Maybe you better go look at your polls again and see what they actually say, because what you're claiming isn't in them. As a matter of fact, it looks like both your links reference the same poll. :dizzy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Printable View
Maybe you better go look at your polls again and see what they actually say, because what you're claiming isn't in them. As a matter of fact, it looks like both your links reference the same poll. :dizzy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Republicans are only kicking off because Obama is black.
I mean, Mc Cain wasn't even born in the United States*
SNL makes fun of Obama's lack of accomplishments.
CR
polls are never to be trusted anyway, untill you know how many people theyve polled and in which variety. and then still they shouldnt be trusted...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
books are way too powerful, most people tend to believe that anything that is written down is true, specially when it has been written down a few hundred years ago and no one knows for sure who wrote it. however the big sin of burning books is in the knowledge that is lost, to burn a harry potter book is an entirely different thing than burning the last harry potter book or any other last copy of a book. its beside the matter wether whats in it is considered true or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
This is depressing:
Officials: Obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangersQuote:
As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al Qaida , U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy .
:no:Quote:
One phrase that always comes up in the administration's strategy sessions is "public opinion," one participant told McClatchy .
For more, listen to CBS News' Afghanistan correspondent describe how Obama's "strategy" on Afghanistan risks disaster.
Once again, The Onion shows why it is the only entity capable of mocking Obama effectively.
Obama authorizes extra 13,000 military personnel to be deployed in Afghanistan.
For what it's worth, those "extra" GI's are mostly ones who've already been to either Iraq or Afghanistan, or both, repeatedly. Like my son. Some of his co-workers are preparing for their 6th year-long deployment in 8 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan
It seems like even Gates may be getting fed up with Obama's dithering on Afghanistan.Meanwhile, Obama can continue to weigh "public opinion".....Quote:
The Obama administration needs to decide on a war strategy for Afghanistan without waiting for a government there to be widely accepted as legitimate, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.
Gates' comments put him at odds with top White House and NATO officials who are balking at ordering more troops and other resources to Afghanistan until the disputed election crisis there is resolved.
The Pentagon chief called the Afghan elections — and the larger issues of curbing corruption in its government — "an evolving process."
"We're not just going to sit on our hands, waiting for the outcome of this election and for the emergence of a government in Kabul," he told reporters en route to Tokyo.
It really bugs me when they do that "So and so said this today" thing in news articles instead of just directly quoting him.
vsQuote:
"We're not just going to sit on our hands, waiting for the outcome of this election and for the emergence of a government in Kabul," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.
I know they're trying to start with a catchy line/summary, but they shouldn't. Start with the full quote and then talk about whatever you think the context and significance is. :yes:Quote:
The Obama administration needs to decide on a war strategy for Afghanistan without waiting for a government there to be widely accepted as legitimate, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.
At least they quoted some entire sentences. The worst are when they mix direct quotations along with their own paraphrasing in the same sentence.
For example, the first headline I clicked just now has several examples....Quote:
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it will be a "huge challenge" to pull off new balloting without repeating the widespread fraud that caused U.N.-backed investigators to strip Karzai of nearly a third of his votes from the Aug. 20 first-round election.
They use just a sentence fragment and complete the statement with their own paraphrased version of the quote. What's the point of that? :dizzy2:Quote:
Karzai, standing alongside Sen. John Kerry and U.N. mission chief Kai Eide, said he welcomed the runoff. He called the decision to hold a second round "legitimate, legal and according to the constitution of Afghanistan."
Or when they discuss a video that is widely available online and won't even link it. Admittedly I could just find it myself, but it would be good to save readers some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Here's a good write-up from the LA Times on the Obama administration's ill-advised offensive against FoxNews. An excerpt follows:
Basically, the Obama administration has said publicly that it will do no interviews with FoxNews, and theirspokespeople have gone on other news shows and told them that they shouldn't follow news stories broken by Fox.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Of course, this strategy is designed to appeal to the liberal base and is no doubt wildly popular with them, but hardly exemplary of the most open administration ever.... Also, by almost any other metric it's been a miserable failure. Fox's ratings are higher than ever as a result, and other news organizations have said that they will continue to follow news stories broken by FNC and their attempt to freeze Fox out of the White House press pool- to which they've belong since '97- also failed.
Now, think what you want of FoxNews, but can someone explain how this strategy is anything other than stupid, petty, or both?
Sure. FoxNews isn't a news station at all. It is a conservative propaganda machine. The Democrats have no need to dignify it by pretending it is anything otherwise. Just fight back, or ignore it altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
So, you're just saying it's a stupid tactic and not petty? By fighting back they've only managed to increase Fox's ratings, making them more popular than ever. Ignorance might have been a questionable tactic, but it would've been far smarter than squabbling with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Fox News Ratings Soar After Snub From Obama
I doubt any of their ratings are by new members of the pool, they became disillusioned with Bush, they found something they can all hate together, and Fox News likes to tell it how their viewers would like to think it is. That's US Media for ya, whether it means anything at all is yet to actually be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The number one and number two ratings are for O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Says it all, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Obama needs to concern himself with rightist activism no more than Bush needed to waste his time with 9-11 truthers.
All that should concern the White House, occupied by whichever party, is to evenly divide its time amongst news sources from different persuasions, and to hold itself accountable to an as diverse range of political press as possible. This means the President does not need to be available for commentary to Fox.
Is it smart? Yes, in the long run it is. The Democrats should not play along with Murdoch's game. If one dignifies Fox by pretending along that it is a serious news station, people might actually believe it is.
In fairness, Rupert Murdoch did not invent this type of journalism, and it's far from a new phenomenon. He's just partying like it's 1899.
That said, President 44's public calling-out of Fox makes no obvious sense, and is pure win from Fox's perspective. But this president tends to play a deep game, so I wouldn't bet against there being some underlying motive that will be made clear in the months/years ahead. And I wouldn't be surprised if Fox wasn't the intended target anyway.
I would not want to play chess against Obama. Time and again he's been shown to be thinking six or seven steps down the road.
-edit-
A helpful reality check for fiscal conservatives:
According to the Congressional Budget Office's January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement.
Therefore, unless one thinks that McCain would have somehow or other raised taxes and cut spending (with a Democratic Congress), rather than enacting a stimulus of his own, then a deficit of $1.2 trillion was baked in the cake the day Obama took office. Any suggestion that McCain would have brought in a lower deficit is simply fanciful.
Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.
To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected, but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending. [...]
I continue to believe that the Republican position is nonsensical. Final proof is that the previously cited CBO report shows total federal revenues coming in at 14.9 percent of the gross domestic product in FY2009. According to the Office of Management and Budget, one has to go back to 1950 to find a year when federal revenues were lower as a share of GDP. For reference, revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP during the Reagan administration and were never lower than 17.3 percent - 2.4 percent of GDP above where they are now.
I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending - real spending on things like public works - has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts.
Actually, I believe that the stimulus was smaller under Obama than it would have been under McCain. If a Republican president requested stimulus funds, not only would the Dems have gone along for the ride, the criticism from the right would have been predictably muted, thus allowing a far bigger package to make its way through.
Nor is FoxNews the only current perpetrator. The wildly less popular MSNBC features shows that lean every bit as far left as Fox shows do right. Naturally, Obama isn't calling MSNBC out for not being a real news organization.... since he agrees with them. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I agree here.Quote:
That said, President 44's public calling-out of Fox makes no obvious sense, and is pure win from Fox's perspective.
I haven't really seen too many examples of this yet.... am I missing them? :inquisitive:Quote:
But this president tends to play a deep game, so I wouldn't bet against there being some underlying motive that will be made clear in the months/years ahead.
False equivalence strawman. The moment Fox News decides to hand over three hours of daily programming to a Democratic congressman, let me know. In fact, FN has been shedding opposition voices rather rapidly. FN is deep into echo-chamber territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Won't deny that MSNBC is trying to cater to the left, but they're doing it in what appears to be a much more traditional way. I have yet to see evidence of any sort that MSNBC is letting the politics bleed into the straight news in the way Fox News has.
As for Obama's rope-a-dope tricks, if you haven't spotted them already you never will.
Here's an author whom I respect deeply putting his analysis on the latest game (not that I think you will accept any explanation of Obama's behavior that does not include the words craven, incompetent, socialist and/or stupid):
Hmmm... so the White House tweaks the nose of Fox News, anticipating that Fox and its talking heads will froth at the mouth in public - a week or two ahead of voting on Health Care Insurance Reform. De-legitimizing Fox's stance on the issue.
If that was the intended tactic, I gotta tip my hat. I wonder if it'll work a third time (the 1st being R. Limbaugh), on like Cap'n Trade, or Universal University Education?
Well if that's the idea then it sounds pretty smart... I would wonder about it working but fox news seems extremly biased on a good day so frothing at the mouth even someone idealogically minded towards some of thier ideas would be put off by the blatant partisanship...
The latest polling backs up the rope-a-dope theory. And let's be honest, that's how President 44 operates anyway.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ania/559-1.gif
Obama must be playing chess again....
The White House picks a fight with Edmunds.comI'm tempted to say this is the administration just being thin-skinned and petty again, but I trust their constant whining about anyone who is critical of them is all part of a grand strategy and not just being crybabies. :beam:Quote:
But in addition to Fox News, now The White House is going after highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds.com.
They're actually using The White House blog to dispute the site's analysis of Cash-For-Clunkers (via Detroit News).
The post is snarkily titled: "Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers"
14% of people think fox news is mostly liberal? :laugh4:
While I think the obama people know what their doing, I would fall all over myself praising their genius. Knowing what you can say and what kind of criticism you can handle is PR 101, yeah? It is a worthwhile move though, the republicans gained a lot by casting most of the news as "liberal media", and the democrats will gain by having fox news percieved as crazy conservative.
The day MSNBC will be recognized worldwide as a complete and utter biased channel that only aims at leftist hippies and doesn't produce any real news, maybe your argument will hold some value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Now, I don't want to burst your bubble, but the European media (both from the left and from the right) often point the finger at FoxNews, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and their other friends. 2 days ago I read a newspaper from Geneve that had an article about Glenn Beck. One week ago it was Slate.fr (who admitedly just translated the article from Slate.com). Before that, it was Le Monde.
This channel is a joke that makes America look stupid and dangerous.
On the other hand, nobody cares about MSNBC. They might very well be biased (and it's quite obvious they are), but there's a difference between being biased and spouting lies 24/7, making threats, exposing silly conspiracy theories, calling people traitors because they have a non-american sounding name and what not.
FoxNews would make Goebbel and the propagandastaffl look like mere amateurs (and yeah, that's a godwin).
I'm surprised to read that French and Swiss media take note of Fox or MSNBC. I sort of understand that the Rupert Empire (Fox) extends globally, but MSNBC? Can you view Glenn Beck directly on TV, Meneldil? Or indirectly, via news stories & internet?
Well, I don't watch any cable news (that way madness lies, quoth Lear), so all of my exposure to MSNBC, Fox News and CNN comes from YouTube or embedded clips. If I can (sort of ) keep up with the cable heads that way, so can anyone anywhere.
Well, wouldn't you expect european media to care more about fox lying than about nbc lying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Also, weren't we discussing last page about how fox broke the story on some advisor of obama's being a 9/11 truther, and now the obama administration is saying "don't pick up the stories they break"?
What it is recognized as does not mean that it can't be something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Leaving aside the nature of Fox for a minute, I have two conflicting emotions about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I actually think Fox (Beck I think it was?) did a great job in exposing that. And in calling out several other less succesful personell pickings of the Obama administration. (Where does he find these people?)
Secondly, I think Fox missed the mark with that one and similar stories. It carefully avoids the essence, the critical issues, and instead concentrates on the trivial, the ephemeral, blowing stories up way out of proportion.
News ought to be about healthcare reform (not 'socialized healthcare' as Fox has dubbed it), or Afghanistan, or even policy failures of Obama. It is not important that somebody on the fringes of government happened to put his autograph somewhere. That is not a sign of Obama turning America into a socialist dictatorship. And it still isn't even if you howl about it all week long.
breaking news everyone: we are all stunned and amazed that a decidedly left wing group of nations (comparitively) picks out a right wing news corporation from right wing america in order to shower it with contempt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
an element of group-think, no? an inability to recognise the failings and shortcomings from within ones own circle.........
perhaps a dash of zenophobia thrown in as well? highlighting that which is different for contempt and isolation because it does not conform to your world view.........
fox may have its faults, but the idea that europe considers fox to be contemptible holds exactly zero weight with me, for the reason outlined in the first sentence.
It is now monday and I had to work all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
So I now disagree with Fox rummaging through the dumpster of every person distantly involved in the Obama administaration. This is a witchhunt. Everybody here in the Backroom has posted something that he wouldn't want to be reminded of when applying for a new job. What public service is served by Fox' relentless hunt searching for possible unfortunate remarks somebody may have made fifteen years ago? Who is served by Fox staking out in somebody's seage, hoping to find some turd to float along, and start a week long cabal about it on their talk-television shows?
This is not useful investigative journalism. It is turd-fishing, hoping to find some trivial matter, perhaps a youthful mistake, that can be blown way out of proportion and used as 'evidence' of Obama's Marxist attack on America.
I'll agree to an extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Some of the things Fox talks about are important and none of the other networks cover them (ACORN). However the fact that to get to 1 good point you need to go through 100 miles of crazy doesn't help them.
Here's a shocker- Stimulus jobs wildly exaggerated
Quote:
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.
You're already dealing with such a nebulous metric as jobs 'created or saved' and even still the numbers are fraudulent...Quote:
But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.
One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’ Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.
In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually - subsidies for affordable housing, for example - was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.
From a Socialist to America.
You are no where near Socialist, stop using our name in vain.
The employment numbers are disappointing. I don't see the fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
If jobs 'created or saved' from existing subsidies are added into the numbers, with these existing subsidies re-classified as part of the stimulus package, then the expenses paid on the stimulus packages is accordingly lower too.
I wish I knew if the administration mixes these two numbers up. That is, if they speak of 'jobs created' counting all the jobs created from federal subsidies, but when discussing the total amount of money spend, using only the newer stimulus packages. This would be fraudulent.
The Onion shoots, and scores!
Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner.
CR
You can always count on The Onion, God bless 'em. Here's some news that should be from them, but isn't: A majority of Republicans believe that ACORN stole the election.
PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately. [...] Overall 62% of Americans think Obama legitimately won the election to only 26% who think ACORN stole it for him, as few Democrats or independents buy into that line of thinking.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Barack had almost 10 million more votes, and had 192 more electoral votes than McCain (a mauling).
Compare that to 2004 ("stolen by Diebold"): 3 million votes more to Bush, 35 more electoral votes (swung by Ohio with 20).
Compare to 2000 ("stolen by the Supreme Court"): 550,000 votes more to Gore, 5 more electoral votes to Bush (swung by Florida).
I'm all for conspiracy theories, but come on. To claim something like this the results needs to be just a little bit closer. Occam's razor applies, the economy tanked, two unpopular/mismanaged wars, and a complete disaster of a campaign by McCain. Assuming this poll was run correctly, there are a lot of people with their heads in the sand. :no:
There's really no difference...people just enjoy saying the election was stolen, it's like a trend now. If you hadn't quoted the numbers here I wouldn't know what they were...forgot the specifics a while ago, and I at least follow politics a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124484/Ob...s-Down-39.aspx
Look at the trend. This is a nightmare. Talk about instantaneous buyers remorse.
The GOP had better field a candidate with some knowledge of the economy next time. Last time the better man won. How on earth he was the better man is almost as confounding as why on earth we ran an inept candidate with even less economic sense.
Throw these bums out of office and just leave it empty for the remaining 3 years. Couldn't hurt.
Obama Teleprompter was genius.
Obama's Afghanistan strategy... a recipe for disaster?Also, from Slate: Obama's Afghanistan speech was confusing.Quote:
President Barack Obama's effort Tuesday night to reassure Democrats who oppose the deployment of another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to emphasize a U.S. exit strategy to pressure Afghan President Hamid Karzai to reform his corruption-riddled government could backfire.
The Taliban , al Qaida , their allies and their patrons in Pakistan and the Middle East , as well as America's partners, may think that Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing troops by July 2011 signals a lack of U.S. staying power and dilutes any incentives for insurgents to switch sides or negotiate a political accord.
Instead, the extremists may persevere in their fight, thinking they can run out the clock and further erode support for the war in the United States as congressional elections loom in 2010, while pumping up their own ranks. Some members of the U.S.-led international force already have announced their intention to leave.
"It's a big mistake," a U.S. defense official, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said of Obama's announcement that a U.S. withdrawal would begin in 19 months. "It just tells the Taliban and everyone else how long they need to last."
To me, it sounds like Obama was once again trying to have it both ways and, as a result, may get neither. If he's going to commit to sending in more troops, commit to victory- not artificial timetables. If he's unwilling to do that, get out now.Quote:
According to his speech, Obama is escalating while retreating, adding more troops while also setting a date for their departure. Obama said he was putting pressure on the Afghan government, but he didn't suggest how.
Seems unrealistic to send in 30k troops now (i.e. takes a while to deploy) and then take em all out in 18 months again.
Seems like a logistical nightmare at an exorbitant cost.
The quoted figure also seems to be $30bn for this surge, so around a million per soldier sent over 18 months. I imagine that includes pay, expenses, logistics, equipment etc, but seems a bit inflated nonetheless?
DoD and CBO have wrangled over the exact figure, but the accepted cost of maintaining a U.S. soldier in a distant country such as Afghanistan is somewhere between $500,000 and $1M per year (the latter being more likely than the former). That's a big part of why the DoD doesn't blink when a company such as Blackwater demands $250,000/year for a private military contractor. It's a bargain.
Xiahou, if you ever think that anything Obama says or does isn't a disaster/idiocy/betrayal of 'Merica, let us know. That would be newsworthy. In the meantime, you found an editorial that declares that Obama's latest speech is a disaster. Good for you! If you collect twenty, I will send you a box of cookies. (Hint: They'll be thick on the ground at NRO and WND.) And no, re-prints of Krauthammer columns do not count toward your total.
If I didn't know better, I'd think someone at the White House has an account here at the org. My "speech", delivered Monday (LINK), hits all the same points Obama's did on Tuesday, except I sent more troops (80,000), didn't announce an end-date, and gave them a specific mission (get ObL).
Naturally, I think mine was better. :laugh4:
Yes, Kukri, someone leaked your speech, and when Obama gets re-elected it will be partially your fault!!! Only Mike Huckabee can stop him now. Oh wait....
Personally, I think Obama should have started off the speech with "Sorry to take up your time cadets, but there weren't any aircraft carriers available tonight."
West Pointers...blah....I could tell you some stories :help:
The dastardly deeds of Xiahou exposed once more :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I like yours better. I think 80k troops is a little unrealistic, but at least you aren't announcing an arbitrary end date. What better way to sabotage their mission before it even starts? It gives our allies reason to question our commitment and waver their support, while encouraging our enemies to tough it out until we leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukri Khan
30,000 more troops is about 10,000 less than was asked for, but I imagine that McChyrstal asked for extra, knowing the number would be cut down. Where I take issue with Obama is his pronouncement of a time line. Some administration mouth pieces have since tried to parse Obama's statements, saying the conditions on the ground will dictate the withdrawal. But, if that's really the case, why announce an artificial deadline on national TV?
Heh. I guess things have changed since my days. I did OK with pointers and Ohsee-essers. It was the rahtsees I had more work to train. Pointers in my day had the vision thing, and just begged for "real-life" advice. OCSers had already been there. ROTC fellas (the vast majority of officers I served with), with few exceptions, thought they knew all there was to be known about warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
My task (as I understood it) was to either educate them, or, failing that, keep them as far away from my troops as possible. I mostly succeeded in that.
------------------------------
Didja see the nodding heads there? Those kids start the day at 0400, and they assembled them there 4 hours before POTUS spoke. Sit in your chair, in wool, for 4 hours, after a 12 hour day of classes, PT, and extracurriculars... I'd sleep too - even if it was christ coming to announce the end of the world.
Those kids; the age of our StrikeForTheSouth, will be our new leaders. We owe it to them, IMO, to fully educate them. The horror of war. The necessity of war. The limits of war. The consequences of war. The absolute ridiculousness of war. The absurdity.
Doing less under-serves our people.
I put the entire burden, as it always has been, on our NCO corps.
I don't much care for the timeline either....but didn't GWB do something similar in Iraq that kinda helped whip the governing bodies into shape a little quicker? Different war, I know,
Yeah: WaPo 11-2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
It warms my heart to see people recycling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
As for the rather cockeyed notion that the Taliban will somehow wait us out, now that they have a date when we will begin winding down (with no end-date articulated or speculated):
And as for the argument, made passionately by some in the military, that a specific date for starting the withdrawal is an invitation for the Taliban to lie low until we leave: "They simply won't do that," says Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you stand down, you allow the enemy — even this inept Afghan government — to create a bow-wave effect, to create the impression of authority and security. The Taliban aren't stupid."
I've seen that "cockeyed notion" repeated by a variety of people, including those in the Afghan government. That Taliban won't have to stand down completely, just remind people that in less than two years the US will be gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
CR
20 of those editorials will get you a box of cookies. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Now now, when recycling it's best to make sure you get your plastics with your plastics, and your reflexive condemnations with your reflexive condemnations. No cookies for you, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Meanwhile, although I fear this is close to becoming The Afghanistan Thread, looks like our allies are in a sanguine mood (in both senses of the word): Nato allies to send 7k more troops to 'Stan. This is a good thing, and would have been unlikely under the previous admin, which had done so much to make itself unpopular in Yurup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It is not like I am defending Bush, but notice from what countries those soldiers are coming:
c. 1000 Italians,
900 Georgians (who are not even in the NATO),
600 Poles,
500 Koreans,
500 British
- that is 3500 already i.e. 50 %.
Add to those other EE countries ( c. 1000), Turkey etc and you are left with less than 2000. I doubt that any of those countries belongs to the group which despised W.Bush so much.
Let's face it some Europeans aren't too much interested in anything what involves fighting - or perhaps as I sometimes wonder - in anything involving activity. :wall:
Sweden sent more soldiers than Nato member Greece (or worse - less than their disliked neighbour Macedonia), Poland will have only 500 soldiers less than France and 200 % more than Spain and the list goes on...
Shameful. :thumbsdown:
Lemur, I am afraid the new NATO troops are mostly coming from the same countries who joined Bush. France and Germany have yet to decide their position. Alas, the time to decide will come soon.
Obama has put France and Germany in a difficult position. We can't let him down. We also don't want to jump on a lost mission.
Please let there be another disaster area requiring urgent military NATO intervention, before the decision has to be made between wasting soldiers and resources on an impossible and unpopular campaign, or painfully letting Obama down. :embarassed:
The Germans are still struglling with militarism and their national identity and are hence very reluctant at sending troops abroad period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cegorach
There are 4.500 Polish troops engaged in multinational missions abroad. And 35.000 French troops. Of a total armed forces of 100k and 250k. Which puts the odds of being engaged in anything possibly involving fighting at 4,5% and 14% respectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Point taken, gentlemen. Point taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Yes, I know, this was too emotional, but it really makes me angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I understand that the French are more interested in missions where they can decide something. That is understandable, but looking from this side of Europe it is not a pretty sight.
Let's not even think what the Estonians and such could think about that...
Some people will question reliability of French military forces, same with German ones using the Afghanistan war as an example, especially the Baltic States and taking their point of view just after the latest Russian military exercises I am not suprised.
Power-projection capabilities have something to do with the percentage of forces possible to send abroad as well.
For Poland involvement in Iraq was critical, extremely useful milestone in modernising the ground forces. Sending these soldiers to Iraq (there were only UN peace missions before) was stretching resources of the military to maximum.
Much has changed, but the budget of the army isn't growing quickly enough - especially considering the closest demands (Navy, air defence, anti-missile systems) which have little to do with Afghanistan.
This is the first speech since his campaign that I've agreed with.
"A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms,"
"To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history."
"The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it,"
The Horetores in the audience probably evacuated their bowels in anger.
Maybe he did deserve the Nobel if it gets those sissy whale bangers to stuff it.
I don't think he's earnt the prize yet - I thought that you have to do something, although for the Peace Prize often stopping being a Terrorist is enough...
The troops will help project force. Of this there is no doubt.
Unless the mission take a lot longer than the timeline given the enemy will bide its strength, use as many roadside bombs as possible and await the withdrawl as all get sick at the loss of money with few gains.
Germany was defeated as it was a Good Old Fashioned Industrial Power, and WW2 was a heavyweight boxing match with the protagonists smashing lumps out of each other. The looser is the one who is wrecked. This modern threat isn't so easy and as much as America might like to have a proper old fashioned fight in Afghanistan, the enemy isn't going to oblige. Unless the West is viewing Afghanistan in the way Japan viewed Manchuko it is not a fight that iven if it can be won will make a strategic difference.
I think that there is a significant issue regarding what Europe as a whole is doing regarding its military. They all appear piecemeal and often so thinly spread in terms of aims that when push comes to shove they're unlikely to be able to achieve any of them (and the budgets as a rule are too small). If Germany has such problems with arming, then it should effectively pay France's Foreign Legion and the British Army to do itsdirty workpeacekeeping for example.
~:smoking:
i think that is called being a fair-weather friend................. no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
What do you think the European nations always have been to America? I find it insulting to my personal dignity for my government to treat the United States in that manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I am very unhappy about the impossible position we're now in. Both options are :daisy: :Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
A -Increase troops. But what for? They'll arrive in 210, and will have to be withdrawn in 2012. What's the point in wasting a billion euros and getting a few dozen deaths to make a political point?
As Blackadder would put it: it would be easier to just take a few dozen French recruits and shoot them at the Champs-Élysées.
B -Keep them at current level. Then you let Obama down. If not personally, then at least it will be a blow to multilateralism and transatlantic co-operation. Of which so many complained that there was so little of under Bush.
One argument that argues for choosing B, is that policy should not be decided by whomever might happen to occupy the White House. It is not up to Europeans to interfere with American politics in this manner. We ought to decide on our course of action based on rational policy, not on which party may happen to be in power in Washington.
(On the upside, I myself have never espoused the opinion that under Obama everything would change. Neither has Sarkozy, who covertly prefered Bush)
Maybe Bush should've focused on Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a lost cause owing to no small degree to the overwhelming amount of resources being diverted to Iraq, instead of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan.Quote:
I find it insulting to my personal dignity for my government to treat the United States in that manner.
I do not consider it against my dignity to pass up on the opportunity to clean up after Bush.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
“What better way to sabotage their mission before it even starts?”
I’ve got one:
The former administration started this to catch a criminal, no idea how to do it then missed him. Then we bombed with B 52 rocks and mountains and started few things we really didn’t know where it would lead.
As the Army will tell you, we don’t know where we are, we don’t know where we go, but we go, lost but grouped (from the French Mechanised Units Motto, Paumés mais groupés).
We’ve got a mess to clean up. When I say “We” I think “You”.
So, boys I sent you in a far far away country to fight for, er, I don’t really know now, for an certain amount of time and to achieve something for er, I don’t know for whom and what.
And be good boys…
I hope you understand the Mission because I don’t.
But don’t worry Mission will be Accomplished. And it is not because we have nothing to say that we have to shut-up…
God bless G. W. Bush and America etc etc.
The mess to be cleaned up was made by alQueda. Bush was assigned the cleanup, and got bored halfway through and went elsewhere. The new guy now has to finish the original job, and clean up the smeared floors left by Bush's lackluster cleanup effort. Sux, but he did volunteer for the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis
NATO allies invoked Article 5 (an attack on one, is an attack on all) to provide assistance. I'm sure everyone hoped, back when it was crafted, that that article would be used when Iceland (for example) was attacked by the USSR, and everyone else, especially the US, would rush to aid. But it worked out the other way around: the US got attacked, so the others are obliged.
Any and all assistance provided so far is appreciated, and the US is grateful for any further help, however substantial or symbolic.
Get binLaden
dismantle his network
deny his assets of manpower, money, and materiel
come home
I'm inclined to simply say "lack of backbone", but the issue here is that NATO has insufficient forces on the ground, French and German troops engaged in the fighting directly alongside, British, American, and Canadian ones would remedy the problem and increase the chances of success. In the end Obama is less likely to withdraw if he recieves meaningful French and German support, because this will bolster his position at home considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
If the Frenmcha and Germans matched the British contribution, that would be an extra 13,000 troops aproximately, or a whole Division's worth of men.
:coffeenews:
Maybe the jingoist Poles and Brits ought to obsess less about the backbone of France, and instead raise their amount of foreign troops to the level of France.
The UK has less troops deployed in the world's hellholes than France. Poland even has less troops (yes, per capita) in Afghanistan itself than France.
I had a nice breakdown all typed out, then Tosa blipped the forum, so I'll be brief. Your country has a larger military, is more populous, has a larger defence budget and is more wealthy. Despite this, my country contribute's a larger proportion of it's population to NATO engagements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Take a look at the numbers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/
Also, I'd like to point out that I said I was "tempted" to accuse you of a lack of backbone, but that I recognised that the situation was more complex. Given that I have friends who have died in battles resulting from a strategic lack of manpower, I think that's generous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Per capita you say. What about defence budget ?
France $61,571,330,000
Poland $11,800,000,000
Involvement in Afghanistan - France 3,095 as of November 22, 2009
Poland - 1910 as of October 22, 2009
That is a bit different I am afraid.
I must conclude you are doing it intentionally knowing well that the deployement is much more difficult to handle for Poland.
Should I expect more of similar arguments coming from you ? This was a bit unexpected.:book:
These four I agree with. And that is exactly the nature of the mess I spoke about: neither one of those four have been the focus of attention of Bush. Rather, it seems likely that Bush' decisions have undermined the chance of succes for all four.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukri
You want to get OBL? The French special forces were there, ready for the American command to give the get go. It never came. Instead, the Americans left for Iraq.
Eight years later, Afghanistan is a mess. For eight frustrating years French troops have been rotting in the Afghan mountains, while Washington couldn't even be bothered to commit itself. Even when it became clear two years ago that both Iraq and Afghanistan were turning into a mission impossible, the surge was decided upon for Iraq, not for Afghanistan.
Only this year - OBL must be an old, grey man by now, and half a generation of Afghanis have grown up under a half-baked occupation - does Washington have the decency to commit itself to Afghanistan. The troops will arrive in 2010, nearly a decade after 9-11.
Militarily, financially, morally Iraq has greatly undermined the effort in Afghanistan. So yes, it is the world cleaning up after Bush.
I haven't even begun.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Spin the numbers as much as you like, but for all its tough talk, Poland's contribution in Afghanistan has not even been as large as that of the modest contribution of France. Poland is a large country, two thirds the size of France. Yet you don't even manage half the cost in money, death toll or troops deployed of even France (or Germany). The only thing Poland exceeds these two in, is in shouting how fantastically large its contribution is.
Of course, most military operations have at any rate been US/UK/Canadian efforts, neither French nor Polish. It is not really the show of either one of us. A few hundred Poles being shifted back and forth between safe zones in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't make the difference. But when you spin their numbers a bit, it can look mighty impressive.
And spin it is - for example, while French and German troops have been rotting in the Afghan mountains for a decade, Poland up to two years ago had only 160 men deployed.
Why were there no Poles to support the effort in Afghanistan? Because Poland wasn't interested in fighting terrorism, in creating the peace in Afghanistan. All efforts were diverted into Iraq. As the Foreign Minister of Poland, Cimoszewicz, stated in July 2003, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities". That's what Poland was doing, while France was naively thinking that this was all about getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and creating a stable democracy there.
Ten years on, Poland and America at last return attention to Afghanistan. Too little, too late for anything, except to scold those who have urged from the beginning to keep Afghanistan the focus of effort. There's your 'shameful lack of backbone'. Throughout all the insults, immaturity, disastrous loss of focus by the coalition, the French have been in Afghanistan all this time. It wasn't us who decided to move the fight to Iraq - on the contrary.
I shall be generous too and call your position 'mistaken'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Mistaken, because the UK apparantly could spare 40k soldiers and hundreds of billions of pounds for Iraq, but not for Afghanistan. Instead, you seek to blame your death friends on lack of backbone of others. Maybe if a fraction of those 200k soldiers from Iraq had been deployed in Afghanistan this would've made a bigger difference than 10k French and German troops?
And not just Afghanistan has been left to bungle because of Iraq:
NATO? Sure. But that is spinning it. France is second only to the US in troops abroad for multinational engagements.There is more than NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillipus
There are more French troops in this world's hellholes than British. The British have pulled out their troops everywhere to concentrate them in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As with the Poles, I would not mind the insults, were it not that the UK, like Poland, actually contributes less than France.
If one reads the Anglo press, one would think the world consists only of Iraq and Afghanistan. If one reads the French press, you'll pull your hair out at the waste of UN/NATO resources in Iraq, which has left the burden of maintaining the peace throughout the world mainly on France. Since the start of the Iraq war, we've witnessed, amongst others, war in:
Ivory Coast. UN mission under French command. 4000 French troops. Not a Briton or Pole in sight. Too busy in Iraq.
Chad. Bloody civil war. EU mission under French command. 2000 Frenchmen were send. The UK managed to send...four men. Or maybe they were stranded tourists.
The Balkans. UN mission. Half of the foreign casualties are French. No Brits or Poles to be seen anymore. Too busy creating more wars instead of maintaining the peace.
Somali Piracy. The French fleet is chasing them all over the Indian ocean. The Royal Navy managed to spare one single frigate, Poland nil.
In every instance, European troops were too busy in Iraq. France had to solve it mostly on her own. The enormous diversion of troops and resources for the adventure in Iraq has been very detrimental for the more mature countries and their quest to a) maintain peace and stability and b) support the interests of the free world.
Darfur - sorry, the west had no more troops to spare to stop this genocide.
As for The War on Terror:
Hezbollah has been having a ball in Lebanon, after all those European countries left UNFIL for Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier this year, all the Brits and Poles packed their bags to head for Afghanistan. (They've got to come from someplace, eh?) Then the Poles and Brits scoff the French for not having a backbone, for not staying the course. It's the -what? fourth? fifth? - mission the Brits and Poles simply abandoned to concentrate on the 'War on Terror'. Meanwhile, France has been in the Lebanon for thirty years.
Quote:
So, UNIFIL is all that you have. And, ineffective as it was, it is disintegrating. Pressed by the Obama administration to send troops to Afghanistan--I support the presidents efforts in this regard--Poland and other trusted European countries have reacted by some announcing, some whispering that their military will not be long in Lebanon. Some European states have so few personnel stationed in the country that it hardly matters: Slovakia, 6; Slovenia. 14; Ukraine, 1.Yes, one. Many others are toy soldiers: Brunei and Nepal, as instances.Two countries represented are stalwarts of the Muslim International: Malaysia, Indonesia. Others are countries with rabid anti-Israel politics: Norway, Greece and Ireland, for example. You decide where Erdogan's Turkey belongs.
Encouraged by these neutral defections from UNIFIL, Hezbollah has now expanded its revolutionary turf to Egypt.
Say what you will about Louis and his views. Anybody who can knock out over two thousand words - thoughtful, coherent, on-point words - in less than 6 minutes... gets my admiration.
So... Louis: Afghanistan is a mess. More troops are on the way (many will arrive next month). The way forward?
My opinion depends on my view of the chance of succes in Afghanistan. If there is a decent shot at succes, I'd personally press for more troops. But I am not so sure. Then there is the whole timetable to pull them out in two years and all that. I do wonder - what is the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
At the moment, though this changes at a daily basis, I'd say we should go for it. Let Obama have his shot at it. All that shite from my three previous posts above shouldn't be important. Afghanistan is what matters. We should send 5000 more troops, give it one more shot.
We agree then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
As much as I want to pull up stakes, declare victory (ignoring the worldwide laughter) and come home by Christmas... and I'm not 100% certain it can be done successfully, we should give it one more shot. Lemur disagrees about the pull-out date thing. I think that was dangerous to the mission, unnecessarily. Have a date in mind, sure. Tell that date to the principal players, but don't announce it to the world.
Eh? How can you move to rebut my every point, and then agree with my conclusion, right down to the numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Also, where do you get the figure "40,000" from for Iraq? Is that the total number of men we sent overall, because some of those were the same men going back three or four times. Or is it the number for the actual invasion? I'm fairly sure it isn't.
I don't know. I haven't changed my position. I can't really make my mind up about Afghanistan. Last page I said I thought there were reasons to support a surge, and reasons not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Then jingoism broke lose: 'disgraceful', 'beneath my dignity', 'no backbone', 'my friends die because of this'.
Which irritated me. So I pointed out that Poland and the UK have contributed less troops to international missions this past decade, and that much of the troops and resources that were committed were send to Iraq. Which is currently commonly regarded as unsuccesful, and also as detrimental to the cause in Afghanistan and other missions.
'Also, where do you get the figure "40,000" from for Iraq? Is that the total number of men we sent overall, because some of those were the same men going back three or four times. Or is it the number for the actual invasion? I'm fairly sure it isn't.'
I was referring to the number of UK troops deployed for the invasion. Wiki below says 46.000. 200 Poles were involved in the invasion as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_-_Iraq