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

**Unergerah** · 09-03-2010, 03:54 PM

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?

What you fail to understand is that 30,000 soldiers would have been more than enough to turn Afghanistan into an overwhelming victory, if our military was actually allowed to bring its full power (no, not nukes) to bear. Since Viet Nam, the liberals in this country have allowed the specter of dead innocents, also known as collateral damage, to hamstring our military from winning. When the enemy uses guerrilla tactics, like hiding amongst civilians, we are especially put at a disadvantage. Now you have been educated on the subject. Go and whine no more.

"See it through properly"?

We will still be in Afghanistan long after Carter, I mean Uh-bama, is gone from the White House.

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

Now that is some extra strength crack.

09-03-2010, 03:54 PM	#21
Unergerah Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 399 Senior Member	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? What you fail to understand is that 30,000 soldiers would have been more than enough to turn Afghanistan into an overwhelming victory, if our military was actually allowed to bring its full power (no, not nukes) to bear. Since Viet Nam, the liberals in this country have allowed the specter of dead innocents, also known as collateral damage, to hamstring our military from winning. When the enemy uses guerrilla tactics, like hiding amongst civilians, we are especially put at a disadvantage. Now you have been educated on the subject. Go and whine no more. "See it through properly"? We will still be in Afghanistan long after Carter, I mean Uh-bama, is gone from the White House. Democrats: strong on deficit reduction and strong on national security. That's their record. They just need to sell it. Now that is some extra strength crack.
	Quote