "war for the sake of war" mentality is as outdated as it is dangerous.

What does that even mean "War for the sake of War"??

Wads Obama promoting such when he said this??

“On my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war,” Mr. Obama wrote, adding: “Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.”

[Crossriflesonblue]

And I'm sure many would. Numerous women's advocate groups are calling for an ISAF withdrawal. Some recent bills, including a measure that requires women to have sex with their husbands once every four nights, are a post-Taliban disservice to women's rights. There are also numerous families who have fallen victims to ISAF bombings and the dangerous divide fueled largely by a COIN operation that shouldn't exist that would argue on behalf of their own security. You can't just gauge progression on whether an Afghan woman can walk to the market wearing eye liner. There are real time circumstances, lives on the line. I would never in my life ask for another country to come in, engage my oppressive government, create circumstances of extreme risk for my family and loved ones, on behalf of my own freedom and privelages. If the Afghan women want it, they'll fight for it. Frankly, this is entirely irrelevent to the point I was making, and the discussion of strategic, and in many ways economic, efficiency regarding operations in Afghanistan.

Not these Afghan women Antrel:

Kabul, Afghanistan - When Medea Benjamin stood up in a Kabul meeting hall this weekend to ask Masooda Jalal if she would prefer more international troops or more development funds, the cofounder of US antiwar group Code Pink was hoping her fellow activist would support her call for US troop withdrawal.

She was disappointed.

Ms. Jalhal, the former Afghan minister of women, bluntly told her both were needed. "It is good for Afghanistan to have more troops – more troops committed with the aim of building peace and against war, terrorism, and security – along with other resources," she answered. "Coming together they will help with better reconstruction."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html

After the meeting even the nut jobs from Code Pink were no longer calling for a deadline on withdrawl....

[Antrel]

What does that even mean "War for the sake of War"??

Wads Obama promoting such when he said this??

“On my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war,” Mr. Obama wrote, adding: “Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.”Yes, he was. When the public's measure of effort in the combat zone is dependent on troop numbers, we frankly have no place voting for anybody who would likely have us engage in military operations throughout the world. To advocate for a troop surge is a blatant disregard for the tactics that led to our initial, and only, major success in Afghanistan, not to mention a grossly unnecessary risk of American lives and resources.

[agent_86]

And I'm sure many would. Numerous women's advocate groups are calling for an ISAF withdrawal. Some recent bills, including a measure that requires women to have sex with their husbands once every four nights, are a post-Taliban disservice to women's rights. There are also numerous families who have fallen victims to ISAF bombings and the dangerous divide fueled largely by a COIN operation that shouldn't exist that would argue on behalf of their own security. You can't just gauge progression on whether an Afghan woman can walk to the market wearing eye liner. There are real time circumstances, lives on the line. I would never in my life ask for another country to come in, engage my oppressive government, create circumstances of extreme risk for my family and loved ones, on behalf of my own freedom and privelages. If the Afghan women want it, they'll fight for it. Frankly, this is entirely irrelevent to the point I was making, and the discussion of strategic, and in many ways economic, efficiency regarding operations in Afghanistan.

Obama just lost the war there. Any more operations are just prolonging our shameful defeat there.

[roger teekell]

Yes, he was. When the public's measure of effort in the combat zone is dependent on troop numbers, we frankly have no place voting for anybody who would likely have us engage in military operations throughout the world. To advocate for a troop surge is a blatant disregard for the tactics that led to our initial, and only, major success in Afghanistan, not to mention a grossly unnecessary risk of American lives and resources.
Well forgive me if I choose to listen to the men in the field who are EXPERTS in this field rather than the rantings of a hack on the internet..

Iraq proved that a surge can be effective..

The fact that Obama can't even learn from the past events in fighting these terrorists just shows he is not fit to lead as CIC...

[Antrel]

Not these Afghan women Antrel:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html

After the meeting even the nut jobs from Code Pink were no longer calling for a deadline on withdrawl....It is not our place, nor is it within our power to help them. We have not the capacity to interject ourselves into their society and enforce ethical standards for women. Hope rests on the central government that is largely irrelevent in the rural areas and in southern Afghanistan. The existing government will appease our social interests for the sake of our sustaining presence so they may not be burdened with fighting the Taliban and other ethnic forces themselves. What you've bred is an artificial cycle that will bear no long term results lest we remain for decades to come, which we simply cannot afford financially, and which would incur a heavy toll on the lives of the ISAF, assuming it would even exist 20 years down the road. Real change will be derived from the sacrifice of Afghan women, and the evolution of a culture, not the influence of an American military presence. It's a trust we have to afford the women of Afghanistan if we truly do care for them, that they'll endure themselves their own risk for what they believe is worth it.

[agent_86]

So if your neighbor is beating his wife you do nothing? After all, we have no place telling people how to treat their women...

[Antrel]

Well forgive me if I choose to listen to the men in the field who are EXPERTS in this field rather than the rantings of a hack on the internet..

Iraq proved that a surge can be effective..

The fact that Obama can't even learn from the past events in fighting these terrorists just shows he is not fit to lead as CIC...General McChrystal is simply requesting the resources required to fulfill the present objective which is to expell the Taliban and keep them locked down outside of Afghanistan's borders. It is not the General's job to dictate the political objective, nor will you ever see a General who cares enough about his men and sustaining his leadership do so. You will not hear the General's opinion regarding the objective itself. His calling for additional forces is not a vindication of the merit of the current strategy, but is merely what's required to sustain it. I'm hardly ranting, I'm providing you a service that you can realize yourself if you take the time to.

Afghanistan is not Iraq, nor should it be treated as such. The differences are much too vast for me to detail for you in a single post.

[Antrel]

So if your neighbor is beating his wife you do nothing? After all, we have no place telling people how to treat their women...Look, I've been there and done that. Rural Iraq is a tragedy for many of us bleeding-heart westerners. We can feel as good as we'd like about a constitution being drafted that vindicates women's rights, but it won't mean a damn thing unless the society is willing to accept it. Our interjection brings upon many more consequences than can be realized at a macro-political level. I'll reiterate that if you care about these people and a lasting change for them, you'll let them assume the risks themselves, and dictate their own worth. I will not force the decision on them, nor should we hold that notion as a military objective.

[agent_86]

Look, I've been there and done that. Rural Iraq is a tragedy for many of us bleeding-heart westerners. We can feel as good as we'd like about a constitution being drafted that vindicates women's rights, but it won't mean a damn thing unless the society is willing to accept it. Our interjection brings upon many more consequences than can be realized at a macro-political level. I'll reiterate that if you care about these people and a lasting change for them, you'll let them assume the risks themselves, and dictate their own worth. I will not force the decision on them, nor should we hold that notion as a military objective.

The military objective should be to kill the enemy and anyone that supports the enemy and make them rethink their current way of conducting their lives.

Of course one has to think that our way of life is worth spreading and fighting for.

[JerryN]

Look, I've been there and done that. Rural Iraq is a tragedy for many of us bleeding-heart westerners. We can feel as good as we'd like about a constitution being drafted that vindicates women's rights, but it won't mean a damn thing unless the society is willing to accept it. Our interjection brings upon many more consequences than can be realized at a macro-political level. I'll reiterate that if you care about these people and a lasting change for them, you'll let them assume the risks themselves, and dictate their own worth. I will not force the decision on them, nor should we hold that notion as a military objective.

Can you restate that regarding the willingness of OUR society to accept the social programs pending in the US today?
Keep the part the injection and the consequences at a macro-political level.
I think it will become more evident about 13 months from now.

But yeah, I agree with you.
What is your experience with Afghanistan? You sound like you've been there.

[Antrel]

Can you restate that regarding the willingness of OUR society to accept the social programs pending in the US today?
Keep the part the injection and the consequences at a macro-political level.
I think it will become more evident about 13 months from now.

But yeah, I agree with you.
What is your experience with Afghanistan? You sound like you've been there.I would absolutely hold our society to the standards I entrust the Afghans with. Will women have more rights and privileges with our presence? Undoubtedly. However, with the costs including our resources and the lives of our servicemen, not to mention both directly and indirectly the lives of Afghans, we cannot in good conscience push the standard. The moment we leave, their government will have little incentive to be so progressive, and the responsibility will lie with the will of the Afghan women as it would have anyway.

I've served in Iraq, not Afghanistan. I base my opinion on various reads and the observations of buddies of mine there right now.

[Antrel]

The military objective should be to kill the enemy and anyone that supports the enemy and make them rethink their current way of conducting their lives.

Of course one has to think that our way of life is worth spreading and fighting for.This is absolutely true, but just as true for them as it is for us.

[coolidge]

I am not so sure Obama will come out and deliver troops to Afghanistan. He has always been one to try to seperate his administration from Bush, yet he hasn't effectively came through with any other issues to do so. We have already seen that this administration is changing words to fit their policies, no longer a war on terror, now an overseas contingency, the tali ban is now perceived to be apart from al quaida. Based on Obama's speeches to NATO and across europe, we are seeing a very weak agenda and with policies that have no real agenda behind them other than a newsworthy moment with a dictator.

[opsyscw]

It is not our place, nor is it within our power to help them. We have not the capacity to interject ourselves into their society and enforce ethical standards for women. Hope rests on the central government that is largely irrelevent in the rural areas and in southern Afghanistan. The existing government will appease our social interests for the sake of our sustaining presence so they may not be burdened with fighting the Taliban and other ethnic forces themselves. What you've bred is an artificial cycle that will bear no long term results lest we remain for decades to come, which we simply cannot afford financially, and which would incur a heavy toll on the lives of the ISAF, assuming it would even exist 20 years down the road. Real change will be derived from the sacrifice of Afghan women, and the evolution of a culture, not the influence of an American military presence. It's a trust we have to afford the women of Afghanistan if we truly do care for them, that they'll endure themselves their own risk for what they believe is worth it.Would you support the same basic philosophy for those in the US who are dependent now on the Government taking care of them? I've rephrased your points to illustrate what I mean -
"The existing government will appease our social interests for the sake of our sustaining presence so they may not be burdened with fighting the War on Poverty and other ethnic forces themselves. What you've bred is an artificial cycle that will bear no long term results lest we remain for decades to come, which we simply cannot afford financially,... Real change will be derived from the sacrifice of welfare receiptiants, and the evolution of a culture, not the influence of the US Government. It's a trust we have to afford the poor if we truely care for them, that they'll endure themselves their own risk for what the believe is worth it."

It's time to for the US Government to withdraw from the War on Poverty.

[Antrel]

Would you support the same basic philosophy for those in the US who are dependent now on the Government taking care of them? I've rephrased your points to illustrate what I mean -
"The existing government will appease our social interests for the sake of our sustaining presence so they may not be burdened with fighting the War on Poverty and other ethnic forces themselves. What you've bred is an artificial cycle that will bear no long term results lest we remain for decades to come, which we simply cannot afford financially,... Real change will be derived from the sacrifice of welfare receiptiants, and the evolution of a culture, not the influence of the US Government. It's a trust we have to afford the poor if we truely care for them, that they'll endure themselves their own risk for what the believe is worth it."

It's time to for the US Government to withdraw from the War on Poverty.You're actually the second person in the thread to note the similarity, and I whole-heartedly agree. Though it wasn't the intention, I'm glad the parallel can be drawn from the message.

[agent_86]

Would you support the same basic philosophy for those in the US who are dependent now on the Government taking care of them? I've rephrased your points to illustrate what I mean -
"The existing government will appease our social interests for the sake of our sustaining presence so they may not be burdened with fighting the War on Poverty and other ethnic forces themselves. What you've bred is an artificial cycle that will bear no long term results lest we remain for decades to come, which we simply cannot afford financially,... Real change will be derived from the sacrifice of welfare receiptiants, and the evolution of a culture, not the influence of the US Government. It's a trust we have to afford the poor if we truely care for them, that they'll endure themselves their own risk for what the believe is worth it."

It's time to for the US Government to withdraw from the War on Poverty.

...except there is one difference... the federal government is mandated under the constitution to wage real war. The welfare thing is nowhere in the COTUS.

Obama has clearly decided to end the war in Astan but he will never end the war on poverty. In fact, in that war, he will aid and abed the enemy. Obama appears to this poster to be a traitor to all that is good.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

So if your neighbor is beating his wife you do nothing? After all, we have no place telling people how to treat their women...

See, this is what I'll never get.

When it comes to the home front, conservatives don't particularly care about the ghetto. "It's their own fault" "they need personal responsibility" "pull themselves up by their bootstraps, why should I have to pay?"

When it comes to the Third World ghetto, conservatives couldn't be more excited to flush billions of dollars down the toilet.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Damn, seems I got beaten to my point.

[agent_86]

See, this is what I'll never get.

When it comes to the home front, conservatives don't particularly care about the ghetto. "It's their own fault" "they need personal responsibility" "pull themselves up by their bootstraps, why should I have to pay?"

When it comes to the Third World ghetto, conservatives couldn't be more excited to flush billions of dollars down the toilet.

That's not true at all Tommy. This country gives more to charities than any other. We are generous with our prosperity. Conservatives don't want the government to tell them where their generosity is to be focused. Conservatives know that you cede your liberty and freedom by "just letting the government do it for you."

In my question I applied the same principle that someone said the war in A-stan was about - telling them how to treat their women - to a very local similar situation. Very few people would sit by and do nothing if they know a man was beating his spouse. Even fewer would remain still if they saw it happening.

As individuals we have responsibilities, within our power, to our neighbors to maintain a civil society, and as a nation we have the same exact responsibilities.

The premise that we're simply in the ME to tell them how to live, is as retarded as the neighbor accusing another of the same thing when he is stopped from beating his spouse. In the case of A-stan, that highly uncivil society was not only effecting the well-being of its female population but the the population of our country. So obviously, "telling them how to treat their women" is only one of the many things we were trying to tell them.

And again, the war in A-stan is something that the fed is allowed to do according to the constitution. And it matters not the message we intend to send.

[Jacksmyname]

See, this is what I'll never get.

When it comes to the home front, conservatives don't particularly care about the ghetto. "It's their own fault" "they need personal responsibility" "pull themselves up by their bootstraps, why should I have to pay?"

When it comes to the Third World ghetto, conservatives couldn't be more excited to flush billions of dollars down the toilet.

Spare me.
Conservatives have no problem with helping those who, through no fault of their own, truly need it.
We do have a problem with those who won't, after receiving that help, help themselves.