POTUS's Afghan Speech Tonight

[The Annoyed Man]

My position is that wars are for winning AND if we can't subdue/convert the enemy (whomever that is) with local help by date certain, we leave and let them kill each other off secure with the fear that we will retaliate an eye for an eye ten thousandfold for any later transgression against the US or its peoples. We will not stay there ad infinitum spending American lives and money trying to help people who won't help themselves. Enough is enough already!

Cut & run

Not at all the same thing. "Cut and Run" is what Kerry wanted to do back when Iraq was in question but still very winnable. Events have proven him wrong. Oldgringo has stated that his preference is for winning, and he favors the alternative if it is not possible to win. It is, or at least was until a few months ago, winnable. It may still be so, but for that to happen, Obama needs to show some gonadal heft.

Zee, you need to get out more, breath some fresh air. Try spending time at Michael Yon's website. He publishes absolutely the best, most unbiased, and most rooted in boots-on-the-ground reality reporting available. He is better by far than ANY of the mainstream news outlets, liberative or conservable. He is also a former Green Beret, whose personal politics tend toward left of center, but who has had extensive training in the political and operational side of counter-insurgency. Yon was the first reporter in Iraq to publicly call the Iraqi insurgency what it was, and who wrote that the situation could be reversed by a surge. He was prescient, and the surge happened, and now Iraq is not a perfect place, but at least its government is not killing its citizens by the hundreds of thousands in torture chambers, and it has a good chance to survive as a stable national entity.

Even General Patreaus values Yon's reporting for its unflinching honesty.

Michael Yon has been saying for many months now that Afghanistan is winnable, but that we would soon be running out of time in which to so if we didn't react quickly to the developing insurgency (Iraq Redux). This is the time that "The Great and Wise Obama" instead spent dithering and triangulating and trying to find a way to do give an answer to General McCrystal's request that would be palatable to the left wing of his party. So now we find ourselves almost out of time, and the issue is now very much in doubt. This is a direct reflection of Obama's leadership skills — of which he has none. He's a hack and an operator, but NOT a leader. A leader would have fished or cut bait back when McCrystal submitted his request to SecDef Gates on August 30th, almost 3-1/2 months ago.

You can legitimately debate whether we should have been involved in Afghanistan or not. My personal opinion is that we should have, but I could be wrong about that. But one thing is for sure, we are there NOW, and that calls for some kind of action. Morally speaking, if you break something, you have a responsibility to try and fix it. Now, Afghanistan was already broken. It has been broken for 2,500 years. But we broke it some more, and I believe that we have a moral responsibility to try and make good on that, if it is at all possible to do so. Back in August, it was possible. Today, it may not be possible, but we have to try, or we have not acted in good faith.

IF this war is lost, it IS Obama's fault for not having had the strength of character to lead back when it was still possible for him to do so. That he did not is further evidence that he is not qualified for the office.

Zee, you have a predilection for trying to quote back to conservatives various sound bites as if they had current meaning, but you ignore the historical contexts in which they were made, and so it rears up and nips you on the butt each and every time. The other day, you posted to me in another thread "nobody likes a good swiftboating," to which I responded, "likewise, nobody enjoys a "wintersoldiering." You have yet to either respond, or acknowledge that you don't have a reply to that. In this thread here, you tried to use "cut and run," and it just isn't working for you. May I suggest that you try and distance yourself from John Kerry as far as possible? It ain't exactly covering you in glory.

[The Annoyed Man]

The Annoyed Man wrote:

This president is politically tone-deaf, and it is going to cost him in 2012...

Gentlefolk, hoping and praying alone will not make this happen. The opposition must provide realistic, viable and enthusiastic candidates who can cause the current POTUS and his minions to be voted out of office in 2010 AND again in 2012.

Amen, and amen!

[Zee]

One of your signature lines dates from 1611. Ever considering updating?

[The Annoyed Man]

One of your signature lines dates from 1611. Ever considering updating?

Absolutely not. Truth is timeless. The one before it dates to King Solomon.

[Zee]

The King James version, from which you quote, was printed in 1611. Later translation do not use left and right. I imagine you use this 1611 translation to refer to the left and right labels of today's views. That's quite a use of a historic stretch there to give some questionable credence to calling non-conservatives fools.

I agree that truth is timeless.

[longhorn_92]

What I see is a change of topic... Because one is losing the debate.

[mr.72]

The King James version, from which you quote, was printed in 1611. Later translation do not use left and right.

Are we experts on Bible translations on this forum?

Howabout NASB, 1995. Maybe that's late enough for you?
"A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left. "

Maybe NIV, 1984:
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. "

Not recent enough? Howabout the TNIV (update to the NIV), 2001 & 2005:
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. "

I suppose 20 years of enlightenment did not move them to revise their translation of Ecclesiastes. Considering that the most common English translations in use for nearly 400 years continue to use the words "right" and "left", you are going to have a real problem trying to convince those who know something about Bible translation that the intent of the writer was not to use exactly those words, if the writer had been writing in modern American English. Even in the days of Solomon, they knew their right from their left.

Anyway, it's a moot point. The terms "left" and "right" have been co-opted for use in political speech only far more recently than Ecclesiastes was written, and we can probably fairly assume that whomever wrote Ecclesiastes, most likely King Solomon, was not prophesying about 21st century American politics when he wrote it. I think it is likely TAM is using this verse because it is clever.

FWIW an attack on TAM based on a scripture quote clearly used in humor in his signature file is what I'd think is typical of liberal politicians: completely void of substance or relevance. I think it bolsters TAM's point about your out-of-context soundbite-based argument style. I am doing what I suggest TAM should also do, and putting you on my "foes" list so I don't see your posts any longer and therefore won't be induced to respond.

[The Annoyed Man]

The King James version, from which you quote, was printed in 1611. Later translation do not use left and right. I imagine you use this 1611 translation to refer to the left and right labels of today's views. That's quite a use of a historic stretch there to give some questionable credence to calling non-conservatives fools.

I agree that truth is timeless.

I took it out of the NIV, not the KJV. The NIV was released in completed form in 1978. The NASB, which also uses "right" and "left," was completed in 1971. the ESV, completed in 2001, uses "right" and "left". Once again, your research is incomplete.

That said, I concede with eyes wide open that the uses of "right" and "left" for this verse in ALL translations is synonymous with "the right way" and "the wrong way;" or "good" and "bad;" or "correct" and "incorrect;" etc., etc., etc. My quoting of this verse is entirely tongue in cheek. I don't believe in quoting ANY scripture out of context except in jest. Similarly, the Psalm 109:8 passage which has been recently quoted on this board can only be taken tongue in cheek in the context in which it is used here. You have a line in your signature stating that Jesus was a liberal. In the Bible, he is actually apolitical, having a higher purpose. In fact, the mistake that Judas made was to assume that Jesus was political, and consequently Judas was disappointed enough to betray him when it turned out that Jesus did not share Judas' ambitions — possibly to try and force Jesus' hand. But Jesus himself said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to render unto God what is God's. Being himself God incarnate, he still made a distinction between the two. That said, when I go before the throne of judgement, as we all will regardless of what we believe, and thankfully, among my many sins I will not have to account for insisting that abortion is a God-given right, like this foolish liberal did just four days ago. It's not just that it is abortion, which is evil (and by the way, for which there is no evidence in scripture that Jesus would have supported it; and in fact would have most likely condemned it; CLICK HERE to see how Jesus felt about children), but that he would preach that doing evil is a God given right.

I am appalled by such idiocy.

[The Annoyed Man]

And I apologize for getting the thread off track, and I will refrain from doing so going forward.

[The Annoyed Man]

What I see is a change of topic... Because one is losing the debate.

[stroo]

There are other options between cut and run and nation building. But first you have to identify your goals. Our goal in Afganistan should be to continue to disrupt Al Quaeda and their allies the Taliban. Note that this will probably mean some ongoing presence in Afganistan for decades no matter what strategy is adopted to meet the goal.

Cut and Run can not meet this goal and therefore must be accepted.

Putting in Special Forces to work with the tribes and warlords just as we did to initially drive the Taliban out would be relatively inexpensive and could meet our goal. It requires that we hold our collective noses as we work with a lot of unsavory people and will take a long time thereby not satisfying the left. Personally this is the strategy I prefer.

Putting in small number of troops to hold a base, say no more than 30,000, along with the extensive use of Special Forces is more expensive and could meet our goal. Note this is basically what Bush did, despite his nation building rhetoric, and for 8 years we have effectively disrupted Al Queda in Afganistan despite the wrong criticism that we took our eye off the ball.

Putting in a large number of troops and civilian support to build a nation. This will take a lot of money as we will have to build lots of roads and other infrastructure beyond the military expense. Michael Yon has suggested this may take 50+ years. I believe him.

Obama has adopted the latter strategy but limited the time significantly with pullouts to begin in 18 months. This is both expensive and futile. So after 9 months being President and declaring in the campaign and subsequently that this is a war that must be won, he adopts one of two strategies that can't succeed. What a leader????

[casingpoint]

Our goal in Afganistan should be to continue to disrupt Al Quaeda and their allies the Taliban

The original stated goal was to capture Osama Bin Laden. We failed, and apparently is was our fault, according to this past week's news reports. He's moved on. So should we. Into Pakistan, where Osama seems to be these days.

President Bush vowed the United States would invade any country safe harboring terrorists to get them. That was the proper goal, and how it devolved into "nation building" is beyond the pale. Afghanistan would instantly turn into it's old self if we were somehow gone tomorrow. A collection of tribes living in differing river valleys with no particular national cohesion, an un-nation, so to speak, which no armed force in the history of mankind has ever conquered.

[marksiwel]

heh, arguing over if the biblical meaning of the left vs right.
To our European Friends it breaks down like this

Democrats are to the Right, Republicans are even farther Right, by their standards.
Remember they have REAL socialist partys there, they dont just throw it around as a slur

[stroo]

We actually have a real socialist party now too. Not a slur, just a fact.

[Oldgringo]

We actually have a real socialist party now too. Not a slur, just a fact.

...and, it may have more support than is readily admitted or visible...?