Discussion in 'Politics' started by drjekyllus, May 5, 2009.
They ought to bring Musharraf back.
Wouldn't help. Sure, Obama has done a little to shore up the border, but he's also given a timetable for surrender in Iraq, closing Gitmo, and <A href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_china_incident_1">standing down from the Chinese</a>.
By voting in Obama, we've shown our paper tiger side. Enemies of civilization see it's defender giving up and they are excited. Musharraf would be a wet diaper hung out to dry, nobody would expect any real support from the Obamassiah. Not that Bush was all that great at support, and to be fair it's a tough line to walk.
I'm sure everyone realizes we had the
Taliban on the ropes 6 or 7 years ago... before resoutrces were diverted/capped for Afghan and sent to Iraq. If we had had a "surge" in Afghan 6 years ago, instead of a completely new front in Iraq, with Pak also participating in a pincer movement through the mountains, I have a feeling the Taliban would almost be just a memory now
The Taliban were non-exsistent in Afghanistan until we won Iraq.
Then they went back to fight Nato.
What happen to NATO in afghanistan
Yet another idiotic claim by the resident ET "clown".
Ummm, wrong again Mr. Moderator.
The Bush Administration designed a "security agreement" with the help of General Petraeus and the Iraqi Parliament for ALL U.S. troops to be out of Iraqi cities by June 30th, 2009, and requires the U.S. military to end its presence in Iraq in 2011.
That "security agreement" and timetable was developed last Summer by the Bush Administration.
We're just a limp-wristed paper tiger (thanks to the libtards) and all the world knows it. But that's long been the goal of the left.
Separate names with a comma.