DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Aeaefee** · 09-03-2010, 02:41 PM

Just being objective, but I see you brought your pom-poms so lead the cheers for the big pep rally.
But a really good military that was worth that kind of money, would have finished up in Afghanistan about 6 years ago.

The U.S. military could have turned Afghanistan into rubble if they were so allowed, but whining liberals like yourself always bitch about the collateral damage. So we put our men in more danger to fight carefully so that we minimize collateral damage, and then you whining liberals bitch that we're not winning the war fast enough. I think the common denominator is that regardless of what, or how well, the military does, whining liberals bitch about it.

Goober, its not the soldiers that didn't complete the mission in A-Stan, it was the Bush administration. With numbers in the 30,000s for the first seven years, the soldiers they did as good of a job as they possibly could. Now with real leadership and commitment you are starting to see real results.

smurf what kind of crack are you smoking? The neocon Bush administration people decided A-Stan was not a priority and sent 130,000 troops to Iraq instead. That you try to blame liberals for something the Bush admin is 100% responsible for is retarded. Just about everyone supported the invasion of A-Stan anyways so I don't even know how you infer that "liberals" would have been against turning it into rubble or whatever you mean. How does it make you feel that a Democratic administration is actually going to see it though properly?

Democrats: strong on deficit reduction and strong on national security. That's their record. They just need to sell it.

09-03-2010, 02:41 PM	#18
Aeaefee Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 447 Senior Member	Just being objective, but I see you brought your pom-poms so lead the cheers for the big pep rally. But a really good military that was worth that kind of money, would have finished up in Afghanistan about 6 years ago. The U.S. military could have turned Afghanistan into rubble if they were so allowed, but whining liberals like yourself always bitch about the collateral damage. So we put our men in more danger to fight carefully so that we minimize collateral damage, and then you whining liberals bitch that we're not winning the war fast enough. I think the common denominator is that regardless of what, or how well, the military does, whining liberals bitch about it. Goober, its not the soldiers that didn't complete the mission in A-Stan, it was the Bush administration. With numbers in the 30,000s for the first seven years, the soldiers they did as good of a job as they possibly could. Now with real leadership and commitment you are starting to see real results. smurf what kind of crack are you smoking? The neocon Bush administration people decided A-Stan was not a priority and sent 130,000 troops to Iraq instead. That you try to blame liberals for something the Bush admin is 100% responsible for is retarded. Just about everyone supported the invasion of A-Stan anyways so I don't even know how you infer that "liberals" would have been against turning it into rubble or whatever you mean. How does it make you feel that a Democratic administration is actually going to see it though properly? Democrats: strong on deficit reduction and strong on national security. That's their record. They just need to sell it.
	Quote