 masbury says: As I recall, we weren't even permitted to see footage of their caskets being unloaded not too long ago. That is so good to see, a president of USA attending the arrival of fallen soldiers! And he does nothing about the ones still under fire. no reinforcements as requested by the generals. Yes because sending more troops is always the answer. Remind me again how long Afghanistan remained off the radar off the last administration? 5, maybe 6 years? Well, one general, anyway. But that misses the point - what's the mission? Generals work for the President, who sets the mission. The mission of this war has never been clear, and until it is, sending more troops is as big a mistake as keeping the ones there under fire. On a technical note, since President Obama is not a member of the armed forces, he should not salute anyone. The "Presidential Salute" was a tradition started by Reagan (who the closest he got to serve was on Hollywood made training films during WW2). Commander-in-Chief is a title, not a rank, so soldiers salute him, but as a civilian he does not have to salute back. May seem like a nice gesture, which I'm sure he meant as such, but completely unnecessary and well outside protocol. — Comment removed by moderator — More and more troops without a pause? The man has a brain....I know, its hard for some to accept that. The ratio is already 12 to 1. Geez! Commander-in-Chief is a title, not a rank, so soldiers salute him, but as a civilian he does not have to salute back.Excellent comment, ratilfar. As I heard this story on the radio I have to admit it bumped Obama up a notch in my book (I'm not a fan of most of his policies). Then came the next part of the story about cameras being there to film everything... but of course. I just wish he would send the extra troops the General has requested or bring them all home. In the meantime, the troops that are there now are more vulnerable until they get more reinforcements. So much was made of the body armor issue with Bush and not giving the troops what they need. ratilfar said:Yeah, but could you imagine the howls from the reich-wingnuts if he hadn't? Anyway, even though it's not required, it's either forbidden nor a breach of protocol. popped for Jerry1152's comment.. So. what about the cameras? Should the war dead be kept in the dark, unseen and forgotten? Or should the nation face head on the results of the policies set by their leaders? The cameras have been there before (I remember Reagan doing this) and they should remain. As for the vulnerability of the troops, I doubt that it comes down to numbers. Numbers alone mean little. Of course numbers alone don't mean everything... so does timing. They need the troops sooner rather than later. This is from the General in the field that Obama chose, not some pundits view. Obama will make the decision sometime after tomorrows elections. In the mean time, where have the reinforcements been? It's not like troops will arrive the day after he makes a decision, these things need to be ramped up. I'm sure the soldiers in the field and their families are just loving this delay from our their commander in chief. There are already double the forces in country that there were a year ago and I really doubt that increasing numbers will have so little impact if supplies are still short and NATO and Americans can't barely operate outside the major cities. I haven't seen anything that says numbers will sway things one way or another or that lack of more troops in anyway endangers those already there. Obama will make the decision sometime after tomorrows elections.IT'S DECISION TIME!!!! --------- 7:00 AM EDT Monday, November 2, 2009 Afghan election commission declares Karzai victor Election officials on Monday declared Hamid Karzai the winner of Afghanistan's disputed presidential poll after cancelling a planned runoff following the withdrawal of his rival, Abdullah Abdullah. Steve Savage, I was referring to tomorrows election day here in the USA. Dems are getting nervous about the mood of the country with some purple states about to go Republican again. Some things are more important than winning. I am referring to the war (did you think I meant election ha ha no THOSE are Very important to this administration). Of course numbers alone don't mean everything... so does timing. They need the troops sooner rather than later. This is from the General in the field that Obama chose, not some pundits view.It looks like there is no strategy in place to win whatever it is we're doing in Afghanistan, at least not one that has an End-Game in mind. The strategy appears to be one of "continuance-of-status quo," to keep greasing the War Machine of the Profiteers with the blood of American heroes. At a cost of $750,000 per year for each soldier we have in Afghanistan, maybe we should take a closer look at McChrystal's (if, indeed, it is McChrystal) request for an additional 40,000 troops to see if ... Sorry. Here is the link. http://sskotb.blogspot.com/2006/09/proposed-reality-tv-show-theme-search.html I just spotted a typo in my comment above. I wrote "...it's either forbidden nor a breach of protocol."; it should have been "...it's neither forbidden nor a breach of protocol." Of course to those of you who paid attention in elementary school grammar classes, the "nor" should have indicated my intention. |
View the Top Clips from October 29, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
